twilight2000-digest Monday, July 26 1999 Volume 1999 : Number 054 The following topics are covered in this digest: RE: China Anyone? Re: Sundry Radio thoughts Re: China Anyone? Re: Sundry Radio thoughts Re: China Anyone? [Long] RE: China Anyone? Re: China Anyone? [Long] Re: China Anyone? Re: China Anyone? Re: China Anyone? Re: China Anyone? [Long] Re: China Anyone? Re: China Anyone? Re: China Anyone? [Long] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:21:06 -0500 From: "Garcia, Abel" Subject: RE: China Anyone? > ---------- > From: Scott Orr > > Snake Eyes wrote: > > Hey, instead of howling at each other over American politics, > anybody wanna > > speculate wildly about the rapidly devolving situation in the > Strait of Formosa? > > I smell an old fashioned shootin' war against a (finally) worthy > adversary. > > Discuss. > What's to discuss? China flatly lacks the capability to invade > Taiwan--they don't have the amphibious assets. China does have the ability to threaten. Such a feint would tie up one or two of our carrier groups. > ---------- > From: Peter Vieth > > Zek101@aol.com wrote: > > well accually china and north korea have the ability and the will > to destroy > > the us army and marine corp on the korean pennissula. us forces > would arrive > > one unit at a time and would be cut to peices tring to hold the > line and > > today's american youth are cowards and would roit rather than > flock to the > > recrute depots. then with american millitary deffeated in the > pacific rim of > > fire american would drift into anarchy and fiinally a secound > revoultion > > between liberals and conservitives. i for one have been an active > duty > > paratrooper for the last 7 years and i know that most of my guys > in my rifle > > squad are hear for the college money not to deffend old glory > hey are you related to monkeyboy in any way? Formosa is not korea, but Taiwan Is Zek101's geography that far off? What if Kim decides to move south this winter because a couple of our carrier groups are tied up off the coast of a newly independent Taiwan? Do not think that the American forces already in Korea could stop such an invasion. We are not there to slow an advance of northern communists; a more likely reason is to stop the south from "unifying the north" by force. Zek101's comments about how our forces would trickle in also has merit. Sounds like he has experienced first hand our lack transport. Witness how difficult it was for us to get men and material, first to Bosnia and then to Kosovo. Do not believe that all the trouble of getting Apache Helicopters to the Baltic states had to do with NATO red tape. The current administration has stripped our ability to deploy with any reasonable speed. Believe it or not the current administration has placed greater emphasis on using rail to move men and material within our own boarders, and with the current state of the railroads -due to rail mergers- it takes weeks to go from Chicago to Houston: S-L-O-W! Abel *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:34:37 -0400 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Sundry Radio thoughts - ----- Original Message ----- From: Damian Robinson To: Sent: Sunday, July 25, 1999 11:49 PM Subject: Re: Sundry Radio thoughts > Chuck Mandus wrote: > > > I know in Australia, you do have VHF TV channels in that ranges too, > > usless they were phased out, so I guess you have to watch there too. > > Well we can get one TV station on our VHF radio's, but its right up in > the 84 mHz range (IIRC), and we normally seem to work in the middle of > the bands anyway. Besides, we need to listen to the news out bush, and > its one way to hear the soaps as well! :-{> Radios that get TV audio are nice to have. My Pro-2004 gets all U.S. VHF TV channels from 2 to 13. I have a Bearcat BC-101 which can go up to 184 Mc so I can get channel 9 out of Steubenville Ohio on it because it is an older scanner where you can program outside the frequency coverage of the scanner. Basically, you have to program it by throwing the 16 front panel switches up or down in a binary code (like an old computer) in which you have to plug the desired frequency into a formula and do some number crunching. It was made in 1974. Alas, it's down now, got to look for the reason why. I love that scanner, one of the first programmable ones, the bad thing is that you don't have any frequency display so you have to make sure you are right. I think the 84 Mc range is pretty close to you channel 3 down there. I have a 1989 World Radio and TV Handbook and you have a Channel 0 and a Channel 1 down there that was supposed to be phased out at a later date. I don't know if they ever did, maybe you would know. > And I doubt that our little Max 5w radio's are not going to dent the > commercial stations transmission either! I guess if you are close to somebody who uses an antenna to watch TV, you might interefere a little. It depends if your signal is withing a megacycle or 2 of the picture carrier, interfering with the picture, or 50 or 100 kc of the audio carrier, interfering with the same. If you're further away than that but still in the assigned bandwidth of the signal, there would be only moderate or minimal interference. > I don't think so. The Latest radio is all digital display, and I think > it just picks up the transmission and tells you that the other net has > traffic of some sort or another. Then you have to change over to the > other net manually, and talk away. Its good if you have to monitor > several nets, but only have a limited number of radio's. Even digital display radios, notably the amateur VHF/UHF radios do use PL tones to "open up" repeaters who have them turned on. Some radios too you can set up if you are in the group, they only respond to the groups signals. My HT could be set up to open the squelch if I turn the PL tone receive on as well if I desire. Some SELCAL radios possible could send a digital burst to accomplish the same thing. Most of my hard core technical books on radio come from the 1920's to the 1970's but I have a few from the 1980's too. B-) > (Typical army thinking, you've got to monitor 5 nets, and you've only > got 3 radio's!. Lucky one guy there was a Ham operator, and had a > scanner there. We used that to listen to the less used nets, and the > army radio's for the nets we talked on all the time.) I guess that's why some say "military intelligence" is an oxymoron. B-) Heck, if I was in the field for any Army (or even ham radio) duty, I'd pack a scanner if I can just for that purpose to monitor them in case if something is happening and they need to contact somebody. Chuck DE KA3WRW - --- "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:39:58 EDT From: Zek101@aol.com Subject: Re: China Anyone? thank you abe, keep the faith brother *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 18:40:21 -0400 From: "Chuck Mandus" Subject: Re: Sundry Radio thoughts - ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter Vieth To: Sent: Monday, July 26, 1999 1:18 AM Subject: Re: Sundry Radio thoughts > Does anyone know of any sites that have more basic information than this? I > used to build short waves radios and stuff like six years ago just for fun, > but I never learned anything past the electronics, and this thread is getting > harder and harder to understand :) Here is one link I know of offhand. Look under the series of articles called "Wanna Tinker?" It is a site devoted to ham radio but in those articles there should be some general information on radios. The series just concluded on how to build a 40 meter ham radio receiver (7100 - 7500 kc). Here is the link: http://hamradio-online.com/ If I find any more, I'll post them. Chuck DE KA3WRW - --- "Truly those of us with brain cells are an oppressed minority..." - -- Jason Fox said after the Young Indiana Jones Chronicles had been cancelled. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 17:01:02 -0700 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: China Anyone? [Long] At 02:52 PM 7/24/99 -0400, Scott Orr wrote: >What's to discuss? China flatly lacks the capability to invade >Taiwan--they don't have the amphibious assets. What's to discuss is the fact that the Red Chinese have a navy and an air force, and as far as amphibious assets, all last week they were congregating their merchant marine vessels in what has been construed by more than one analyst/talking head as an obvious "preparation" for maneuvers. Perhaps you missed it with all the hype in the American news media over JFK Jr.'s, plane crash. It certainly wasn't page one news. I'm clearly no expert in such matters, but the way I see it, the Red Chinese don't even *need* traditional amphibious assault assets a la the USMC. If they can establish an effective naval blockade and maintain even a remote semblance of regional air superiority, they can sail their "Marines" in on the fucking Love Boat. Even if that is too outlandish a scenario, any attempt by the Chinese at any action that even looks like an "invasion" or "blockade" would seriously tie up whatever forces the US still has in the region. The Chinese don't even really have to *try* to invade Taiwan -- they could stir up plenty of trouble just by giving the *appearance* of intent. And if anyone still thinks the Chinese military can't feed the US a giant shit sandwich over this, a lot of you might be in for a rude awakening. No slight against those currently serving, but the US Navy & Air Force simply aren't what they were under Reagan. Hell, if we almost ran out of cruise missiles in Kosovo, I'd hate to see what happens against an adversary that might actually shoot back. I'm not predicting that actual events would (or even *could*) unfold this way; rather, I'm asking in a hypothetical sense about a conflict over Taiwanese independence leading down a slippery slope to a Twilight-esque conflict. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I just don't think the next major (or even global) war will flare up over US/European/Russian security issues. It'll be in Korea or the Spratly Islands -- or some other asinine move pulled by Red China as it crumbles in upon itself early in the next millennium. Add to that the tension over the Belgrade embassy bombing (the only target in the entire conflict that the CIA actually hand-picked), the nuclear lab espionage scandal, the DNC campaign finance scandal, the recent disclosure of the Pentagon's stealthy increase in military ties to Taipei, long-standing regional treaty obligations, and the propensity for Chinese saber-rattling and, and I think there's still plenty to discuss, even if it's only for the sake of expanding upon the fictional background of a role-playing game. ~ Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:41:09 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: RE: China Anyone? At 05:21 PM 7/26/99 -0500, Garcia, Abel wrote: >> ---------- >> From: Scott Orr >> What's to discuss? China flatly lacks the capability to invade >> Taiwan--they don't have the amphibious assets. >China does have the ability to threaten. Such a feint would tie up one or >two of our carrier groups. > You can't credibly threaten to do something you don't have the ability to do. China simply doesn't have enough amphibious craft to mount an invasion of such a large place as Taiwan. (And were we to think something China did threatening, we would not need _two_ carrier groups--they don't have a big navy). >Is Zek101's geography that far off? What if Kim decides to move south this >winter because a couple of our carrier groups are tied up off the coast of a >newly independent Taiwan? Do not think that the American forces already in >Korea could stop such an invasion. I think this scenario is far-fetched, but yes, it would overstretch the U.S. >We are not there to slow an advance of >northern communists; a more likely reason is to stop the south from >"unifying the north" by force. I really can't see that happening--WHY would they do it? I mean, they're going to have problems enough integrating North Korea whenever reunification happens (peacefully), without adding the difficult of an invasion and armed occupation to that. > >Zek101's comments about how our forces would trickle in also has merit. >Sounds like he has experienced first hand our lack transport. While I think the U.S. should have more transport capabilities, the U.S. has the best transport capabilities of any country in the world, _by_orders_of_magnitude_. Therefore, referring to a "lack" is somewhat misleading. >Witness how >difficult it was for us to get men and material, first to Bosnia and then to >Kosovo. No, we had no big trouble getting men and equipment into Bosnia. The trouble in Kosovo was _not_ a lack of transport capability on our part, but rather 1) the poor road net in Albania (esp. from the coast to the northeast, which is very mountainous and isolated from the rest of the country) and 2) the fact that none of the other countries that neighbored Kosovo was willing to act as a launching point for an invasion. >Do not believe that all the trouble of getting Apache Helicopters >to the Baltic states had to do with NATO red tape. I think the problem was getting support vehicles into place (possibly again a problem with the road net), but I don't remember exactly. However, we're talking about a _small_ unit here, and moving it didn't even begin to tax our air transport capabilities; it really didn't affect our sea transport capaibilities at all. >The current >administration has stripped our ability to deploy with any reasonable speed. No, I don't think it has. The U.S. military has undergone a lot of cuts (which began, of course, in the Bush Administration, and which had bipartisan support), but I don't think transport was one of the thing that took big cuts (and anyway, the combat forces were cut, so there's less to carry now...). >Believe it or not the current administration has placed greater emphasis on >using rail to move men and material within our own boarders, and with the >current state of the railroads -due to rail mergers- it takes weeks to go >from Chicago to Houston: S-L-O-W! Huh? This is news to me. Rail is by far the cheapest and quickest way to move heavy equipment over land, and this is the way we've _always_ moved it. The only other option is driving it down the road, which is much more expensive, and usually slower, not to mention tearing up the highways. Air transport is _not_ an option for moving stuff over land--air transport is something you use only in emergencies, because it's _phenomenally_ expensive. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:02:21 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China Anyone? [Long] At 05:01 PM 7/26/99 -0700, Snake Eyes wrote: >At 02:52 PM 7/24/99 -0400, Scott Orr wrote: > >>What's to discuss? China flatly lacks the capability to invade >>Taiwan--they don't have the amphibious assets. > >What's to discuss is the fact that the Red Chinese have a navy and an air >force... They have a small coastal navy--that is, a navy which can't really threaten land targets, but rather only protect its own waters (they've been looking to increase power projection capability, for example by buying a carrier, but they haven't gotten very far yet in this respect). They have a reasonably powerful air force, which could easily reach Taiwan (though they have only a handful of naval bombers that can carry anti-ship weapons). The Chinese air force has I think about 3,500 planes, but something like 3,000 of those are very obsolete (that is, MiG-19 or MiG-21 derivatives), and while Taiwan has only a few hundred aircraft, they're much more modern; in addition, Taiwanese pilots get a LOT more training than Chinese pilots do. In any case, being able to bomb Taiwan doesn't give them the capability to move across the Strait and take it. >...and as far as amphibious assets, all last week they were >congregating their merchant marine vessels in what has been construed by >more than one analyst/talking head as an obvious "preparation" for >maneuvers. Perhaps you missed it with all the hype in the American news >media over JFK Jr.'s, plane crash. It certainly wasn't page one news. > They're obviously rattling their sabers, but merchant ships are NOT amphibious transports--they are NOT suitable for assaulting a defended beach--they're only usable in a port, which you have to capture first (unless you build a "Mulberry Harbor" the way the Allies did off Normandy--and that's something WAY beyond the Chinese' capabilities). >I'm clearly no expert in such matters, but the way I see it, the Red >Chinese don't even *need* traditional amphibious assault assets a la the >USMC. If they can establish an effective naval blockade and maintain even >a remote semblance of regional air superiority, they can sail their >"Marines" in on the fucking Love Boat. > No, you have to capture a place to land them first--the reason you use amphibious transports is that they can land troops 1) in almost any spot where there's a beach and 2) _quickly_, so that they can't be chopped up in small packets as each packet comes ashore. Note that in EVERY amphibious invasion in WWII, the Allies had both "an effective naval bloackade and...regional air superiority," and yet it was _still_ a techical feat to pull off these invasions. >Even if that is too outlandish a scenario, any attempt by the Chinese at >any action that even looks like an "invasion" or "blockade" would seriously >tie up whatever forces the US still has in the region. The Chinese don't >even really have to *try* to invade Taiwan -- they could stir up plenty of >trouble just by giving the *appearance* of intent. That's certainly true--but what would China gain by doing this? What might China lose by doing this? >And if anyone still thinks the Chinese military can't feed the US a giant >shit sandwich over this, a lot of you might be in for a rude awakening. No >slight against those currently serving, but the US Navy & Air Force simply >aren't what they were under Reagan. Hell, if we almost ran out of cruise >missiles in Kosovo, I'd hate to see what happens against an adversary that >might actually shoot back. > I think you should check out the stats on both the U.S. and Chinese forces and perhaps reassess the above opinion. >I'm not predicting that actual events would (or even *could*) unfold this >way; rather, I'm asking in a hypothetical sense about a conflict over >Taiwanese independence leading down a slippery slope to a Twilight-esque >conflict. Sorry if I didn't make that clear. I just don't think the next >major (or even global) war will flare up over US/European/Russian security >issues. It'll be in Korea or the Spratly Islands -- or some other asinine >move pulled by Red China as it crumbles in upon itself early in the next >millennium. Korea or theSpratleys I could see, but not an actual invasion of Taiwan. (BTW, using the term "Red China" likely will lead some people not to take you seriously--the term isn't really used anymore, esp. by the people, including military people, who worry about what happens there. >Add to that the tension over the Belgrade embassy bombing (the only target >in the entire conflict that the CIA actually hand-picked), the nuclear lab >espionage scandal, the DNC campaign finance scandal, the recent disclosure >of the Pentagon's stealthy increase in military ties to Taipei, >long-standing regional treaty obligations, and the propensity for Chinese >saber-rattling and, and I think there's still plenty to discuss, even if >it's only for the sake of expanding upon the fictional background of a >role-playing game. > Well, I think there's plenty to discuss--I just don't think an invasion of Taiwan is one of the possibilities. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:15:38 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: China Anyone? Subject: RE: China Anyone? > At 05:21 PM 7/26/99 -0500, Garcia, Abel wrote: > >> ---------- > >> From: Scott Orr > > >> What's to discuss? China flatly lacks the capability to invade > >> Taiwan--they don't have the amphibious assets. > > >China does have the ability to threaten. Such a feint would tie up one or > >two of our carrier groups. > > > You can't credibly threaten to do something you don't have the ability to > do. China simply doesn't have enough amphibious craft to mount an invasion > of such a large place as Taiwan. (And were we to think something China did > threatening, we would not need _two_ carrier groups--they don't have a big > navy). > The geography is perfect to keep a CVBG at bay, or even two. Considering they would be within strike range of the Chinese ,mainland. But the Chinese would lose tons of hard to replace hardware against the Taiwanese, they have lots of stuff but are slow manufacturers by comparison. That kind of operation goes against there basic strategic principles, they can't overwhelm the target do to lack of mission specific craft. Plus why tangle with a cat and mouse operation against the US Navy unless they KNEW we would be slow to respond. Besides where would the rest of the Pacific Rim sit with this? > >Is Zek101's geography that far off? What if Kim decides to move south this > >winter because a couple of our carrier groups are tied up off the coast of a > >newly independent Taiwan? Do not think that the American forces already in > >Korea could stop such an invasion. > > I think this scenario is far-fetched, but yes, it would overstretch the U.S. Maybe Scott or someone else knows better than me, but isn't the real objective to take the South intact? They'll have to prep better for that than just catch US with our back turned. > > >We are not there to slow an advance of > >northern communists; a more likely reason is to stop the south from > >"unifying the north" by force. > > I really can't see that happening--WHY would they do it? I mean, they're > going to have problems enough integrating North Korea whenever > reunification happens (peacefully), without adding the difficult of an > invasion and armed occupation to that. Agreed what nation has the resources these days to occupy a resisting industrialized foe. > > > >Zek101's comments about how our forces would trickle in also has merit. > >Sounds like he has experienced first hand our lack transport. > > While I think the U.S. should have more transport capabilities, the U.S. > has the best transport capabilities of any country in the world, > _by_orders_of_magnitude_. Therefore, referring to a "lack" is somewhat > misleading. > Agreed the US can move more quicker than anyone on the planet. But considering the logistics required these days to keep a large number modern machines running it still isn't enough for a major confrontation like we're discussing. > >Do not believe that all the trouble of getting Apache Helicopters > >to the Baltic states had to do with NATO red tape. > > I think the problem was getting support vehicles into place (possibly again > a problem with the road net), but I don't remember exactly. However, we're > talking about a _small_ unit here, and moving it didn't even begin to tax > our air transport capabilities; it really didn't affect our sea transport > capaibilities at all. > Plus those very expensive machines needed a secure base, which took to weeks to get ready. > >The current > >administration has stripped our ability to deploy with any reasonable speed. > > No, I don't think it has. The U.S. military has undergone a lot of cuts > (which began, of course, in the Bush Administration, and which had > bipartisan support), but I don't think transport was one of the thing that > took big cuts (and anyway, the combat forces were cut, so there's less to > carry now...). > As one who's living it, to include Bush's first wave of pot cold war stand down into the raping of US combat effectiveness is terribly unfair. Agreed we had too much old stuff around which padded the numbers. All Bush had actually had done was start seperating the chafe. We would have undergone more cuts of some magnitude but not this stripping of support services we've endured. We can't repair what we got nor train the people to operate it. > >Believe it or not the current administration has placed greater emphasis on > >using rail to move men and material within our own boarders, and with the > >current state of the railroads -due to rail mergers- it takes weeks to go > >from Chicago to Houston: S-L-O-W! > > Huh? This is news to me. Rail is by far the cheapest and quickest way to > move heavy equipment over land, and this is the way we've _always_ moved > it. The only other option is driving it down the road, which is much more > expensive, and usually slower, not to mention tearing up the highways. Air > transport is _not_ an option for moving stuff over land--air transport is > something you use only in emergencies, because it's _phenomenally_ expensive. Agreed we've always used rail. It's just with fewre units every time some thing happens it has to pack up and go instead using what might have been in the past a closer unit. And for the Gentlemen in a previous post that doesn't think that the US of A (or atleast the Navy) can't go head to head at this waking moment with anyone on the planet you are saaaaaaaaaaadly mistaken and the insinuation without substanative defence most assuredly is upsetting. I'll take my group of gangbangers and illiterates with all my expensive toys and software trouble against that mess the other guys got anyday. Loonz *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 21:44:29 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China Anyone? At 09:15 PM 7/26/99 -0400, Dwight Looney wrote: > >Maybe Scott or someone else knows better than me, but isn't the real >objective to take the South intact? They'll have to prep better for that >than just catch US with our back turned. > Well, North Korea isn't entirely rational (by our standards) sometimes. They might want to take it--in any condition (which is, BTW, what they tried the first time--that attempt did a lot of damage, though not as much as a modern full-scale war would), for ideological reasons, or because they thought that they had to take it in order to remove the only real threat (in their minds) to their own regime in the North. >> No, I don't think it has. The U.S. military has undergone a lot of cuts >> (which began, of course, in the Bush Administration, and which had >> bipartisan support), but I don't think transport was one of the thing that >> took big cuts (and anyway, the combat forces were cut, so there's less to >> carry now...). > >As one who's living it, to include Bush's first wave of pot cold war stand >down into the raping of US combat effectiveness is terribly unfair. Agreed >we had too much old stuff around which padded the numbers. All Bush had >actually had done was start seperating the chafe. We would have undergone >more cuts of some magnitude but not this stripping of support services we've >endured. We can't repair what we got nor train the people to operate it. But I think it should be stressed that Republicans and Democrats both have done this--and they did it because most people in the country didn't believe we needed forces as big as the one's we'd had. Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 22:23:15 -0400 From: "Dwight Looney" Subject: Re: China Anyone? Subject: Re: China Anyone? > >As one who's living it, to include Bush's first wave of pot cold war stand > >down into the raping of US combat effectiveness is terribly unfair. Agreed > >we had too much old stuff around which padded the numbers. All Bush had > >actually had done was start seperating the chafe. We would have undergone > >more cuts of some magnitude but not this stripping of support services we've > >endured. We can't repair what we got nor train the people to operate it. > > But I think it should be stressed that Republicans and Democrats both have > done this--and they did it because most people in the country didn't > believe we needed forces as big as the one's we'd had. The point being, not how much was cut, but rather what got cut. Since Bush lost we'll never see what he would have cut or how much but monetarily I guess it would be similar. But he had only begun cutting the first units of obsolete equipment, he would granted had undoubtedly gone on to modern units. But had not gone past planning. As far as the Navy is concerned that is STILL going on. Units are being retired by the weapon system they carry. 5' 54" got retired, along with steam and older rail launchers. Then the CGN's and there 26 rail systems. The last two to go had the 13 rails "one arm bandits". Eventually it will be the Non-VLS Spru-Cans with thier TAS and Sea Chicken systems, then the FFG's and their 13 rails and 93 FC systems. Leaving only AEGIS the Big Gators and the CVN's and their support ships. I don't include the older Gators because their lack of a Combat System suite makes them real cheap thus they have been slower to go away. But the current administration cut into areas like training HARD, and spare parts HARD, and repair facilities HARD. If not for the fortunate DOD hiccup as we got ready to slam the Iraqis again it may have continued. It is getting better now but it had been allowed to go so low. Loonz *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:52:26 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: China Anyone? [Long] > No, you have to capture a place to land them first--the reason you use > amphibious transports is that they can land troops 1) in almost any spot > where there's a beach and 2) _quickly_, so that they can't be chopped up in > small packets as each packet comes ashore. Note that in EVERY amphibious > invasion in WWII, the Allies had both "an effective naval bloackade > and...regional air superiority," and yet it was _still_ a techical feat to > pull off these invasions. Yep you have to agree with this one. If not check your history books and look up the ANZAC cove landing between the Brits, Aussies and NewZealanders. > That's certainly true--but what would China gain by doing this? What might > China lose by doing this? Production would be the biggest thing China stands to gain from a conflict especially one with Taiwan. War is the easiest way for countries to pick themselves out of a economic slump especially if it's not being fought on your home soil but close to it. > >And if anyone still thinks the Chinese military can't feed the US a giant > >shit sandwich over this, a lot of you might be in for a rude awakening. No > >slight against those currently serving, but the US Navy & Air Force simply > >aren't what they were under Reagan. Hell, if we almost ran out of cruise > >missiles in Kosovo, I'd hate to see what happens against an adversary that > >might actually shoot back. Well according to a reasonabely reputable magazine on these sorts of subjects in April of this year after the firing of cruise missiles against Iraq etc the US is facing a shortage of them. Also due to a move of a factory that produces the triggers for nukes in the US they also face a shortage in supply for these as well. This would put the US on the back foot for a number of scenarios. This due mainly to the time factor in logistics which I think was mentioned earlier. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 10:55:30 +0800 From: "Ballistix" Subject: Re: China Anyone? > Well, North Korea isn't entirely rational (by our standards) sometimes. > They might want to take it--in any condition (which is, BTW, what they > tried the first time--that attempt did a lot of damage, though not as much > as a modern full-scale war would), for ideological reasons, or because they > thought that they had to take it in order to remove the only real threat > (in their minds) to their own regime in the North. The current bad spells in the climate could trigger an attack. This was shown the last time the North had bad crops etc. There was a large amount of tension floating around then with both sides saying the other was encroaching on their land. It's the old you've got what we want syndrome, it isn't always rational. Ballistix *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 20:18:49 -0700 From: Snake Eyes Subject: Re: China Anyone? At 09:15 PM 7/26/99 -0400, Loonz wrote: >And for the Gentlemen in a previous post that doesn't think that the US of A >(or atleast the Navy) can't go head to head at this waking moment with >anyone on the planet you are saaaaaaaaaaadly mistaken and the insinuation >without substanative defence most assuredly is upsetting. >I'll take my group of gangbangers and illiterates with all my expensive toys >and software trouble against that mess the other guys got anyday. Well, Loonz, I certainly meant not to offend -- and I wasn't looking to pick a fight. I'm quite sure our "gangbangers & illiterates" are still the best forces on land, in the air, or afloat anywhere, and I pity sorely the fool(s) that take us on. I just hope that if & when it comes down to the wire, everybody is prepared to accept the fact that it might not be quite the fish-in-a-barrel turkey shoot we've become accustomed to fighting. Thanks to our 24-7 media cycle, general lack of attention span, and the formidable Pentagon spin machine, the American public has grown to expect all conflict to be quickly resolved with bloodless, Nintendo-style, remote-control, no-ground-troop combat. Any of you currently serving *have* to know that's utter crap. War is ugly and meant to be avoided at all costs, but sometimes armed conflict is necessary and that's why we prepare relentlessly. Sure, Desert Storm was a comparative cake walk. And, yes, so far the Balkan theater hasn't been too brutal on us. Sooner or later, our luck will run out and there will be actual measurable casualties -- all our high tech toys notwithstanding. Not to pick at scabs, but does anybody remember what just one Iraqi Exocet did to the Stark? How about the Rangers in Somalia? Those SEALs at the airfield in Panama? Grenada? I freely admit I can't speak intelligently about current US naval preparedness other than what I read in "Proceedings," and lately that's not much. However, I've got a couple college buddies who are now active-duty armor commanders in the Army, and they have both independently advised me that if the North Koreans get uppity, we'll have our asses handed to us in real short order. I believe the term one used to describe our forces in Korea was "speed bump." They tell me that unit morale generally sucks and the quality of discipline and basic soldiering they see in their subordinates is worse now than it ever was in the 70's. I have no choice but to take their word for it. Sorry for stepping on toes. ~ Snake Eyes *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 26 Jul 1999 23:29:59 -0400 From: Scott David Orr Subject: Re: China Anyone? [Long] At 10:52 AM 7/27/99 +0800, Ballistix wrote: >> No, you have to capture a place to land them first--the reason you use >> amphibious transports is that they can land troops 1) in almost any spot >> where there's a beach and 2) _quickly_, so that they can't be chopped up >in >> small packets as each packet comes ashore. Note that in EVERY amphibious >> invasion in WWII, the Allies had both "an effective naval bloackade >> and...regional air superiority," and yet it was _still_ a techical feat to >> pull off these invasions. > >Yep you have to agree with this one. If not check your history books and >look >up the ANZAC cove landing between the Brits, Aussies and NewZealanders. > >> That's certainly true--but what would China gain by doing this? What >might >> China lose by doing this? > >Production would be the biggest thing China stands to gain from a conflict >especially one with Taiwan. War is the easiest way for countries to pick >themselves out of a economic slump especially if it's not being fought on >your home soil but close to it. Well, not exactly: war is a way to increase demand, but economically it's about the same as buying cotton candy; that is, it's pure consumption, with little or no useful expenditure on investment. Thus, the only real economic function it can serve is pulling a country out of a recession (and even there, there are better ways to do it--though in some circumtsances war has been more politically acceptable, as when conservatives in the U.S. were more willing to back a war than that had been FDR's somewhat socialist attempts to increase demand). In economist langauge, this is a "Keynesian stimulus"--also known as deficit spending. In the long run (that is, in a continuing war), a war destroys the economy: eventually what you're doing, once the economy has recovered from the lack of demand, a war (because it's pure consumption, rather htan investment) steals money from productive investment, and thereby tears the economy slowly apart, as needed investments aren't made and equipment deteriorates. It should of course be pointed out that at the moment, China isn't in a recession--were it in a recession, war would be more useful, I think, to distract the populace than to help the economy. But I can't see China being willing to endure the costs of fighting a major war over Taiwan, if the war didn't help China reach important strategic objectives: it would _hurt_ the economy by destroying trade relations; it would impair China's ability to reach other strategic goals (by destroying its diplomatic standing); and a lost war (and any war that didn't result in the capture of Taiwan would be lost) would be a big domestic political blow for the government. Therefore, I can't see China starting a war over Taiwan unless it has a real chance to win, and at present it doesn't have a real chance to win, so I can't see it starting a war. >Well according to a reasonabely reputable magazine on these sorts of >subjects in April of this year after the firing of cruise missiles >against Iraq etc the US is facing a shortage of them. You don't need cruise missiles to defend a sea lane (the anti-ship Tomahawk is a slightly different weapon, and somewhat outdated anyway)--they're useful only for bombarding land targets, and if you're willing to use actual planes instead (that is, to risk pilots), you don't even really need the Tomahawks (they're nice, but they're not critical). >Also due to a move of a factory that produces the >triggers for nukes in the US they also face a shortage in supply for these >as well. That makes no difference whatsoever, since the U.S. has more than enough nukes to blow up the entire world all by itself (and no, that's not an exaggeration). This would be a problem if it continued for years (which I'm sure it won't). [Snip.] Scott Orr *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe twilight2000' as the body of the message. ------------------------------ End of twilight2000-digest V1999 #54 ************************************ To subscribe to Twilight2000-Digest, send the command: subscribe twilight2000-digest in the body of a message to "majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com". If you want to subscribe something other than the account the mail is coming from, such as a local redistribution list, then append that address to the "subscribe" command; for example, to subscribe "local-twlight2000": subscribe twlight2000-digest local-twilight2000@your.domain.net A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "twilight2000-digest" in the commands above with "twilight2000".