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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: combjelly who wrote (222725)	3/7/2005 10:17:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574412

China and a number of countries in the ME have MBTs. The Abrams is pretty tough and its hard for them to defeat it even if the training and tactics where equal (and they are not) but it can be defeated. But if you want much lighter tanks than just about everyone has weapons that can get through the armor. The advantage of the M1 (in addition to its mobility) is exactly that it is so hard to kill. The problem with a carrier group is they have all those ships to protect them that are no longer needed. Which is why they run $100 billion. The carrier is very expensive and has a lot of people on it. And it should be protected. Sending in carriers by themselves in a real war, even with the US's military advantage vs. the rest of the world would be dangerous. Subs are probably the worst enemy, but against at least China and Russia a massive air or missle attack could also be deadly. I think $100bil is to high of figure for a carrier battle group. They will normally have a few surface war ships. Sometimes they have subs but the subs probably operate better independantly and you have one or two suppy replenishment ships. The carrier including its aircraft probably accounts for 30 to 65% of the cost. "SAN DIEGO (NNS) -- More than 8,000 Pacific Fleet Sailors assigned to the USS Nimitz (CVN 68) Carrier Battle Group (CVBG), led by Commander, Cruiser Destroyer Group 5, Rear Adm. Samuel J. Locklear III, will deploy March 3 to the Arabian Gulf in support of the global war on terrorism. The aircraft carrier USS Nimitz (CVN 68), homeported in San Diego will deploy with the following battle group ships: USS Chosin (CG 65), USS Princeton (CG 59), USS Fitzgerald (DDG 62), USS Rodney M. Davis (FFG 60) and USS Bridge (AOE 10)." news.navy.mil Some groups are bigger than that but they don't have to be enormous. Tim

To: combjelly who wrote (222725)	3/7/2005 10:20:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1574412

Right. We normally fly in with out fighter protection. Nor do we use ECM. Of course we don't, but the B-52 is a pretty vulnerable target. It hasn't been in much danger against Iraq (who's airforce was either destroyed, buried, or ran away), or Afghanistan (who barely had an airforce) but their out countries with more capable airforces then these two. It is possible to get past fighter protection and ECM while very useful isn't 100%. Edit - Its nice to actually discuss the details of what might be cut rather then simply getting "The defense budget is too huge" with no specifics. Tim