twilight2000-digest Saturday, May 15 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 039 The following topics are covered in this digest: Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Mine Clearing Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Hi Yall Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Mine Clearing Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline 5 1/4" drive Re: Mine Clearing Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Mine Clearing Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Alternative US Timeline Re: Reagen, SDI etc. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 19:57:19 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline > FYI, Japan doesn't need a large military. Why? Because when we wrote > their constitution for them, we forbid them any military at all. WE are > supposed to defend THEM. That's why they can get away with spending so > little on a military. simply wrong - the japanese don't spend a "little" on defense. between 1991-1995 (a recession period) the diet spent US$180 billion (1% of the GDP). this was enough to rate them at #3 world wide (thats a LOT not a little). if they increased that to 3% (what west germany used to spend) they could buy: 16 aircraft carriers (thats more than the US has active currently) 116 destroyers +350 additional aircraft (to add to thier 650 in service) and increase thier armour corps by 5-6 time current holdings is that enough for you? keep in mind they can do that with an increase of 2% from 1% to 3% - if they spent a reganesque 6% they would outclass the entire US military machine. still consider that a "little" matt *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 09:55:47 +1000 From: "Peter" Subject: Re: Mine Clearing - -----Original Message----- From: Dwight Looney To: T2K Mailing List Date: Saturday, 15 May 1999 9:42 Subject: Mine Clearing >What's that thing big rope you shoot across a mine field called? I don't >remember if their was an infantry version or it was shot from a vehicle or >device. Line charges? A hose filled with explosives propelled across a mine filed by rockets. Exists in vehicle and infantry forms. Some are mounted on trailers, others on vehicles. The US used line charges from M60 AVLB in 1991. They replaced the bridge with line charges. Peter Grining *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 11:55:15 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Matthew E Henkel wrote: > > > > > Foolish? Why would defending ourselves be foolish? Only american > > liberals who wanted the USSR to win considered it to be foolish. Heck, > > even the USSR didn't consider it foolish! > > Gingrich isn't a dimwit. If you're going to try to present facts, then > > you should start there. Otherwise, everything you say is called into > > question. > > At least we know what side you're on. --inappropriate language snipped-- Sounds like you still don't know what's going on. > > > > B-2 isn't a joke. Sounds to me like the problem is yours. > > FYI, Japan doesn't need a large military. Why? Because when we wrote > > their constitution for them, we forbid them any military at all. WE are > > supposed to defend THEM. That's why they can get away with spending so > > little on a military. > > wrong. the japanese are not forbidden a military " at all" as you say. > as soon as the korean peninsula flared up in 1950, SCAP ammended its > position. MacArthur activated the police reserve which was soon after > turned into the jietai - with three branches, kokujietai (air self defense > force) kaijojietai (maritime self defense force) and rikujojietai (ground > self defense force. the sdf was trained by us advisors as the occupation > ended and all of the us troops in japan were shipped over the strait. > incidentally on of the key advisors in traineg the kutai (eliet paratroop > corp) was westmoreland. while the us is bound by treaty to come to the > aid of japan in the case of invasion - no one in japan civil, government > or military seriously expects this to happen. they don't believe that we > would risk getting involved in asia again after vietnam. carter's near > pullout of korea added much to this belief. > > if you think that the SDF is just some pathetic ANRG/AFNRG type force you > are sadly mistaken. they Jietai is a very well trained very well equiped > force with a much better equipment update scheduale than even the us. the > jsdf is consistantly rated as the premiere defense organization in the > region. If you would bother looking at what you yourself said, it's not called the "Japnaese Army", "Japanese Air Force", or "Japanese Navy". It's called the "Japanese Self-Defense Forces". > > > > > > > > > taiwan does a better job with much much less. > > > > Isn't the 7th fleet basically stationed off Taiwan? Perhaps you should > > add that into your equation. > > Hasn't the US continually betrayed the taiwanese? i seem to recall regan > screwing them over by squashing thier deal to buy f20s or f16 in 1982. > again a country that has very little faith that the us would actually come > to thier aid if the chips went down. i know personally an RoCAF colonel > who has told me of the little faith the taiwanese have in thier american > protectors - a country that wouldn't even drop china's most favoured > nation trade status after the PLA ran through beijing on a three day orgy > of slaughter. > there are NO US forces in the taiwanese region. the 7th fleet is > stationed at Yokosuka japan. in 95 when the chinese started lobbing > missiles at taiwan the fleet was dispatched and ordered in the the strait > as a deterent - but they had to steam from tokyo bay - they are not > stationed off of taiwan, "basically" or otherwise. Betrayed? What do you consider betrayal? So, the 7th Fleet never leaves port unless something is going on? If you think that tha's all they do (sit in port all the time), then I should feel for you. But, I don't. > > > The B-2 isn't efficient? Where'd you get that from? Maybe you should > > find out what the B-2 is supposed to do before you try to tell us just > > how efficient it is at doing that particular job. > > SDI would've never been the money pit you envision. But then again, to > > some people, spending any money in defense of this country was a waste. > > Far easier to raise the white flag. > > I know what the b2 is supposed to do, deliever a nuclear payload. on who? > who the hell are we going to nuke now? only recently has the b2 been > outfitted to handle smart weapons instead of tactical weapons. still the > B52 is far more efficient and much better suited to the role - even > though it to was designed to be a nuclear bomber not a tactical bomber. > the b52 however is pushing fifty and is intended to stay in service untill > 2060 - when it will be 108 years old. i don't think the multi-billion > dollar b2 will ever be. Who is aiming nuclear weapons at us? Are you saying that we no longer have any enemies anywhere? Especially with the capability to develop or deliver nuclear weapons? Maybe you believe that the world is a safe place, the facts speak otherwise. Hate to inform you of this, but the B-2 will still be around when the B-52 is nothing but a memory. > > you are a punk - and i thank god tht the people in charge of the budget > are at least nominally more intelligent than you. i support defense > spending - they pay my bills - but i'm not for buying abunch of foolish > toys that have no place on the modern battlefield. 8 billion dollars > worth of b52s is unquestionably more EFFICIENT (look up the word and > contrast it it with EFFECTIVE) than one or two of those, given cool > looking, outdated black turkeys. So, you can't present FACTS and you have to resort to insults. I thank God that the Republicans in charge of the budget are as intelligent as I am. That gives them the credibility that the democrats lack. Maybe you should look up the difference between efficient and effective yourself. An aircraft that gets shot down by air defenses isn't as efficient nor as effective as an aircraft that can attack without the enemy ever knowing it was ever there. > --more inappropriate language snipped-- > > matt> > John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 12:00:57 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Matthew E Henkel wrote: > > > FYI, Japan doesn't need a large military. Why? Because when we wrote > > their constitution for them, we forbid them any military at all. WE are > > supposed to defend THEM. That's why they can get away with spending so > > little on a military. > > simply wrong - the japanese don't spend a "little" on defense. between > 1991-1995 (a recession period) the diet spent US$180 billion (1% of the > GDP). this was enough to rate them at #3 world wide (thats a LOT not a > little). > > if they increased that to 3% (what west germany used to spend) they could > buy: > > 16 aircraft carriers (thats more than the US has active currently) > 116 destroyers > +350 additional aircraft (to add to thier 650 in service) > and increase thier armour corps by 5-6 time current holdings > > is that enough for you? keep in mind they can do that with an increase of > 2% from 1% to 3% - if they spent a reganesque 6% they would outclass the > entire US military machine. > > still consider that a "little" > > matt > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. In a word, YES. Maybe you missed something which you typed yourself. You'll notice that the figures you gave were over a FIVE YEAR PERIOD. That breaks down to US$36 billion per year. Now do the math. Your proposed increase would mean: 3 aircraft carriers 23 destroyers 70 combat aircraft maybe double their armor. Note that these figures (as provided by you) don't include support and upkeep on this larger force. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 20:45:34 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline > In a word, YES. > Maybe you missed something which you typed yourself. You'll notice > that the figures you gave were over a FIVE YEAR PERIOD. That breaks down > to US$36 billion per year. Now do the math. Your proposed increase would > mean: > 3 aircraft carriers > 23 destroyers > 70 combat aircraft > maybe double their armor. > Note that these figures (as provided by you) don't include support and > upkeep on this larger force. > > John II > *************************************************************************** actually these figures do include upkeep of the forces and expansion of logistics and supply to accomodate the additions. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 20:48:41 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline what the hell does any of this have to do with T2K? if you'd like to continue your sad track of logic reguarding all of this - lets do it on a military debate forum not this one. this forum is for T2K - - we should all remind ourselves of that matt *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 20:53:15 -0400 (EDT) From: Matthew E Henkel Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline > to US$36 billion per year. Now do the math. Your proposed increase would > mean: > 3 aircraft carriers > 23 destroyers > 70 combat aircraft > maybe double their armor. > Note that these figures (as provided by you) don't include support and > upkeep on this larger force. you think that adding 2 carriers 23 destroyers 70 combat aircraft and 100% of your armour a year for 5 years (while maintaning logistics etc.) is a small time plan? the US doesn't even add on carriers or heavy naval tonnage at that rate. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 12:45:58 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Matthew E Henkel wrote: > > > In a word, YES. > > Maybe you missed something which you typed yourself. You'll notice > > that the figures you gave were over a FIVE YEAR PERIOD. That breaks down > > to US$36 billion per year. Now do the math. Your proposed increase would > > mean: > > 3 aircraft carriers > > 23 destroyers > > 70 combat aircraft > > maybe double their armor. > > Note that these figures (as provided by you) don't include support and > > upkeep on this larger force. > > > > John II > > *************************************************************************** > > actually these figures do include upkeep of the forces and expansion of > logistics and supply to accomodate the additions. > You didn't mention that before. Still, it doesn't get specific. Which kinds of aircraft are being bought? What class of aircraft carrier? How many of what kind of tanks? What class of destroyers? John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 12:48:27 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Matthew E Henkel wrote: > > what the hell does any of this have to do with T2K? > > if you'd like to continue your sad track of logic reguarding all of this - > lets do it on a military debate forum not this one. this forum is for T2K > - we should all remind ourselves of that > > matt > > *************************************************************************** > To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line > 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. I'm not the one who started with the inappropriate language. My fact-based logic is doing just fine, thank you. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 12:51:33 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Matthew E Henkel wrote: > > > to US$36 billion per year. Now do the math. Your proposed increase would > > mean: > > 3 aircraft carriers > > 23 destroyers > > 70 combat aircraft > > maybe double their armor. > > Note that these figures (as provided by you) don't include support and > > upkeep on this larger force. > > you think that adding 2 carriers 23 destroyers 70 combat aircraft and 100% > of your armour a year for 5 years (while maintaning logistics etc.) is a > small time plan? the US doesn't even add on carriers or heavy naval > tonnage at that rate. They wouldn't be doing that per year. You don't seem to understand how this works. I guess that that's the problem with some in the military of today. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 21:12:49 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Hi Yall I never have been one to keep quiet, so please let me tell you how disappointed I am in the dialogue of late. Can we calm down, and act better towards one another. Show some restraint. Please. Thanks *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 19:57:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Josh Baumgartner Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline > simply wrong - the japanese don't spend a "little" on defense. > between > 1991-1995 (a recession period) the diet spent US$180 billion > (1% of the > GDP). this was enough to rate them at #3 world wide (thats a > LOT not a > little). > > if they increased that to 3% (what west germany used to spend) > they could > buy: > > 16 aircraft carriers (thats more than the US has active > currently) > 116 destroyers > +350 additional aircraft (to add to thier 650 in service) > and increase thier armour corps by 5-6 time current holdings > > is that enough for you? keep in mind they can do that with an > increase of > 2% from 1% to 3% - if they spent a reganesque 6% they would > outclass the > entire US military machine. You can't directly relate an increase in defense spending to an increase in equiptment. There is no single 'defense budget', it's actually four main seperate budgets: 1) Operations: Gas, Spares, Utilities, Training, etc. 2) Personnel: Paychecks, Pensions, and Benefits 3) Acquisition: New toys 4) Research & Development: Even newer toys The lion's share of defense budgets goes to operations & personnel...i.e. you pay most of your money to man and operate what you've already got. Nations which spend unusually high amounts on acquisition tend to have lots of nice toys, but can't use them well. Ex=Libya bought lots of shiny new Mirages and MiGs, but didn't have very many qual'd pilots to fly them. Japan couldn't just build some new carriers. They'd need air wings for them, pilot & sailor expenditures, new port and airfield facilities, and more. Carriers cost more per year to operate than they cost per year to build. It's a long term commitment, not just an initial purchase. Such growth as you talk about would most likely be like the US military's growth--more on the tail than on the teeth. Simply put the 'fat' on the beast grows during times of free spending. Josh Baumgartner CVN-72 USS Abraham Lincoln US Navy 1993-1997 _____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Free instant messaging and more at http://messenger.yahoo.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 21:05:34 -0700 From: Ron Hale Subject: Re: Mine Clearing Dwight Looney wrote: What's that thing big rope you shoot across a mine field called? I don't remember if their was an infantry version or it was shot from a vehicle or device. I believe the name is MICLIC. It stands for Mine Clearing Line Charge. TTFN Ron Hale *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 21:39:00 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Dwight Looney wrote: > > Maybe I should have specified "they would have to launch ICBM's to save > their butt." I still think so. Understanding that our mission was to > defend Western Europe, we would have been successful. With their mission > being the seizure or rendering useless of Europe, they would have failed. > With the shape I perceive them to be in afterwards, to me, it would be > inconceivable that NATO or China would not finish the job. > Like I said Opinion. With the height of the Reagan buildup Ivan would have been hard pressed to go for the jugular and hit West Germany- not with the US deploying a new generaiton of theater nuclear delievery systems like the pershing II and the Air Force GLCM and building up tactical stockpiles with ER 155 and 8 inch rounds and probable replacement with the lance with either a nuclear versions of the ATACM or follow on to the Lance. In terms of convetional forces on an operational level the USAREUR embraced maneuver and deep strike turning war from a two dimensional horizontal level where forces would be assigned a geographical responsibility and fight in a linear manner to one where a schwerpunkt had to be established, a achillies heel found in every situation and all forces are focused to deal it a decisive blow. Twilight 2K assumes the Reagan buildup not only went through but the US would be fightingf manuever type campiagns in multiple theaters where there would be a mixture of heavy forces where mobility and fire was emphasized and lower intenisty light iinfantry fighting where the US would be fighting guerilla type forces that were cunning and sneaky. Mad Mike - -- "War is the only sport that is genuinely amusing. And it is the only sport that has any intelligible use."- HL Mencken *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 21:47:26 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline John H. Schneider II wrote: > > The great soviet military juggernaut being a Reagan era myth is a > clinton era myth. Read some honest books published, not just the ones > that would say anything to slam Reagan. Funny how people seem to twist events to push their agenda. This is called history where one can interpret past events to try and shed insight on today and tomorrow. So by a very loose defintion all history is revisionism. But if you beleive that than I've got a bridge to sell you in New York. Just because the current regime in 1600 PA AVE have some grandiose scheme to remake Europe and put down in the history texts as great peacekeepers, makers, and idealists let us remember what happened to Woodrow Wilson. I was a history major at school and thus not immune to the left wing kaka spewed off by profs who were slighly left of Mao and Stalin. So let's try and remember that a Soviet general secretary of Ukranian origins had a penchant for banging perfectly good footware on the bully pulpit and foaming at the mouth about putting the US six feet under and deploying a intermediate range ballistic missiles 90 miles from the CONUS. The Reds were dead serious about and so were we- it may have seemed like a game but if it was it was high stakes poker and the pot consisted of the fate of modern civilization. Mad Mike - -- "War is the only sport that is genuinely amusing. And it is the only sport that has any intelligible use."- HL Mencken *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 21:51:38 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Matthew E Henkel wrote: > > Also i have recently found that the Nihon Koku Jietai (Japanese Air Self > Defense Force - JASDF) has an agressor/air combat instruction squadron, > the Hiko Kyodotai based at Nyutabaru AB. > I'm glad to see I'm not the only guy who reads World Air Power Journal :P. A F-15 squadron with Cobra tail badges supposedly they strive for pretending thy're a PVO/VVS fighter interceptor squadron/regiment based in Eastern Siberia. Course the Su-27 is bigger and better WVR capabilties (at least if it was operating at lower weights and loaded up with AA-11s) although arguably the JASDF Rodans have better avionics (onboard processing capability and V type modifications on the APG-63 radar). Mad Mike - -- "War is the only sport that is genuinely amusing. And it is the only sport that has any intelligible use."- HL Mencken *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 22:07:08 -0700 From: Peter Vieth Subject: 5 1/4" drive Hey if anyone is interested my school is throwing out (it'll be around until tuesday) a 5 1/4" that looks to be in good condition. I'll send it for $5 to cover shipping (sounds about right for within the US). - -- ([-[Peter Vieth]-) (-[fitek@ix.netcom.com]-) (-[http://www.netcom.com/~fitek]-) *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 14 May 1999 22:27:57 -0700 From: Mad Mike Subject: Re: Mine Clearing Dwight Looney wrote: > > What's that thing big rope you shoot across a mine field called? I don't > remember if their was an infantry version or it was shot from a vehicle or > device. > Line charges. There was/is a plan to field a tracked vehicles that launched FAE rockets into a minefield due to the fact many AT mines and APERS mines are considerably shock hardened to resist the effect of line charges (something that's designed to resist the blast/overpuressure of what in many ways is a propane powered fission device tends to be more difficult). Other favorite engineers tools includes flamethrowers, satchel charges, bangalore torpedos or using specialized armored vehicles that can bridge over holes or blast apart fortifications. Mad Mike - -- "War is the only sport that is genuinely amusing. And it is the only sport that has any intelligible use."- HL Mencken *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 03:17:28 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 01:30 PM 5/14/99 PDT, Brandon Cope wrote: >>From: "John H. Schneider II" > >> The great soviet military juggernaut being a Reagan era myth is a >>clinton era myth. Read some honest books published, not just the ones >>that would say anything to slam Reagan. > >For example, the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was never (seriously) >intended to lead to an effective missile shield; it was supposed to scare >the hell out of the Soviets by making them think virutally all of their >long-range weapons were useless and force them to spend loads of money >(which they didn't have) to overcome a defense that didn't exist. It _was_ a >significant reason the USSR broke up. > Intended by whom? Every indication is that Ronald Reagan really, truly, and passionately believed that he was creating a shield that would end the effectiveness of nuclear weapons--he apparently really hated the things. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 03:20:23 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 08:58 AM 5/14/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > SDI was serious, it just wasn't accepted that way by the liberals who >felt that the US would be better off under Soviet control. How did actual, as opposed to imaginary, people feel about it? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 03:31:21 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 10:35 AM 5/14/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: >Matthew E Henkel wrote: >> >> even if someone in reagan's clabinet thought it was possible and took it >> seriously, SDI would have been a foolish project to undertake. it like >> it's slightly more sane contemporary the B2 spitit are tactically >> questionable in thier value. what dimwits like ginrich thought was a to >> buy a whole bunch of these multi-billion dollar jokes and scare the >> russians. great so the entire defense budget goes to a single plane. how >> did the old joke go? airforce gets to fly it mon/tues/wed/ navy gets it >> thur/fri/sat and the marines get it every other sunday if its not getting >> fixed. > > Foolish? Why would defending ourselves be foolish? Only american >liberals who wanted the USSR to win considered it to be foolish. Heck, >even the USSR didn't consider it foolish! The complaints about SDI are twofold: 1. When Mutual Assured Destruction is supposedly the main thing keeping a nuclear war from happening, then if one side has to ability to defend itself from a nuclear attack, it can (in theory) strike with impunity. If both sides believe they can defend themselves...things get scary (especially if they can't really). This is why the ABM Treaty was signed in 1972 (it eliminated all anti-missile defenses except for two sites in each country--to protect the captial, mostly), and why even civil defense efforts are considered destabilizing. 2. SDI has almost zero utility against terrorists, since it's far easier to smuggle a bomb into the country than to acquire and deploy missile technology (the one advantage of a missile is that the response time is very quick once you make up your mind to use it). > B-2 isn't a joke. Sounds to me like the problem is yours. Tell me, what's it designed to do? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 03:44:07 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 07:44 PM 5/14/99 -0400, Matthew E Henkel wrote: > >while the us is bound by treaty to come to the >aid of japan in the case of invasion - no one in japan civil, government >or military seriously expects this to happen. they don't believe that we >would risk getting involved in asia again after vietnam. carter's near >pullout of korea added much to this belief. > Whoah! I've never even heard that one--the Japanese may be a little insecure about us at times, but they continually invest enormous amounts of effort into ensuring that that treaty stays in force and that the U.S. stays in Asia, which indicates to me that they take our commitment seriously. >if you think that the SDF is just some pathetic ANRG/AFNRG type force you >are sadly mistaken. they Jietai is a very well trained very well equiped >force with a much better equipment update scheduale than even the us. the >jsdf is consistantly rated as the premiere defense organization in the >region. > While the Japanese forces are well-trained, I'd make one small point, which is that dollar for dollar (or rather yen for yen) they do pretty badly, since they require almost all of their equipment to be made domestically--so while it's all very high-tech, they pay way too much for it (but then they have a lot of money, and a comparatively small force). Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 03:52:25 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 07:57 PM 5/14/99 -0400, Matthew E Henkel wrote: >is that enough for you? keep in mind they can do that with an increase of >2% from 1% to 3% - if they spent a reganesque 6% they would outclass the >entire US military machine. > Of course they wouldn't--their GDP is smaller than the U.S.'s. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 03:54:45 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline At 11:55 AM 5/14/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > Maybe you should look up the difference between efficient and >effective yourself. An aircraft that gets shot down by air defenses >isn't as efficient nor as effective as an aircraft that can attack >without the enemy ever knowing it was ever there. > In exactly what situation would you want to do that with a nuclear payload (which is what the B-2 was designed to carry)? Why? Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 07:21:50 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: Mine Clearing > > What's that thing big rope you shoot across a mine field called? I don't > > remember if their was an infantry version or it was shot from a vehicle or > > device. > > > > Line charges. There was/is a plan to field a tracked vehicles that > launched FAE rockets into a minefield due to the fact many AT mines and > APERS mines are considerably shock hardened to resist the effect of line > charges (something that's designed to resist the blast/overpuressure of > what in many ways is a propane powered fission device tends to be more > difficult). > Other favorite engineers tools includes flamethrowers, satchel > charges, bangalore torpedos or using specialized armored vehicles that > can bridge over holes or blast apart fortifications. > I saw that in April the US Army is testing a Flail tank, and the German Army is testing a Bull dozer blade for their Dachs Pioneerpanzer in May. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 04:05:26 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 11:55 AM 5/14/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > > Maybe you should look up the difference between efficient and > >effective yourself. An aircraft that gets shot down by air defenses > >isn't as efficient nor as effective as an aircraft that can attack > >without the enemy ever knowing it was ever there. > > > In exactly what situation would you want to do that with a nuclear payload > (which is what the B-2 was designed to carry)? Why? > > Scott Orr > The only reason I can think of to want to be seen attacking is if you want to lose an aircraft. Even if you're delivering nuclear weapons, being shot down before delivering your weapons to the target seems like a bad idea. If the enemy doesn't know you're coming, it's a lot easier to drop bombs on target. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 04:09:37 -0500 From: "John H. Schneider II" Subject: Re: Alternative US Timeline Scott David Orr wrote: > > At 08:58 AM 5/14/99 -0500, John H. Schneider II wrote: > > > SDI was serious, it just wasn't accepted that way by the liberals who > >felt that the US would be better off under Soviet control. > > How did actual, as opposed to imaginary, people feel about it? > > Scott Orr > *************************************************************************** What, liberals don't exist? Where do you live anyway? Both liberals and conservatives are actual people. John II *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 18:04:56 +0100 From: "Mark OIiver" Subject: Re: Reagen, SDI etc. I've got to add that I think all this talk about Reagan, SDI and the true state of the Soviet Army (now and in the 80s) is getting a bit off topic. The joy of free phone calls to download e-mail hasn't arrived to the UK yet and for me to download a new batch of 30 messages (since yesterday) some of which equated liberalism (which appears to be anything to the left of Reganism) with communism is just a tad too much. I've got to admit that I do find some of it interesting but it has little to do with T2K and while I've got to use a phone line, as opposed to an office machine, to get my mail it's getting a bit silly. If someone would like to set up a new discussion group (or mailing list) about this I'd love to know the address and then I could dip in and out as I felt the urge. Anyway sorry to winge but spare a thought for those of us who don't get free local phone calls..... *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@mpgn.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #39 ************************************