Your thought on nuclear weapons?

Eh? Nukes are not relegated specifically towards killing workers. Tactical Nukes can be employed on a military scale for military targets only.

Like I said, how else will a revolultionary armed forces take out even a single US super carrier?

The need for tactical nukes have diminished with the rise of precision guided munitions, for example, a short range ballistic missile with a payload of 500kg can carry up to 100 terminal-sensitive submunitions, on average, every 5 submunition destroy one target, that's half a tank battalion wiped out in one go, no less effective than tactical nukes.

Quote:

Like I said, how else will a revolultionary armed forces take out even a single US super carrier?

==The tricky part is to reliably detect and track the carrier and break through the layers of defenses, once you can do that, neutralising the carrier wouldn't be a problem regardless of whether you have any nukes or not.

Quote:

The tricky part is to reliably detect and track the carrier and break through the layers of defenses

Absolutely correct. It takes tremendous ISTAR assets.

Quote:

once you can do that, neutralising the carrier wouldn't be a problem regardless of whether you have any nukes or not.

The modern damage control mechanisms on a super carrier mean that even a nuclear weapon in the hundreds of kilotons range isn't guaranteed a kill.

Quote:

The need for tactical nukes have diminished with the rise of precision guided munitions, for example, a short range ballistic missile with a payload of 500kg can carry up to 100 terminal-sensitive submunitions, on average, every 5 submunition destroy one target, that's half a tank battalion wiped out in one go, no less effective than tactical nukes.

Absolutely. The Iskander-M from the 603rd Rocket-Artillery Btln reportedly did wipe out a Georgian tank btln. However the price tag of PGMs is much higher, and it is quite possible to combine cheap tactical nukes with PGMs, i.e. tactical nuclear cruise missiles. The projected Iskander-K complex will be a land-based cruise missile capable of nuclear payload.

The Russians already possess a Nuclear Cruise Missile, if only Ship based. Isn't it the Sunburn?

TRL wrote:

Like I said, how else will a revolultionary armed forces take out even a single US super carrier?

But who mans the super carriers?

Soviet Sindorin, yes we do. Both ship based and plane based. The Iskander-K will offer a land-based nuclear cruise missile.

Red Rebel you may have a very valid point, but given the level of indoctrination within the military it's hard to expect them all to cross over. Finally out of 11 super carriers, some may revolt, and some may not. The ones that don't will need to be dealt with.

My pledge brother is a ROTC. I'm not going lie, he is an indocrinated bastard. The Revolutionary movement can not compete with the full power of militarized state. In Russia, China, Cuba, Viet Nam, ect. a major key to winning was the lack of morale amongst the military and a high rate of soldiers deserting. The Revolution never has been won by two super carriers fighting each other. It will happen when the working class grunts in the military are not willing to be grunts and cannon fodder. It will happen when a rag tag group of poorly trained revolutionaries is able to overcome a military state that can not function properly.

It will also happen when the revolutionary forces can effectively strike the carriers that don't cross over, or desert. In any event, in the current world climate, complete nuclear disarmament is a recipe for instability and war. It may also be that while one or another militarized state are taken over by revolutionaries, other states are not. What do you do then? Revolutionary world war will require that the communist forces utilize the full arsenal, and utilize it in a competent fashion.

Nuclear weapons kept Soviet divisons from pouring through the Fulda Gap, they are a necessary evil. When two states have nuclear capabilites it keeps thier ambitions in check. I believe Russia restarted there strategic flights again. I doubt a TU-95, or backfire bomber would be able to penetrate NORAD airspace. Strategic Nuclear weapons where designed to cause serious civilian casualties aswell as destroy infastructure. Tactical nuclear weapons are for battlefield use. In the 1980s both NATO and the USSR switched from strategic nuclear strategy to a tactical strategy. There is no plausable strategy for disarmament, todays world is just to unstable for any country to disarm. Another alternative was the Neutron bomb. This weapon was designed to kill people and leave the surrounding buildings intact. The repulican guard commander at the Saddam airport claimed American forces used a neutron bomb on his troops. I did see some strange signs over there, Radiation dont stop Keep moving, or Radiation do not get out of your vechile and no stopping. arround the time the airport fell US forces where in full MOPP gear, minus the mask. Maybe W decided to use some of his WMDs in Iraq.

As for sinking a carrier the PLA have some type of updated silkworm missle deployed on the Formossa striat these are rumored to be thier carrier killers.

I don't think anybody can say that the effects of tactical weapons are good. But I think that the past 60 years have proved that they have done there job. There job is to deter war and they have done that. Our government have gone to great extremes to call Iraq etc as conflicts and not wars.

Its true for this to work then MAD has to be finely in place, but could it be said that they have removed the world war 3 that could have been if they didn't excist?

And on a side note of good things that come out of the invention of war Nuclear - cancer treatment, power etc

I think you mean "strategic" weapons

Quote:

I doubt a TU-95, or backfire bomber would be able to penetrate NORAD airspace.

THey don't need to. Stand-off range for the X-55 is iirc 3000 km. And you're also forgetting the Tu-160 which have demonstrated what can be argued as limited LO features.

And since even our RAF admitted that we can't pick up the approach of Russian aircraft as proved last summer.

I think you're refering to the incident where the Tu-160 got undetected all the way to a couple of miles from British airspace. I would risk suggesting that this is an isolated incident, rather then a system-wide failure. It's one thing for a single bomber to slip through and launch a penetration strike. It's another for a fleet of bombers (and fighter escorts) to do this during a war when security measures are heightened and fighter CAPs are far more common.

Some people say that Nukes are the only thing keeping people from completely tearing in too oneanother but i think thats a bit to simple. Had we not hade nukes we would have something else. Russias winter for example was the worst possible WMD for Napoleon and the Nazis for example, or it could be a naturally proud and martial people who will not succumb to foreigners like in China or Afghanistan. Nukes look cool and all but what can you do with em? Cant use em to divide and conquer cause in that case you'll be doing a bit more dividing than whats needed for conquering. Cant use em strategically because you'd be better of with classic bombs in that case anyway. By far the only country that never under any circumstances should be trusted with Nukes is the USA.

ActionJeans you're making little sense. Realize that you talk about martial people, but you realize that in the process of fighting off the USSR, Afghanistan as a country was annihilated. Hundreds of thousands were killed, and many more displaced. Nuclear weapons would have prevented that from happening in the first place. The concept of deterrence is far more efficient then the "people's war" that most people here advocate.

The TU-160 is an outstanding weapons platform, with the low production numbers, i think it would more than likely be used for strikes against NATO countries than against NORAD airspace. I think the only way the would risk such a superb platform would be in a first strike. I am not Russian, so I dont know how the Russian mind and military think. I would not risk it against American or Canadian airspace, I would let my operational Typhoons unleash there might.

Well actually you would unleash the full triad of nuclear delivery methods. Redundancy is important. Also the USSR had more Tu-160s then Russia does today. Morever the Tu-95 can also reach the USA.

Quote:

I would let my operational Typhoons unleash there might.

You mean Eurofighters or Akula-Class subs?