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.

Pastimes : Clown-Free Zone... sorry, no clowns allowed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (190977)	9/6/2002 7:05:29 PM
From: MythMan	Respond to of 436258

>>But, "there certainly won't be Hooters girls running up and down the aisles," Block said. "It's going to look like an airline. It's not going to look like a Hooters restaurant," he said.<< I ain't f*cking flying on it, then.

To: patron_anejo_por_favor who wrote (190977)	9/6/2002 9:34:06 PM
From: mishedlo	Respond to of 436258

US loses War with IRAQ Really, it happened in simulation. guardian.co.uk FRom WW on the FOOL in response to the above link I can vouch for the scripted and inane "simulations" played by the various branches of the military. I've been blessed to be involved in several of these computerized war games while I was in the Naval Reserves, and I can easily see that EVERYTHING that marine said is true. Entire fleets moved, enemy forces disappear or run away on cue, weapon systems created out of thin air, etc. There was very little that was realistic in terms of battle. However, in defense of the world's most powerful military, I must say the exercises normally test more than simple "who would win" type scenarios. 10 years ago I did an exercises in Japan where the Japanese mainland was invaded by "red" forces. I was working in the Flight Ops cell where I busily wrote the carrier flt plans and even did a little munitions planning. It turns out all our work (there were about 25 of us) just went right to the trash can since the entire "war" had been scripted (with Japanese approval) a year before! What they were actually doing was a)testing the computer system and b)coaxing the Japanese to start using these type of war game simulations. We were just filler to make things look legit. A couple years ago I did an exercise where the whole scenario was simply logistics. Getting all the trucks, parts, ammo and toilet paper from a depot in New York to Asia in the proper order and the right quantity given the limited lift capacity. The "bad guys" job was to sink or disable vessels, break aircraft, or mine harbors to mess up the works. It didn't matter who won, just how would the supply chain respond? Of course, boats moved 1000 miles in a day, airplanes disappeared, and typical snafus and divine intervention. But things were learned. Now, as for this exercise. Anytime you get a wily marine who knows the American battle plan inside and out, and he gets to do whatever he wants to defend his homeland, you are asking for trouble. There was no way the Americans would win in that set up. He obviously did not have to follow the Soviet military doctrine on which the Iraqi army is based, and got free use of suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots. Is all of the Iraqi army of such dedicated fervor? How many fanatical Cessna drivers can Iraq have? I'm certain the "blue" side would have tightened up the rules a lot more if they knew what was coming. You also have to remember that while the game simulates a lot of things, it does not simulate the actions of the ship captains who would undoubtedly be much more paranoid and less inhibited to set weapons free than the exercise controllers. So while I don't give much credit to this exercise, I hope it DID teach some people a few things, like complacency. Believe me, there will be nothing complacent about the people manning the front lines.