asymetric warfare

In article ,
"Gord Beaman" ) writes:
"a425couple" wrote:


"Paul J. Adam" wrote in

When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Where does this quote come from?

Churchill one would assume...

Manitoba? Which one of the bears said that?

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

In article ,
Johnny Bravo writes:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:41:16 -0500, (Peter
Stickney) wrote:

Sure, it's possible that you can take out a CVBG with a shotgun nuke
approach, but it would take the UK 35% of it's missiles and 80% of
it's warheads to be reasonably sure of success.

It's worse than that, form the U.K.

I pretty much had it covered, your numbers aren't so different from
mine.

True 'nuff. Reality is as Reality Does.

Nukes a CVBG standpoint.
The Brits have 58 Trident D5s, (Which are stored and maintained in the
U.S., but that's beside the point) and less than 200 warheads. That
means that each missile's going to have 3 warheads, and you can't get
all of your boats to sea.

Nothing is stopping them from putting 8 warheads in each of the 16
missiles the Vanguard carries. They could launch 192 warheads from
one boat. General practice is to put 3 in each missile but nothing is
stopping them from changing it, or just surging all 4 boats.

Of course, they've only got 192 or so warheads anyway. If _I_ were
going to attempt this little bit of foolishness, I wouldn't be too
happy about putting all of my warheads on one platform.


Now, just going from the declassified stuff from Crossroads Able, and
applying the known scaling laws, you'd have to place a 100 KT warhead
within 8,000-9,000' of a ship in order to have a reasonable chance of
putting it out of action.

I was being generous and using 16,000' and taking off about 1/3 for
the structural improvements the US has added to it's ship designs
based on data from tests like Crossroads - calling it 1.8nm as a nice
round figure - 10,800'

It'll work as an estimate. As with anything else regarding this stuff
- Those that Post don't Know. Those that Know don't Post. See the
Security Clearance threads for more (or less, depending on Need to
Knoe) info.

area. So, in order to cover that 490 sq NM with the density required,
to ensure major damage, and not outright sinking, you'd need 70
warheads. That's 23 UK Trident's worth.

There is a slight overlap problem to deal with as the explosions
aren't exactly square, but that's a trivial matter for the purposes of
the example.

It's a Round, Round, World. But the lack of coverage by a single
warhead vs. the area that the target could be hiding in means that
Nuclear Buckshot needs some rethinking. Hmm - I wonder what the
implications would be if the impact area includid one of thise
massive, concentrated, Russian or Japanese fishing fleets. At that
point, you've missed the Carrier, most likely, but pasted a Third
Party's civilians, commerce, and food. Not the best way to Win
Friends and Influence People.

And we don't have 1 CVBG,
we've got what, 12? With roughly 8 at sea at any givin time.
So if a U.K./French sized power were to try something like that, what
they'd accomplish is the complete expenditure of their strategic
forces in order to completely **** off somebody with the ways & means
to pull a Carthage on them. (Not that we'd do that)

You never know, killing 7,000+ US servicemen by firing nearly 200
nukes at them is going to really **** the public off. It's not like
anyone can claim it was an accident.

One side effect of this example is why the ballistic submarine
component of the triad was so important, even if we waited for all the
nukes to land, it would be impossible for Russia to get all of our
ballistic missile subs even if they fired their entire arsenal into
the ocean.

Well, it's why the triad itself was so important. Anybody
contemplating a nuclear strike against the U.S. wouldn't have to deal
with just one type of platform, but 3. And what worked against 1 type
wouldn't work against another.

One interesting games theory aspect of this is that it wouldn't do
to run at full speed for the entire 30 minutes. If the enemy knew you
would do that, they would just fire along a ring around the current
location of the BG at the max distance it can travel in that 30 mins,
saving themselves quite a few warheads and missiles.
Of course. That's why its a Target Area, as opposed to a Target Ring.

--
Pete Stickney
A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many
bad measures. -- Daniel Webster

Charles Gray wrote:

:On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:37:20 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
(phil hunt) wrote:
:
::The UK has very small armed forced considering the size of the
::country's defence budget. Compare the UK (Population 59
::million, spends 2.5% of GDP on arms) ordering 220 Typhoons whereas
::Sweden (population 9 million, spends 2% of GDP on arms) can order
::almost as many (204) Gripens. Even taking into account that Britain
::spends a larger proportion of its defense budget on its navy, and
::the Typhoon's unit cost is larger than the Gripen's, there's
::something wrong here.
:
:Britain spends money on things that Sweden does not, of course.
:Strategic weaponry is expensive to develop and maintain.
:
: Not to mention the abilty to quickly deploy-- how long woudl it take
:Sweden to move a unit of soldiers to the Middle East, or move them
repared to fight at the end of the journey.

Another big expense that Britain undertakes that most others do not;
power projection. Most other European forces are structured on the
assumption that if they need to move long distances they will have the
use of US strategic transport both to move the troops and keep them
supplied. This was one of the European crying points about the
Balkans intervention; if the US didn't play, most European forces
couldn't stay deployed in the region.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Fred J. McCall wrote in message . ..
pervect wrote:

:On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 12:27:28 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:pervect wrote:
:
::On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:29:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
::
::pervect wrote:
:

::If you think tanks can't kill anything, you might want to explain how
::you came to that conclusion, it isn't very apparent to me.
:
:Oh, *I* don't think that. However, 'your' side has made the argument
:that tank-killing SUVs are practically because tanks can't hit them,
:as "all they have to do is dodge by half their vehicle width".
:
:I hadn't realized we were picking teams. Who else do you think is on
:"my" side,

The gentleman proposing the magical technology cruise missile and
various other 'technological' fixes for problems the guy fighting the
US will encounter, of course.

But, the gentlemen proposing the cruise missles
have never claimed that their magic. Only ****head
helicopter pilots would believe that
something Russians invented are magic.
The claim is that since they're deadly at any speed,
they merely put the U.S. Military's ****head
B-X factory line out-of-buisness --- forever.

ess (phil hunt) wrote:

:On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 02:03:52 GMT, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(phil hunt) wrote:
:
::I've argued elsewhere[1] that middle-income countries should
::consider using a wireless internet mesh as the foundation for their
:civilian) information infrastructure. Why not allow the military
::system to piggyback off that? (as a backup: the civilian
::system might be down in an area, and there should be a separate
::military system as well). Now a proper wireless internet
::infrastructure would mean every apartment building, workplace,
::school, hospital, etc being connected. It would be quite difficult,
::both militarily and politically, to shut down such a widespread
::network.
:
:Dirt simple to shut down. You have looked at the various wireless
:internet technologies and how easy they are to jam out, degrade, etc,
:haven't you?
:
:Are all of them easy to degrade? Even spread spectrum or frequency
:hopping ones?

Of course.

: Not to mention all the spoofing that would become
:possible (WEP isn't).
:
:Indeed. However wireless internet doesn't necessarily involve WEP.

And so it is even easier to spoof.

I'm curious. Why do you think WE don't do the things you suggest, if
they are so much more effective?

*I* think we don't do them because 'magic' is required for them to
work and in the real world there's damned little usable magic about.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

Bernardz wrote:

:In article ,
says...
:
: We've now added invisible anti-aircraft installations
:
:Never said it would be invisible.
:
:What I said is that because there will not be time to clear the anti-
:aircraft equipment in this case the planes would be flying into them.

And why is that?

:The closest example I can think of is Israel in Yom Kippur war were
:because of the immediate demands of the war meant that Israeli planes
:early in the war had to fly into very dangerous regions.

That's because they were trying to blunt an attack on themselves.
What is going to give the US such time-urgency in an invasion of
Elbonia that they won't take the time to clear the obviously visible
air defences first?

: and lots of deep
: caves to the mix with the magic technology cruise missile.
:
:These sort of cruise missiles have been available for years.

Oh, really? So where can I buy a few thousand of these $10k cruise
missiles, with their precision guidance, terminal radar homing, spread
spectrum datalinks, etc?

: You have no idea how silly all this sounds to people who actually
: build weapons.
:
:Tell me?

Very.

Now, if you want to change the rules of the game and play 'North
Korea', that's a different matter.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

pervect wrote:

:On Mon, 29 Dec 2003 01:29:13 GMT, Fred J. McCall
wrote:
:
:pervect wrote:
:
:
::I hadn't realized we were picking teams. Who else do you think is on
::"my" side,
:
:The gentleman proposing the magical technology cruise missile and
:various other 'technological' fixes for problems the guy fighting the
:US will encounter, of course.
:
::and for that matter, who is on yours?
:
:All the sane people who recognize that 'asymmetric warfare' doesn't
:mean trying to beat the other guy at his own game, particularly when
:it takes 'magic' technology to do it.
:
:I think you'd better re-read my posts, in great detail.

Why would I want to do that? Even masochists don't like that kind of
pain.

:Usually I
:don't like to take people to task for poor reading skills, but in your
:case I'll make an exception.

Usually I don't read idiots for long. In your case, I don't think
I'll make an exception.

plonk

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

In message 5DEHb.157132$8y1.465695@attbi_s52, a425couple
writes

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in

When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Where does this quote come from?

His work "The Grand Alliance". Apparently, some felt that the British
declaration of war against Japan on 8 December 1941 was too formal and
insufficiently blood-curdling.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

Chad Irby wrote in message ...
In article ,
ess (phil hunt) wrote:

Are all of them easy to degrade? Even spread spectrum or frequency
hopping ones?

You should remember that "spread spectrum" is not synonymous with
"unjammable" or "undetectable." As far as that goes, some wideband
jamming techniques can be very effective against normal spread spectrum
communications. There are some major limitations that come with spread
spectrum, mostly having to do with power versus range versus noise.

Frequency hopping is pretty good for keeping people from hearing what
you're saying, but once you know the general band they're working on,
you can either jam them with suitable wideband frequencies, jump on
their frequencies before the receiver can lock on ("fast" jamming) or a
number of other moves.

You can defeat these ECM moves, but the counter-countermeasures cost a
*lot* more money than the countermeasures. And, once again, you're
getting into a technical war with a country that spends a *lot* of money
on that sort of thing.

It doesn't matter what the US spends a lot of money on.
Since what the the idiots don't spend a lot of money is
attenna design.

An except for the paperwork, the FBI's counter-countermeasures
are in the same boat as the CIA's Blackbirds, and the
NSA's typewriter museam:

And as dead as the idiot green grass, and Baltimore Orieole
moron fans they're made out of.


That's simply follows from the fact that the
antenna's they designed for RADAR are like
most US Army Radar antenna's. They were designed
by clerks, for jerks, for the soon to be
repaved California desert.

(ZZBunker) wrote:

It doesn't matter what the US spends a lot of money on.
Since what the the idiots don't spend a lot of money is
attenna design.

Antenna design is the *cornerstone* of ECM, and ignoring antenna design
in ECM is like ignoring wheels on a car.

(Rest of silly rant deleted to save a little of your potential dignity
for future use)

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.