[JustPlaneNuttz]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

You'd have to go for a ballistic missile submarine in this contest, they pack a big wallop yet are difficult to locate and destroy.

Yes, I have to agree. As much as I like the daring exploits of aircraft tactics, etc, a pack of nuclear subs seem to be able to have it all. With satellites for eyes, bad guys -- look out -- you're toast!

[Hoverbug]

Originally Posted by JustPlaneNuttz

Yes, I have to agree. As much as I like the daring exploits of aircraft tactics, etc, a pack of nuclear subs seem to be able to have it all. With satellites for eyes, bad guys -- look out -- you're toast!

If the SSBNs start firing, we're all toast!

[JustPlaneNuttz]

Originally Posted by Hoverbug

If the SSBNs start firing, we're all toast!

And so ends the conflict. Regrettably -- a MAD solution.

[admin]

Originally Posted by Cavtanker

Admin, he also votes in favor of the laser.

Sharks with Frickin' Lasers on Their Heads

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by Aircrafty

You'd have to go for a ballistic missile submarine in this contest, they pack a big wallop yet are difficult to locate and destroy.

I would say a ballistic missile sub is of very limited effectiveness. You cannot use it (as armed) in a conventional conflict. Even if it was used with conventionally tipped ballistic missiles, launching those missiles could be mistaken for a nuclear launch, with the attendant consequences.

[admin]

Originally Posted by Rush104

I would say a ballistic missile sub is of very limited effectiveness. You cannot use it (as armed) in a conventional conflict. Even if it was used with conventionally tipped ballistic missiles, launching those missiles could be mistaken for a nuclear launch, with the attendant consequences.

My only problem with the nomination of the ballistic missile sub is, unlike the other nominees, that it's never been proven effective in combat. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that it works, but I think that anything that's not combat proven just has potential to be effective. At least that's how I qualify effectiveness.

[timbo]

Originally Posted by admin

My only problem with the nomination of the ballistic missile sub is, unlike the other nominees, that it's never been proven effective in combat. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that it works, but I think that anything that's not combat proven just has potential to be effective. At least that's how I qualify effectiveness.

It's not really designed for use in combat - it's designed to prevent combat by scaring the begesus out to the opposition. I have to say I think it did a stunning job in that respect and relay has to be given my vote. No other weapons system had stopped people going to war.

[smartd]

Other than Shawn, who posted the qualities of the individual airman, soldier, seaman, no other posting has convinced me that the nuclear carrier is not the system I want.
airplanes...fighters, bombers, stealth recon, anti sub, helo,..... got 'em
Marines/sailors/airmen and individual equipment...... got 'em, .....about 6.000 of 'em
Can I kill your sub?..... probably
Can I project force inland..... yes
Can I take a small air force, small army and naval force just about anywhere in the world,.... yup
Can I take out your strategic weapons yep
Can I make you pay if you screw with me... yes

Can you take me out, yes, but I will ruin your day.

[Rush104]

Originally Posted by timbo

It's not really designed for use in combat - it's designed to prevent combat by scaring the begesus out to the opposition. I have to say I think it did a stunning job in that respect and relay has to be given my vote. No other weapons system had stopped people going to war.

Well, there's been a few instances where carrier battle groups steaming off the coast has deterred some potential conflicts...

[timbo]

Originally Posted by Rush104

Well, there's been a few instances where carrier battle groups steaming off the coast has deterred some potential conflicts...

OK I should have said "consistently stopped the BIG one!" - There is no doubt in my mind that if we did not have the deterrent then WW3 would have happened some time in the last 50 years.

Having 50 carrier battle groups could not have done that, and one well placed missile will sure give your group a bad day and their ain't a lot you can do about it!