I don't find this article applicable to hacking at all. Maybe running a business, but I don't follow the necessary relationship between hacking and business.
Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea
31–40 of 165 posts
Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea
#32Big warships could accomodate bigger cannons. Bigger cannons could deliver bigger shells further, enabling your warships to hit the enemy while keeping out of their range. These capital ships aren't being built today because missiles and fighter planes suddenly negated their advantage, not because they weren't a good idea to begin with. IMHO it's an overwhelming act of condescension pretending to be smarter than thou…
Big warships could accomodate bigger cannons. Bigger cannons could deliver bigger shells further, enabling your warships to hit the enemy while keeping out of their range.
In hindsight, if the ability to deliver more ordinance a longer distance was the thing, the aircraft carrier should have been a shoo-in.
Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea
#33Actually a pretty good article, despite the inaccuracies noted here in other comments. The author uses some hyperbole and makes some errors, but still an interesting discussion regarding phalanx vs. maneuver warfare. While we're picking on individual parts, though - > For missile silos, just target the enemy’s silos with lots of missiles and you can duke it out and win (just like the phalanx). If he puts his missiles…
> I think the reason countries use missile silos and stationary bases is actually for ability to protect key installations and arms during domestic unrest and rioting, which is a statistically much more likely problem for a world power than getting hit with a first strike from another major world power...
You are very mistaken. The only reason domestic unrest is a more likely danger for a world power is because the country we are speaking of already has missile silos and stationary bases in the first place. Ownership of missile silos with nuclear warheads reduces chances of attack by a foreign power by such a huge amount that domestic unrest becomes a more realistic threat.
Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea
#34Having a large battleship collection does allow you to line them up nicely for review: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Fleet
I don't think that postcard picture is giving a wholly realistic view of the Grand Fleet at the time. It seems like there's twice as many capital ships in the picture as there should be according to the text. EDIT: Actually, if you click on the picture, the description does mention it's "likely an artist's vision".
Photoshopped, I knew it!
Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea
#35Actually a pretty good article, despite the inaccuracies noted here in other comments. The author uses some hyperbole and makes some errors, but still an interesting discussion regarding phalanx vs. maneuver warfare. While we're picking on individual parts, though - > For missile silos, just target the enemy’s silos with lots of missiles and you can duke it out and win (just like the phalanx). If he puts his missiles…
> I think the reason countries use missile silos and stationary bases is actually for ability to protect key installations and arms during domestic unrest and rioting, which is a statistically much more likely problem for a world power than getting hit with a first strike from another major world power... You are very mistaken. The only reason domestic unrest is a more likely danger for a world power is because the c…
> You are mistaken. The only reason domestic unrest is a more likely danger for a world power is because the country we are speaking of already has missile silos and stationary bases in the first place.
Actually, I think you're mistaken, but let's think this through -
There's 200 countries in the world, roughly. Call the current world powers America, China, UK, Russia, and maybe a couple other European countries.
In any given year, there's a lot more chance of any given country having a riot/unrest than there is an attack by America, China, UK, or Russia. Like, much higher. And usually, there's considerable advance warning before attacks so you could prepare.
If you like, you can add in places with a decent mix of either high troop strength or very technologically advanced military - even adding in places like North Korea, Iraq before losing its various recent wars, and Israel doesn't seem to change the numbers that much. The chance of serious unrest in any given country in the world is much higher than the chance of attack by a militarily powerful nation.
We could check actual numbers if this isn't convincing, but the number of domestic insurrections every year are much higher than attacks by a major world power. And also, those usually come with more telegraphing beforehand than domestic unrest does.
Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea
#36Actually a pretty good article, despite the inaccuracies noted here in other comments. The author uses some hyperbole and makes some errors, but still an interesting discussion regarding phalanx vs. maneuver warfare. While we're picking on individual parts, though - > For missile silos, just target the enemy’s silos with lots of missiles and you can duke it out and win (just like the phalanx). If he puts his missiles…
> I think the reason countries use missile silos and stationary bases is actually for ability to protect key installations and arms during domestic unrest and rioting, which is a statistically much more likely problem for a world power than getting hit with a first strike from another major world power... You are very mistaken. The only reason domestic unrest is a more likely danger for a world power is because the c…
I don't see how the argument is circular.
Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
except they are extremely expensive and hard to defend. They are great for projecting power against countries that can't defend against them, but extremely ineffective against a remotely comparable force. They are an obvious high priority. Ever see Independence Day or, more recently, Battle LA? Didn't you find it stupid that once the command ship are destroyed, the enemy essentially dies? This is what aircraft carrie…
Take the $23 billion dollars it takes to build the first Gerald R. Ford Carrier and invest that into various decentralized, independent, small technologies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_ship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine A fleet of Sea Shadow type vessels and Air Independent Propulsion submarines combined with a good land-based air force would make life very difficult for carrier battle group…
This isn't the scale I'm talking about. You don't need a fleet of $500 million USD submarines.
11 US aircraft carriers? 11 missiles. $100+Billion vs $15 Million. 30000 soldiers vs 0.
During the cold war this is the strategy that Russia took - let the US build expensive ships, they build [relatively] cheap missiles. The Chinese are doing the same with the Dong Feng missiles.
Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aircraft carriers are somewhere in between. The aircraft they carry are part of maneuver warfare.
except they are extremely expensive and hard to defend. They are great for projecting power against countries that can't defend against them, but extremely ineffective against a remotely comparable force. They are an obvious high priority. Ever see Independence Day or, more recently, Battle LA? Didn't you find it stupid that once the command ship are destroyed, the enemy essentially dies? This is what aircraft carrie…
Hmm, but a carrier can do a lot of different stuff. It's about nuance. Sometimes you just want to float there quietly on the horizon looking like 90,000 tonnes of badassery while the diplomats do their thing. Didn't Sun Tzu say something about avoiding the need to actually fight whenever possible?
Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
Take the $23 billion dollars it takes to build the first Gerald R. Ford Carrier and invest that into various decentralized, independent, small technologies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_ship http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine A fleet of Sea Shadow type vessels and Air Independent Propulsion submarines combined with a good land-based air force would make life very difficult for carrier battle group…
This isn't the scale I'm talking about. You don't need a fleet of $500 million USD submarines. 11 US aircraft carriers? 11 missiles. $100+Billion vs $15 Million. 30000 soldiers vs 0. During the cold war this is the strategy that Russia took - let the US build expensive ships, they build [relatively] cheap missiles. The Chinese are doing the same with the Dong Feng missiles.
Yes, but if China also built the fleet, then it would be in a position to project power farther from its shores. If all you wanted to do is keep the carrier group away from your own shore, then capable missiles would suffice.
Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea
#40Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think the reason countries use missile silos and stationary bases is actually for ability to protect key installations and arms during domestic unrest and rioting, which is a statistically much more likely problem for a world power than getting hit with a first strike from another major world power... You are very mistaken. The only reason domestic unrest is a more likely danger for a world power is because the c…
> You are mistaken. The only reason domestic unrest is a more likely danger for a world power is because the country we are speaking of already has missile silos and stationary bases in the first place. Actually, I think you're mistaken, but let's think this through - There's 200 countries in the world, roughly. Call the current world powers America, China, UK, Russia, and maybe a couple other European countries. In…
You didn't take even a minute to think through before writing.
> And usually, there's considerable advance warning before attacks so you could prepare.
The key word is "usually". How usually is usually? When Nazis attacked the USSR, was there an advance warning? There was none. True, major attacks are rare, but when they do come, I would say about 50% of them are without warning. Yes, they are usually preceded by some diplomatic hostility, but not always. There were some 45 years of diplomatic hostility between the US and the USSR, yet there was no attack.
But the biggest thing you are missing is this: attacks on a major power by another major power are rare precisely because the country being attacked is a major power. Attacks of a major power on a minor country happen about every five years or so if recent history is any guide.