Re: [SG2] weapons

--- "Imre A. Szabo" <ias@sprintmail.com> wrote:
> > (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...

Again, that's now, who knows how much cheaper ATGM's
will be in the future.... I suspect the price gap
between guided and unguided systems will narrow, not
widen. 

  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."

No arguements there.

> Therefor a protracted medium to low intensity
> conflict will tie down more of
> the enemy forces for a longer period of time. 

Have to disagree with you there.... from an offensive
POV, a quick, fast strike before the enemy can respond
is best.  And for that, the key will be superior
troops, superior equipment.

Yes, if you're the defender, you'll want to fight a
protracted, low-intensity conflict.  But how are you
going to deliver your EMP's for EVERY battle if I
control air and space?	And if you pop one before
EVERY guerilla raid, how long will it be before the
civilian population gets tired of your antics and
losing power, losing grandpa because your EMP fries
his pacemaker?	And how long will it be before the
occupier figures out, "Hmmm.... Emp goes off, Guerilla
attacks start up," and begins to use that intelligence
to his advantage?

> > 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.	

And again, AS I ALSO SAID ABOVE, your strategy is
pinning a lot of your hopes on some very questionable
assumptions.

The microwave
> radiation warheads are required
> to make the strategy work against PDS.  So they are
> used.

So you're basing your entire strategy on eliminating
my PDS so that you can wield RR's against me?  You'd
better hope I base MY entire strategy ON PDS.  But
you'll be wrong.  

> 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.

Again, we're talking about the future here, it's all
theoretical.  I believe you yourself said it was
arrogant to claim to know which side of the race will
bbe ahead.  But I find it netirely plausible that by
the time the game is set in, there will be electronics
capable of resiting damage from EMP.

> > 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.

In other words, you're assuming that in EVERY battle
that EVER takes place in the future, EMP WILL have
taken out ALL PDS?  Wow....  maybe you should post to
the discussion of weapons to be added/removed in DS3. 
I mean, why should we bother to have PDS?  After all,
according to you, they won't be a factor because
everyone will Pop EMP's before every battle.....

Or maybe you're just unwilling to admit that PDS will
be so effective against low velocity weapons because
you want to be argumentative, so you have to concoct a
scenario that eliminates them from the equation.

=====
"Teach a man to make fire, and he will be warm for a day.  Set a man on
fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life."   -- John A.
Hrastar

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/