Re: [SG2] weapons

> (Hmmm..... so in the future, the cost of a GMS will be
> exactly ten times that of an equally effective RR?
> I'd love to see how you came up with that figure.....)

An estimate...	Look at the price of a Milan 2, look at the price of an
RR
round...  You're right, I really can afford more RR's rounds...

> In other words, you're going to spend enough to deploy
> the EMP device(s), then SAVE by using RR's instead of
> GMS'?  Robbing Peter to pay Paul, are we?

Microwave radation warheads aren't themonuclear EMP warheads.  Robbing
Peter
to pay Paul?  Well of course!  I'm skimping on the defensive ground
troops,
but insuring that they have a enough ammo to conduct a protracted
resistance.  Otherwise I'd have to scale back the equipment and/or
numbers
of the offensive ground troops and/or reduce fleet size.  Not giving the
defensive ground troops enough ammo to conduct a protracted resistance
is
not an option.	If dig through the archives you should be able to find
the
discussion on orbital bombardment several months (a year?) ago.  My
strategy
is predicated on the assumption that high intensity resistance to an
invader
is simply placing a big sign that says "conduct orbital bombardment
here."
Therefor a protracted medium to low intensity conflict will tie down
more of
the enemy forces for a longer period of time.  This requires a
significant
amount of munitions to be stockpiled in advance to work.  Any factory
capable of build missiles will either be siezed rather quickly, or
destroyed
by orbial bombardment.	Trying to defend such a factory will simply pin
the
defensive ground troops down to a location so they can be destroyed
quickly,
quite possibly by orbital bombardment.

> You're assuming a lot, primarily that B will be
> successful in it's use of this strategy.  Furthermore,
> you've started with a particular weapon system you
> really really want to justify, and developed an entire
> set of strategies just to make it effective.	While
> this MIGHT work, IF all the dice gfo your way, it
> sounds a lot like letting the weapon dictate the
> strategy, instead of the other way around.

My strategy is listed above.  The microwave radiation warheads are
required
to make the strategy work against PDS.	So they are used.

> So you pitch a fit about the assumption that Tanks
> will advance more than RR's, but you're telling me
> that we will see no advances in shielding battlefield
> gear FROM EMP?  Mr. Pot, this is my friend, Mr.
> Kettle.

Sure there will be advances, but the question is which side will have
the
advantage.  Currently it very heavily weighted against the chips.  Why
don't
you check and see how many $100,000,000's have been spent every single
year
for more than one decade by the US goverment to develop EMP/Microwave
radiation resistant chips?  The material scientists swear that one day
they
might be able to get carbon based chips.  But if only a fraction of
these
resources were spent on Microwave radiation warheads, we would quite
probably already have them inservice.

> And you still haven't answered the question, IF the
> EMP DOESN'T take out the PDS/ADS, how will a low
> velocity weapon fare against them? (if you want to
> address LVC's and RR's separately, feel free.)

Not very likely.  See above comment.

ias