Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (21142)	3/11/2002 11:46:46 AM
From: tekboy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Keller needs a good editor. don't we all... The whole transformation issue, to an uninformed layman like me, is simply a reflection of the world's increasing complexity. that, plus the fact that there is indeed a dramatic change underway in how wars are fought--parallel to the changes underway in how businesses operate, one might say, that we're familiar with as tech investors. Defense policy is where the rubber meets the road: given a complex, murky, environment, multiple global responsibilities, and the information and tech revolution, just how much and what kinds of military capability should we buy? fascinating question, actually. The aircraft carrier issue is an interesting one. They are proving to be valuable in conflicts such as the one in Afghanistan. Will we not lose one or two of them if we use them in an Iraqi conflict? I can't imagine that even the most sophisticated Aegis vessel can protect a carrier from all threats. Navy wargames always end with the carriers surviving even full-scale wars. Everybody else tends to think they'd be toast in a really major conflict, but very useful in other scenarios. How one factors all that into the equation is anybody's guess... tb@willsupportwhoevergivesmejunkets.com

To: carranza2 who wrote (21142)	3/11/2002 4:14:58 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The aircraft carrier issue is an interesting one. They are proving to be valuable in conflicts such as the one in Afghanistan. Will we not lose one or two of them if we use them in an Iraqi conflict? I can't imagine that even the most sophisticated Aegis vessel can protect a carrier from all threats. Assuming that nukes aren't involved one of the things that they would be most vulnerable to is probably submarines. A huge wave of cruise missiles could also be devastating but usually carriers can operate from outside the range of many cruise missiles, and those that do have the range would have to get past fighters, then Aegis missiles, then Phalanx cannons and electronic countermeasures. Plus the carriers size and compartmentalization would require multiple hits before a carrier would go down. I don't think Iraq would have what it takes to take down a carrier. We used a bunch of them against Iraq before, and our military abilities are greater now, while Iraq's are not as good. If we used them to try to attack China from the sea then maybe they would be in danger, but I doubt Iraq could seriously threaten our carriers. Of course if your using nukes its a lot easier. Carriers would be very vunerable to tac nukes. Also if you know a carrier is going to pass through a particular area you could plant mines to try to damage it, prevent its movement, or even sink it. Tim