Poll: The most important unit in modern warfare
- Thread starter Raptorf22
- Start date
atawa
Mastered by puppets
I was talking about the amount of damage they do in comparrison with their cost, and with the money you make from this action you could buy a nice litle russion suitcase bomb...
Everything is economics
Everything is economics
Flatlander Fox
Armed Cultural Consultant
Maybe you should watch the news a bit more...
What do you think the Northern Alliance is employing on the ground???
How about many of my friends who are over there right now?
Name a conflict that wasn't solved by infantry or mounted infantry in the last 5000 years? And I'll find an infantryman in there who made a bigger difference.
Granted, WW2 ended due to the Atom Bomb... But it would have been solved by infantry anyway...
Plus, how do you think they took the airfield where the superfortresses took off from?
Simon: The Iowa Class battleships are great for projecting power. But unfortunately, the U.S. Defence department is not as nostalgic as we are...
As for Nuclear weapons, a great deterrant, but not much for tactical superiority. You strike an area, and then can't even occupy it for 20 years.
Propaganda does nothing for you once the bullets start flying... Plus, how much of an effect did the propaganda have on the U.S. soldiers fighting in both theatres in WW2? It has its place, but nothing compares to the infantryman.
What do you think the Northern Alliance is employing on the ground???
How about many of my friends who are over there right now?
Name a conflict that wasn't solved by infantry or mounted infantry in the last 5000 years? And I'll find an infantryman in there who made a bigger difference.
Granted, WW2 ended due to the Atom Bomb... But it would have been solved by infantry anyway...
Plus, how do you think they took the airfield where the superfortresses took off from?
Simon: The Iowa Class battleships are great for projecting power. But unfortunately, the U.S. Defence department is not as nostalgic as we are...
As for Nuclear weapons, a great deterrant, but not much for tactical superiority. You strike an area, and then can't even occupy it for 20 years
.Propaganda does nothing for you once the bullets start flying... Plus, how much of an effect did the propaganda have on the U.S. soldiers fighting in both theatres in WW2? It has its place, but nothing compares to the infantryman.
Originally posted by atawa
I was talking about the amount of damage they do in comparrison with their cost, and with the money you make from this action you could buy a nice litle russion suitcase bomb...
Everything is economics
Eh, I'm not sure about that...if "Everything" was economics, then countries would mutually agree to disarm, have totally open bordes, and spend their eliminated military budgets on priorities other than defense.
It's an important point: the military isn't necessarily designed to be "efficient". Sure, given two weapons that do the same thing, you'd use the cheaper one. However, comparing "output" of different weapons can be difficult (for example, nuclear weapons have their maximum utility when they do not need to be used).
Responding to other theme...yes, infantry has always and will always be necessary, especially if your goal is occupying territory. However, modern bombing can be effective if your goal is something other than occcupation - for example, assisting a local revolution or eliminating a terrorist organization.
Ren
Communist Nazi
Ok, Nukes sound bad but this has gone way over my head
Israel has defense against nukes 
The 'Arrow' Missile, Anti-missile missile, laser and sattelite guided, exact and officient, operational in one year, made by boeing and bought from the US Tax dollars funding of 2 billion dollars a year given to Israel
The 'Arrow' Missile, Anti-missile missile, laser and sattelite guided, exact and officient, operational in one year, made by boeing and bought from the US Tax dollars funding of 2 billion dollars a year given to Israel
http://www.janes.com/aerospace/military/news/jdw/jdw010910_5_n.shtml
"Israel has become the only pro-Western country with an operational anti-missile defence system after it declared the first Arrow 2 battery ready for service last week."
- http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news_briefs/jdw000322_59.shtml
I think jane's is objective enough for you
"Israel has become the only pro-Western country with an operational anti-missile defence system after it declared the first Arrow 2 battery ready for service last week."
- http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news_briefs/jdw000322_59.shtml
I think jane's is objective enough for you
scorch
Legalize Pot
define important
I would figure the most important is some leader dude, who plans the attacks.
I would figure the most important is some leader dude, who plans the attacks.
BlueMonday
Can I Kick It?
What terrible choices for a poll. The most important weapon in modern warfare is the same weapon which has been the most important since the beginning of time: INFORMATION.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Man, it took 44 posts for someone to get the answer right. Obviously, knowledge, of the terrain, the enemy's location, disposition and size of forces, et al, is easily arguably the by far most important factor in warfare, be it modern or ancient.
A small force that knows where the enemy is can skirmish with it's van, and lead it into an ambush by a reserve force which the skirmishers can join with. This is one of the most devastating means of dealing with a numerically superior force. A properly set ambush is really the penultimate in force multiplication.
A small force that knows where the enemy is can skirmish with it's van, and lead it into an ambush by a reserve force which the skirmishers can join with. This is one of the most devastating means of dealing with a numerically superior force. A properly set ambush is really the penultimate in force multiplication.
Morgasshk
Warlord
Easy enough guys... - PEOPLE!
Need them for anything - Not just Infantry type people...people of all stripes...
People to command, people to build the weapons, tanks, bombs and missiles, people to DESIGN the above and people to operate them....
We may be becoming a computer minded and automated civilization but as yet we still need people power to do everything!
:rocket3: 47:
:frog: :midfinger 
:alien: 
:slay:
Crap... sorry guys... got carried away... never used these things before!
Anyway... yeah, well, thats about all I had to say!
Morgasshk
Need them for anything - Not just Infantry type people...people of all stripes...
People to command, people to build the weapons, tanks, bombs and missiles, people to DESIGN the above and people to operate them....
We may be becoming a computer minded and automated civilization but as yet we still need people power to do everything!
:rocket3: 47:
:frog: :midfinger :alien: :slay: Crap... sorry guys... got carried away... never used these things before!
Anyway... yeah, well, thats about all I had to say!
Morgasshk
Good points on the importance of information...but, going along that, how about SPEED! After all, movement has also been a fundamental part of warfare for a long time...
For one good example, Napoleon often turned numerically even battles into decisive victories by splitting the opposing army in two, rushing his entire enemy to defeat one half, and then quickly returning to defeat the other.
For one good example, Napoleon often turned numerically even battles into decisive victories by splitting the opposing army in two, rushing his entire enemy to defeat one half, and then quickly returning to defeat the other.
My poll is to determine which bomb plays the most important role...not some espionage stuff......like which bomb would be the best bomb for the overall victory......
I agree information is the most important aspect.....but im talking about weapons rite now....
I agree information is the most important aspect.....but im talking about weapons rite now....
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Raptor,
If any of the objects on that list above are used, it means the country employing them has already failed to achieve victory, and is now settling with taking the winner down with them, or feels it cannot win a war, and is using a strategic strike to eliminate the enemy's forces, which is only going to precipitate a response in kind.
Nuclear, bio, and chemical 'weaponry' are not meant for the battlefield. They are instruments of statecraft, not weapons of war. A weapon's strike can be guided to a particular target, and a weapon of war is meant to be used on soldiers, not civilians. NBC devices are not, by this definition, even weapons.
They are used to demonstrate superior capability to those nations who do not have them, and to assure those nations who do that a response in kind can be expected if such are used upon the nation which possesses them. The US, the USSR, Great Britain, France, and China have not been in direct military engagements with any nation that had nuclear weapons since that nation had them. The reason is because such a nation could 'take them down with them' if they were losing the battle.
The US has a clearly decisive advantage over any other nation on earth in a conventional war, and against even a sizable coalition force. Why then has it not pressed this advantage? Because the USSR, France, GB, and China would not permit such a hegemony to be created without acting. Admittedly, GB would probably join the US, and now probably the former USSR republics, but that still leaves the Chinese and the French. All you'd end up with is another, much larger, Cold War.
Unless, of course, one side or the other attempted a pre-emptive strike, to eliminate the other side's nuclear capability. The Chinese are flat-out incapable of this. They cannot infiltrate the US in sufficient numbers to do the job by hand, and their fleet of missiles is too small to even attempt the task. Don't quote me on this, but I don't think the French have any ICBMs. I could be wrong. Even if they do, I can hardly countenance the notion that they have enough to take out the entirety of the US deterrent force. The former USSR's fleet of ICBMs is rotting in the silos, except for the ones that are being sold on the black market.
The US is easily capable of launching a surprise stealth attack on the Chinese missile fleet, and assuming the French have no missiles, the planes they'd have to strap them onto are as vulnerable to attack as any other planes. So why doesn't the US do it? Because it is a democratic republic, and if the leaders in the US ever tried anything like that, they'd have a revolution on their hands.
So these devices are going to stay where they are, in bunkers and silos. We can't put the genie back in the bottle, so leaving him there will have to do.
No nukes is good nukes.
If any of the objects on that list above are used, it means the country employing them has already failed to achieve victory, and is now settling with taking the winner down with them, or feels it cannot win a war, and is using a strategic strike to eliminate the enemy's forces, which is only going to precipitate a response in kind.
Nuclear, bio, and chemical 'weaponry' are not meant for the battlefield. They are instruments of statecraft, not weapons of war. A weapon's strike can be guided to a particular target, and a weapon of war is meant to be used on soldiers, not civilians. NBC devices are not, by this definition, even weapons.
They are used to demonstrate superior capability to those nations who do not have them, and to assure those nations who do that a response in kind can be expected if such are used upon the nation which possesses them. The US, the USSR, Great Britain, France, and China have not been in direct military engagements with any nation that had nuclear weapons since that nation had them. The reason is because such a nation could 'take them down with them' if they were losing the battle.
The US has a clearly decisive advantage over any other nation on earth in a conventional war, and against even a sizable coalition force. Why then has it not pressed this advantage? Because the USSR, France, GB, and China would not permit such a hegemony to be created without acting. Admittedly, GB would probably join the US, and now probably the former USSR republics, but that still leaves the Chinese and the French. All you'd end up with is another, much larger, Cold War.
Unless, of course, one side or the other attempted a pre-emptive strike, to eliminate the other side's nuclear capability. The Chinese are flat-out incapable of this. They cannot infiltrate the US in sufficient numbers to do the job by hand, and their fleet of missiles is too small to even attempt the task. Don't quote me on this, but I don't think the French have any ICBMs. I could be wrong. Even if they do, I can hardly countenance the notion that they have enough to take out the entirety of the US deterrent force. The former USSR's fleet of ICBMs is rotting in the silos, except for the ones that are being sold on the black market.
The US is easily capable of launching a surprise stealth attack on the Chinese missile fleet, and assuming the French have no missiles, the planes they'd have to strap them onto are as vulnerable to attack as any other planes. So why doesn't the US do it? Because it is a democratic republic, and if the leaders in the US ever tried anything like that, they'd have a revolution on their hands.
So these devices are going to stay where they are, in bunkers and silos. We can't put the genie back in the bottle, so leaving him there will have to do.
No nukes is good nukes.
Similar threads
