Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

scottlocklin.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 165 posts

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#151

Post by arethuza »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #124
jrdrake wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think missile silos are stationary is pretty easy to understand. They're easier to guard and if you look at when they were built rather than their current functional use (its debatable if there is one when looking at SLBM and B-52/B-2 dropped nuclear weapons). In the 1950s, when ICBM projects began, the threat was not thermonuclear weapons, but fission weapons. It was thought that the silos might survive a direct/i…

The silo parks in USA are still nuke-proof. Because they are far enough apart that you can't get more than one per hit, and it has to be a low or groundburst, but close enough together that the first hit causes a cloud of dust that the subsequent missiles would have to go through to hit their targets. And a nuclear warhead in re-entry has no chance of surviving hitting that dust cloud. This means that the silos are p…

"The silo parks in USA are still nuke-proof"

So why the need for launch on warning? If you are confident that your missiles are going to be safe from a first strike you could sit there and take the damage.

What you describe sounds more like Dense Pack - which I don't think was ever implemented:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dense_Pack

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#152

Post by Tuna-Fish »

arethuza wrote: post #149
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The United states was already giving overt aid to Britain at that point. Had RAF lost and the German invasion of Britain seemed realistic, the USAF would have joined in to prevent that. While it would have taken only weeks to end the RAF, Germany didn't have the shipping capacity to maintain an invasion, and it would have taken months to build. Also, few considered air power to be actually capable of fighting battles…

"Had RAF lost and the German invasion of Britain seemed realistic, the USAF would have joined in to prevent that." I've never heard that before - do you have any references? The Nazis declared war on America, not the other way round.

The US Navy was actively fighting the Kriegsmarine on the North Atlantic as early as late 1940, and even before that, US had started providing armaments to bolster the British war effort, and took over the defense of various British holdings to free up forces. They also provided entire cohesive units of equipped volunteers to fight against the Germans on the British Isles, and the Japanese in China. None of these actions were neutral under international law -- the United States was in a state of undeclared war against the axis powers for nearly two years before Pearl Harbor. This all can be found in any reasonably comprehensive history of the second world war, including the wikipedia articles on the Atlantic War and the Sino-Japanese war.

The reason USA didn't join outright was that there was serious domestic opposition to the war, and Roosevelt understood well that he needed his Lusitania to be able to bring America fully into the war. The Germans took all pains to avoid this, and USA only managed to declare war after the Pearl Harbor.

In reality, history rarely contains black-and-white narratives where the one side is the clear aggressor. Had the USA not been actively engaging in combat operations against the Germans and the Japanese, they never would have been stupid enough to pick a fight with the Americans.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#153

Post by Tuna-Fish »

dtegart wrote: post #147
Tuna-Fish wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Britain had the naval and air power to hold off Germany. Russia had sprawling territory and the winter; Britain had the English Channel. Germany would have been better served to win the North Africa campaign; that might have actually left Germany with a defensible position. I firmly believe that the only possible route to German victory would have been capture of Gibraltar soon after the French campaign. German ind…

The entire Rock of Gibraltar was turned into a fortress during the war. The civilian population was evacuated, and additional tunnels and artillery placed in the rock. I am not sure that the German siege weapons could have reduced a block of granite into rubble.

With sufficient heavy artillery, while you might not be able to breach into the fortifications, you can certainly mess it up enough to stop it from shooting back.

It would not have been necessary to actually take Gibraltar -- only to silence it's guns, and place enough artillery west of it to block the strait.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#154

Post by dmm »

derleth wrote: post #148
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The South had enough of an industrial base to sustain a 1:1 kill ratio for years. Their mistake was to provoke a hot war instead of a cold war, causing most of their capacity to be diverted to fighting, instead of to industrial build-up and R&D. The time was ripe to replace slavery with automation, and instead they blew it all on a swinging dick attack on Fort Sumter.

> Their mistake was to provoke a hot war instead of a cold war True, except I'd replace 'cold war' with 'continued legislative compromise'; the North was damnably willing to compromise with the South, allowing them to get much of what they wanted with rather little sacrifice. There was, in fact, a compromise in the works when the South attacked Fort Sumter and, from a larger perspective, a lot of 19th Century America…

> Besides, even if you're right, the CSA still would never have allowed former slaves equal rights.

Was the civil war a better outcome? After the war former slaves were still agricultural workers, working long days in the fields. Only now they faced random violence and Jim Crow laws. Lynchings occurred well into the 20th century. Oh and the cost of the civil war was 600,000 lives, unbelievable destruction and a complete abandonment of all of the principles this nation was founded on(self-determination).

> Not without a race war that successfully toppled the post-slavery CSA

Why not? It almost happened before the invention of the cotton gin. Slavery was in serious decline.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#155

Post by arethuza »

Tuna-Fish wrote: post #152
arethuza wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Had RAF lost and the German invasion of Britain seemed realistic, the USAF would have joined in to prevent that." I've never heard that before - do you have any references? The Nazis declared war on America, not the other way round.

The US Navy was actively fighting the Kriegsmarine on the North Atlantic as early as late 1940, and even before that, US had started providing armaments to bolster the British war effort, and took over the defense of various British holdings to free up forces. They also provided entire cohesive units of equipped volunteers to fight against the Germans on the British Isles, and the Japanese in China. None of these act…

But what could the USAAF realistically have been able to do in 1940 to help the British?

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#156

Post by rdtsc »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #134
rdtsc wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An intermediate solution are land mobile launch platforms: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTKh_Topol_M They have randomized patrol routes, so it is hard to track them, but they can launch thermonuclear MIRV warheads. Yeah subs are a lot better but also a lot more expensive...

Subs aren't necessarily such a hugely expensive option though. A single typhoon or ohio class missile boat can carry up to about 200 total warheads. That's on the order of the entire nuclear arsenal for the average nuclear power (e.g. France, China, Israel, India). Considering the massive survivability boost of a submarine, it's one of the better bets as a nuclear deterrent backbone, provided you have the technology…

It sort of depends on the latest and greatest technology to be stealthy. For example, China, by putting all of its warheads in 2 or 3 subs would be putting all of its eggs in one basket. Those subs becomes the weakest link.

US probably has the capability to track other countries' subs, but it is a little harder to do that with hundreds of always moving launch platorms. Those are much cheaper to build and if they carry MIRV warheads, they can be very dangerous. It is of course possible to see them from a satellite but because they are always moving targetting them like one target a stationary silo is very different.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#157

Post by Daniel_Newby »

derleth wrote: post #148
Daniel_Newby wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The South had enough of an industrial base to sustain a 1:1 kill ratio for years. Their mistake was to provoke a hot war instead of a cold war, causing most of their capacity to be diverted to fighting, instead of to industrial build-up and R&D. The time was ripe to replace slavery with automation, and instead they blew it all on a swinging dick attack on Fort Sumter.

> Their mistake was to provoke a hot war instead of a cold war True, except I'd replace 'cold war' with 'continued legislative compromise'; the North was damnably willing to compromise with the South, allowing them to get much of what they wanted with rather little sacrifice. There was, in fact, a compromise in the works when the South attacked Fort Sumter and, from a larger perspective, a lot of 19th Century America…

"Preserving slavery was so ingrained in the Southern mindset that I feel fairly certain the plantation owners would have gone through a certain amount of economic dislocation if that meant keeping the slaves and the social system built on slaves."

Yes, and that's OK. Free men with tractors were about to tear out the foundations of slavery. We know that slavery was economically infeasible by 1920, and that's with a decade or two of lost progress due to War losses. With a balls-out effort for industrial independence, that could probably have been accelerated to 1890.

That didn't happen because the abolitionists decided that it was better to kill one man today than to free two men tomorrow, and because the CSA let the abolitionists choose the terms of the conflict.

"Besides, even if you're right, the CSA still would never have allowed former slaves equal rights."

And that's OK too. In a Christian nation, the master is responsible for his estate's dependents, even if there is no use for them. After farm automation, most plantation owners would have freed them in desperation to escape the room and board costs. (In short order there would have been nothing left but lifestyle slaveholders and the obscenely rich, and the Southern abolitionists would have taken care of them.)

"Admittedly, this is at least partially because Reconstruction didn't go on long enough or go nearly far enough."

It has been argued that Reconstruction had to wait for the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program, which diverted vast amounts of resources into Southern industrialization.

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#158

Post by derleth »

dmm wrote: post #154
derleth wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their mistake was to provoke a hot war instead of a cold war True, except I'd replace 'cold war' with 'continued legislative compromise'; the North was damnably willing to compromise with the South, allowing them to get much of what they wanted with rather little sacrifice. There was, in fact, a compromise in the works when the South attacked Fort Sumter and, from a larger perspective, a lot of 19th Century America…

> Besides, even if you're right, the CSA still would never have allowed former slaves equal rights. Was the civil war a better outcome? After the war former slaves were still agricultural workers, working long days in the fields. Only now they faced random violence and Jim Crow laws. Lynchings occurred well into the 20th century. Oh and the cost of the civil war was 600,000 lives, unbelievable destruction and a compl…

> After the war former slaves were still agricultural workers, working long days in the fields. Only now they faced random violence and Jim Crow laws.

This happened because Reconstruction was stopped too early. There was a period, from 1865 to 1876, where blacks were in state-level political office across the South, there were no Jim Crow laws, and the Klan was killed off by focused Federal action.

Secondly, slavery was horrible. Slavery involved much of what went on in the Jim Crow era, plus it meant a slave's life to try to escape the South. The Jim Crow South never managed to track down and forcibly return all the blacks who escaped to Detroit or Harlen.

> complete abandonment of all of the principles this nation was founded on(self-determination).

No. No. No. No. We fought this war and as it turns out, self-determination has to include everyone, not just the people lucky enough to be born rich and white. Read the Cornerstone Speech if you still doubt the primary cause of the Civil War was the CSA's insane determination to hold on to slavery.

> It almost happened before the invention of the cotton gin. Slavery was in serious decline.

If it's the CSA doing the inventing, there would have been another invention that saved slavery. And another. And so on. (After all, can't slaves work in assembly lines?)

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#159

Post by derleth »

Daniel_Newby wrote: post #157
derleth wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Their mistake was to provoke a hot war instead of a cold war True, except I'd replace 'cold war' with 'continued legislative compromise'; the North was damnably willing to compromise with the South, allowing them to get much of what they wanted with rather little sacrifice. There was, in fact, a compromise in the works when the South attacked Fort Sumter and, from a larger perspective, a lot of 19th Century America…

"Preserving slavery was so ingrained in the Southern mindset that I feel fairly certain the plantation owners would have gone through a certain amount of economic dislocation if that meant keeping the slaves and the social system built on slaves." Yes, and that's OK. Free men with tractors were about to tear out the foundations of slavery. We know that slavery was economically infeasible by 1920, and that's with a de…

> Free men with tractors were about to tear out the foundations of slavery.

Slaves can build tractors.

> We know that slavery was economically infeasible by 1920

This was a generation after it was abolished and the South had had to do something else. It's my contention that had the South been able to hang on to slavery, it would have found ways to work it into niches it never filled in the real world. Assembly line labor, for example, or mining, or fishing.

> the CSA let the abolitionists choose the terms of the conflict.

The abolitionists, by and large, thought they could win enough seats in Congress to outlaw slavery if they could prevent slavery from expanding into the new Western territories. That's why such expansion was the main topic of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and why Bloody Kansas was so bloody, and so on. There were certainly militant abolitionists, but they were the minority; the CSA chose its own war.

> In a Christian nation, the master is responsible for his estate's dependents, even if there is no use for them.

In a Christian nation, slavery either doesn't exist or is infinitely gentler than what actually occurred.

> After farm automation, most plantation owners would have freed them in desperation to escape the room and board costs.

Farm automation means machinery, and slaves can make machinery. Maybe that would involve plantations being turned into factories, but it isn't a slam-dunk that it would involve freeing slaves.

> It has been argued that Reconstruction had to wait for the Manhattan Project and the Apollo program, which diverted vast amounts of resources into Southern industrialization.

This is an interesting idea. Who argues that?

Re: Battleships: a ridiculous but awesome idea

#160

Post by sedachv »

troutwine wrote: post #70
StuffMaster wrote: post #62

The Mongols could defeat regular armies because they had many thousands of men who lived their lives on horseback, with bow in hand. It's not that they were smarter, it's that they had the option.

It's also worth noting that the Mongols were turned back by the Germanic tribes because, well, compound bows simply don't work in damp European forests whereas francesca _do_. Phallanx tactics versus maneuver, as the author has it, is meaningless in the face of the inability or unwillingness to adapt to your environment.

Mongols? Germanic tribes? Damp forests? You have a very interesting view of that period of history.
Post reply on HN