US invasion of China.

What the blinkin heck are you people rabbiting on about Iran, Iraq and Syria for???

 

I am insulting your degenerates.....the leaders who commit the crimes that obviously must embarrass you.....but as I said previously don't shoot the messenger!

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-pN0MNo_pE&feature=player_embedded"]'CIA feeds us bad info on Iran nukes' - IAEA ex-head - YouTube[/ame]

Hans Blix called your Bush and bLiar used car salesmen!

Obviously...you don't like trying to defend the lies of YOU'RE leaders..I can call a pig...a pig! I'm not sorry if your ashamed by me highlighting the fact of your military and the relevant degenerates associated with them!!!
I insult the degenerate behaviour of your leaders because of the torture of men women and children, who are held in secret torture chambers!
Your leaders are murdering and assassinating even Americans and you have the gall to lecture me about insults!

Your creeps are an insult to humanity! And you haven't a bloody clue!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/feedarticle/10114797
If your thin skin bothers you......good!
Just think of the USA depleted uranium dropped and killing innocent men women and children, and all your own work!!! Not forgetting those unborn and the effects and abnormalities they suffer...and again all your own work!!!

Regards
Highlander

 

Who cares about depleted uranium being used?

And Hans Blix is hardly an unbiased source.

And I see no proof that the United States tortures anyone. Waterboarding is not torture as it doesn't inflict permanent physical damage when done correctly nor does it inflict extreme pain.

And using i on three terrorists is more than justifiable.

 

Why believe Hans 'Blix' is biased? is there a conspiracy you are alluding to?

There is proof that the United states tortures.

Waterboarding is torture or it woulden't be used to torture suspects for information.

 

Aaah...but that's where we differ....thankfully.....I'm a human being with aspirations akin to those of the people in Iraq Afghanistan and maybe in the rest of America...but again ....thankfully...not you!

Only you and those tortures agree water boarding is not torture! Even America during WW2 agreed the terms of torture in relation to water boarding...regardless what your despotic degenerates say to those less well enlightened or lacking in basic intelligence! You choose your criteria!

Your full of keich!

Regards and commiserations to your family

Highlander

 

Archer0915, GeneralZod, et al,

You both are on the right track. (IMO)

(COMMENT)

What makes a nation a Super Power is its economy; particularly its manufacturing and production capacity for high end technology items. With such an economy, there will be high "employment." and with that comes general revenue. Once that is achieved, you can buy anything; including a top flight military force.

It is not the other way around. Just because you have a strong military force, does not mean you are a Super Power. America is in decline. Its military force is the smallest it has ever been. It is at a point now where we cannot even control little countries like Iraq and Afghanistan. Why, because our economy can not afford it.

The number one National Security Interest for the US is to rebuild its economy, both domestically - as well as in regard to foreign trade. And that requires America to embrace major emerging markets like China; not address it as potential adversary to invade.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

The idea that manufacturing prowess is the foundation of being a superpower is rather outdated. With globalization any wealthy country will find it beneficial to export cheap manufacturing capabilities. Top economies today are post-industrial. That said, the U.S. still leads the world in high-tech manufacturing; The arms industry, aerospace, chemicals, micro-chips, medical equipment, and various other industries.

Being a superpower involves a lot more than economic power. A superpower is a country that has extensive cultural, political, and military influence around the world, as well as economic power. China isn't a superpower because outside of its immediate region it has relatively little influence (in hard terms). Military power is very much a component of a true superpower. If we look at some of the most blatant examples of superpowers, Britain, the Soviet Union, Rome, and Greece, every single one of them had a potent military.

The U.S. military is most certainly not smaller than it's ever been. I have no idea where you got that notion from. You're also quite ignorant of warfare if you think Iraq/Afghanistan are somehow representative of the U.S. military's conventional military prowess. Counter-insurgency is much more a reflection of political capabilities that combat capabilities. The U.S. has always "controlled" Iraq and Afghanistan. At any time U.S. Forces could move anywhere and do anything they pleased. These conflicts are WW2 though, they're nation building. The issue was/is establishing widespread security and stability for the civilian population. If you can't understand this you should really read up on counter-insurgency and it's long brutal history.

 

Basically...a counter insurgency relies on the people the nation supporting the freedom fighters.
This they do, this they will always do...America and its military is detested though all the lands its invaded and stolen! You cannot fight a counter insurgency when the majority of the people support freedom from Slavery!
But history teaches us one thing...the aggressor in these circumstances will always come to a sticky end...just hope its sooner than later!

Regards
Highlander

 

IgnoranceisBliss, et al,

I think we will just have to disagree.

(COMMENT)

While we have a historical period called "industrialization," that does not mean that we are past the necessity to manufacture and produce goods.

While we call this newer period the age of technology, where industrial and manufacturing jobs are replaced by the service industry, the problem arises in the wage differential between the two. Without a strong base in wages earned, there is less general revenue to support a military-industrial complex. As wages are reduced, so are the revenues. No nation, can support a hi-Tech military without the income from the taxpayer. Trading lower wage service industry jobs for the higher end industrial jobs has an impact and a consequence.

(COMMENT)

While a strong military is a component, it is NOT "The Component." Yes, we can go back in history and look at the Empires of old. But none of the Empires survived. As the Roman Empire went into economic decline, they lost the ability to sustain a military force. As the Russian Hegemony went into economic decline, they found they could not afford to pay their military. \

(COMMENT)

Well, when I first joined the Army, and went to Vietnam, we had 16 Active Duty Divisions; when I first went to Baghdad, we had 10 and not all are full strength - I think 33 Brigades world-wide. We use to talk about divisions in combat, now we talk Brigades.

The Navy, during President Reagan's tenure was reduced to 600 ships. Today, we have about 285 active ships in the Navy.
http://www.history.navy.mil/branches/org9-4.htm

I understand counter-insurgency operations quite well. Being able to control your particular space does not mean that the hostile force is cleared out. Both Iraq and Afghanistan continue to have serious problems. Neither nation has been brought under control and eliminated the hostile aspects indigenous to the their respective territories. Even today, in Iraq, one still travels with in FAVs. I was there five (5) times and we never actually controlled the space unless we were standing on it. I was at the Embassy in 2008 when Motadar al-Sadr and his Medi Army fired 200 rockets into the compound over a period of several weeks. They didn't stop because they were suppressed. They stopped because they ran out of rockets. I beg to differ on who controlled what. Yes the military could go anywhere it wanted, but always subject to enemy fire.

No, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

economy is the backbone of a superpower. all those previous superpower fall was due to economy, soviet union, UK.

without economy you can't have a decent military

 

Good point, although the problem currently. Western economics is failing due to our own corruption becoming out of control with massive debt etc...

And what does kill a super power, is when the goverments blindly spend money to the military while their economic infrastructure falls apart.

 

We are getting so many service jobs that it is worthless to have them. The work week should be shortened instead of adding more service jobs. Then, you'd get paid the same amount for working half the time. Right now we are making the Chinese do a lot of our work for us, but that is not going to last forever.

 

What do you think an electromagnetic railgun would do for an invasion of China? I was just reading today that they are testing one, and it would be operational by 2020. The range would be about 150 miles compared to about 10 miles for conventional shells.

 

Yes, that is true. But you are implying that a majority of the people will support it. And that is not the case.

If you want to see a great example of a Civil War that was greatly based on geography, there are few examples better then the US Civil War. The line seperating the two sides was very sharp and clear. And each side had little support on the other side of that line.

Now there was almost no insurgency in the North (not counting raiders int he border states), but there was a lot in the South, especially after the war ended. Partaisan fighting continued for decades afterwards.

Now how much national support did groups like the KKK or Quantrill's Radiers really have? Well, in some areas of the South they had a fair amount. But nationally? They had very little support.

These groups are normally seen as heroes in the South, because they presented their case as them striking out against an oppressive and brutal Government. And their targets were primarily in Northern states (or the local infastructure of the Government). But as you move North and West, the support for such groups quickly erroded. Then their "support" was either taken from locals by force, or given by essentially expatriat Southernors who had also moved to the regions they operated in.

And that "support" often times is not voluntary. Many times they set up shop in a region, and the people of the region are pretty much given a choice: support them or die. What would you expect most farmers to do?

You can have a counterinsurgency with very little public support at all. All you need is either enough local support (voluntary or involuntary) to continue to feed and equip your men, or the support of a larger group or nation to do that for you.

Most people do not realize that the "James-Younger Gang" is actually an early example of an insurgent group. Frank and Jessie James, and Cole and John Younger were members of Quantrill's Raiders, and once the war was over they swore that they would continue to fight the Civil War. Their bank robberies started as a way to fund their continuing struggle against the United States Government.

They also frequently wrote to the press, claiming that the Government was being held illegally, and that their crimes were just, and in the cause of freedom.

And their crime spree lasted for over 15 years. Most people know of them as train and bank robbers. But very few actually know why they started doing it in the first place.

 

still in development, congress plan to kill the project. the future is not looking good for railgun. require too much energy, and alot other issues. beside navy has AGS which has 180km range. other system such as MLRS has similar range.

 

You are missing the biggest factor in this:

The theoretical range would be about 150 miles

You have to first of all consider how a railgun would be used, and how it operates.

To begin with, you can't realistically fire a rail gun that far. That is beyond the effective horizon, and would be effected by the curvature of the Earth. Not to mention the effect of gravity on attempting to fire a projectile that great of a distance.

Second, these weapons fire in a flat trajectory. These are direct fire weapons, not indirect fire. So if you have something between the gun and the target, like a tree ot hill or rock or building, it is going to strike that instead of your target. So unlike conventional naval artillery, you could not strike at a group of tanks on the other side of a town. First you would have to destroy the town and raze every building between you and the target.

Third, these do not fire explosive projectiles. They are essentially sabot rounds, solid metal, ceramic, or composite projectiles that kill by kinetic energy. So these are useless against targets other then other ships or incomming missiles. If the target is a ground target (troops, tanks or artillery), you would be much more effective firing conventional artillery then you would a rail gun.

 

America is not going to invade China. China has nukes and America only picks on states with crap military and cannot even beat them. Ten years in Afghanistan and now they want to go home.

 

I figured that was already taken into account. They could probably have some kind of guidance to them. Shells are a lot cheaper than missiles, so if you can get the other systems cheaper, it may be cheaper than conventional artillery. It is also a lot better to carry ammunition without explosives on a large warship. From what I read, I thought that the kinetic energy alone could have just as much firepower as explosives so that you could kill ground targets just as effectively, or am I wrong on this? Railguns would also sometime in the future be effective for small arms fire since you can get a higher amount of rounds per minute. I am obviously not an expert on this. It's hard to find specific applications for this online, so any help here would be appreciated.


I don't know how reliable this source is, but it has a ballistic trajectory railgun with guidance. http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/bae-producing-scaleddown-rail-gun-naval-weapon-01986/

 

Rail guns fire solid slugs, not rounds. There is no explosive, no shrapnel. It is a very specific type of ammunition that it uses, and is only designed for use against ships, or air threats. Not troops.

It would be just as effective as if you take an M1 tank, and have them fire it's sabot round against personnel. It would be like trying to shoot a swarm of bees with a BB gun. In other words, a horrible waste of ammunition for absolutely no effect at all.

Sure, theoretically you could shoot anything, but is it worth shoting at with that weapon? You must have absolutely perfect line of sight from the gun to the target, and outside of battle on the surface of the water, that just does not happen. Trees, telephone poles, buildings, small hills, all of these and more would end up being between the ship and the target, making it useless for firing at anything further ashore then a hundred yards or so from the beach.

And they are not effective on ground targets, unless it is a bunker or tank. And there are faster and easier ways to destroy a tank or bunker.

And that link does not talk about "guidence". Remember, this will be traveling at an incredible velocity. In order to have "guidence", you must have a way to "steer" the projectile, traditionally this is done with rockets. So you are going to pack this incredibally small and dense slug with dozens of rocket motors, to even try to get it to track a target, that will just not work. Because one of the main reasons tehy concentrate on slugs is the incredible speed of the slug.

These slugs go from sitting still to over MACH 7 in a moment. Conventional electronics can't cope with those kinds of g-forces and stresses, and would more then likely fail. And the same problem comes with rocket motors. These are designed to work as short to meduim range weapons, traveling at those speeds (5,400 mph+), it is ncredibly unlikely that any kind of rocket motor could lock onto a target and do any kind of guidence before it strikes it's target.

 

pretty much what mushroom said, its still far far away from reality.

also railgun use electromagnesim to fire the slug. which mean the electronic not only has to withstand the G force but also has to be protected against EM energy.