| FORUM | ARCHIVE |                    | TOTAL QUIZ RESULT |


  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Most effective elements of Modern Warfare
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Welcome stranger, click here to read about some of the great benefits of registering for a free account with us and joining us in our global online community.


Most effective elements of Modern Warfare

 Post Reply Post Reply
Poll Question: Most effective modern military weapon besides Nukes
Poll Choice Votes Poll Statistics
1 [14.29%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
0 [0.00%]
2 [28.57%]
0 [0.00%]
2 [28.57%]
0 [0.00%]
1 [14.29%]
1 [14.29%]
You can not vote in this poll

Author
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: Most effective elements of Modern Warfare
    Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 05:08
What is your Choice? For me, it is Spies/Spy Sattelites. The country that knows things about its' enemy such as movements, strength, and moral has a huge advantage with a powerful intelligence network. I state this because I fully agree withSun Tzu's Disposition towards Spies

In the Past Intelligence networks did a lot to benefit their mother countries (Russia obtaining secrets of the atom bomb thus evening the balance).

Intelligence Networks have also worked a lot to the detriment of foreign countries like the Contras in Nicaragua.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein
Back to Top
Sponsored Links


Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest Group
Guest Group
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 05:16
Boots on the ground actually get the job done and are the real means through which a nation achieves power projection. The others are largely support roles.
Back to Top
Darius of Parsa View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 03 Oct 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 848
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Darius of Parsa Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 05:28
 
Certainly it depends on the nation at hand. Each nation has its own military doctrine and geopolitical objectives.
 
At the moment however the world is Americentric, and the country's very existence and stature owes itself to its navy. For that reason, Surface Ships get my vote.
 
"I am moved to pity, when I think of the brevity of human life, seeing that of all this host of men not one will still be alive in a hundred years time."

Emporer Xerxes I looking upon his army 480 BC
Back to Top
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 05:43
For America this is true and I agree. The Aircraft Carriers are one of the most powerful weapons in the United State-s's arsenal, whenever there is any conflict anywhere; you can be sure that a flat-top is in the area or on the way. Teddy Roosevelt's old saying about speaking softly and carrying a big stick is relevant today because the Aircraft Carrier is the big stick as of now.

Maybe this thread could have been written a little better being less broad and instead focusing on single countries on the basis like what Darius said "Each nation has its own military doctrine and geopolitical objectives."

Still I like the opinions so far.

Oh and I forgot NO NUKES lol I mean Nukes aren't a choice!


Edited by SPQR - 08 Apr 2011 at 05:48
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 11:31
I find I can't answer this because it's a bit like that old children's game where rocks break scissors, scissors beat paper, and paper wraps rocks. The best configuration is the one that best matches the situation and is most effective against the enemy's configuration.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 15:19
In warfare if you ain't got ground control you ain't got diddly! Or have the lessons of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention the present embarrasment in Lybia (with the maxim "no boots on the ground"), not sunken in yet?
 
All technical weaponry does is establish huge swaths of "no man's land" and frankly such has never brought any conflict to conclusion.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 19:08
Didn't take ground control to take out Hiroshima. Or to blockade Napoleonic Europe.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 20:24
Come now Gcle you know the former is now a dubious "last resort" and the latter did not directly cause Leipzig. I am not going to argue against the utility of different scales of weaponry, but are you not just maintaining a new version of "Bomber Harris" thinking?
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 21:55
There exists no doubt in my mind that Cruise Missiles/Smart Weapons/Drones, have had the greatest difference in modern warfare than anything else. And the second or third generation weapons in this catagory are at least twice as accurate and reliable than those weapons exhibited during "Shock and Awe."
Back to Top
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 21:57
If you look at it from a historical perspective; I guess Infantry are the most effective. From the 1st wars to today, Infantry have always been there.
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein
Back to Top
lirelou View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 26 Mar 2009
Location: Tampa, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 1346
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote lirelou Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08 Apr 2011 at 22:04
GCLE: in re:  "Didn't take ground control to take out Hiroshima. Or to blockade Napoleonic Europe."

Yes, but in both cases, ground campaigns were in the offing. It took ground forces to occupy Japan, thereby assuring its transition to a non-threatening power, and ground forces to send Nappy into exile, and defeat his bid for a renewed Napoleonic age.

The title of this thread is somewhat confusing. Perhaps we should be talking about 'systems', and in such a case, the great majority of these systems are but components of a nation's war-making capacity. Frankly, I don't see the poll as either terribly sophisticated or of any analytical use.
Phong trần mài một lưỡi gươm, Những loài giá áo túi cơm sá gì
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Apr 2011 at 10:00
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Come now Gcle you know the former is now a dubious "last resort" and the latter did not directly cause Leipzig. I am not going to argue against the utility of different scales of weaponry, but are you not just maintaining a new version of "Bomber Harris" thinking?
 
John Jervis thinking. "I do not know if they will come, I only know they will not come by sea."
 
You don't only win wars by occupying the enemy's territory. You win defensive wars by forcing the enemy to give up his objectives. You win offensive wars by forcing the enemy to allow you to gain your objectives. Consider, e.g., the Opium Wars in the mid-19th century.  
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 Apr 2011 at 17:45
I say spy satellites as they can read newspapers with them.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Apr 2011 at 16:10
Well, that should give them a totally misleading idea of what is going on Approve
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
pinguin View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2006
Status: Offline
Points: 15238
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote pinguin Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Apr 2011 at 16:51
More effective for what kind of war? I would say figther airplanes are the most effective to imposse conditions in conventional wars. Aircraft carriers are just platform to support that weapon, but the fighters are the main advantage.
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Apr 2011 at 17:15
Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Come now Gcle you know the former is now a dubious "last resort" and the latter did not directly cause Leipzig. I am not going to argue against the utility of different scales of weaponry, but are you not just maintaining a new version of "Bomber Harris" thinking?
 
John Jervis thinking. "I do not know if they will come, I only know they will not come by sea."
 
You don't only win wars by occupying the enemy's territory. You win defensive wars by forcing the enemy to give up his objectives. You win offensive wars by forcing the enemy to allow you to gain your objectives. Consider, e.g., the Opium Wars in the mid-19th century.  
 
Ah, but you forget that the theme is specific weaponry and not the "extension of diplomacy by other means". If the simple reason for war is to force the "enemy" to give up his objectives, then why is Mass Media agitprop absent from the list of "effective elements"? True, your observation added the modifier "defensive" and in that respect perhaps a certain "Q" should take heart specially since his opponents have ruled out the "offensive".
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Joe View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 473
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Joe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Apr 2011 at 17:27
Originally posted by pinguin pinguin wrote:

More effective for what kind of war? I would say figther airplanes are the most effective to imposse conditions in conventional wars. Aircraft carriers are just platform to support that weapon, but the fighters are the main advantage.

Yeah they can do a lot of damage from the sky but an effective guerrilla insurgency like the Afghanistan or the vietnam war proves this always isn't advantageous. I have yet to hear of the Taliban shooting down a F22 raptor but their still around and "always gaining ground" somehow.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 Apr 2011 at 19:31
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Originally posted by gcle2003 gcle2003 wrote:

Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Come now Gcle you know the former is now a dubious "last resort" and the latter did not directly cause Leipzig. I am not going to argue against the utility of different scales of weaponry, but are you not just maintaining a new version of "Bomber Harris" thinking?
 
John Jervis thinking. "I do not know if they will come, I only know they will not come by sea."
 
You don't only win wars by occupying the enemy's territory. You win defensive wars by forcing the enemy to give up his objectives. You win offensive wars by forcing the enemy to allow you to gain your objectives. Consider, e.g., the Opium Wars in the mid-19th century.  
 
Ah, but you forget that the theme is specific weaponry and not the "extension of diplomacy by other means". If the simple reason for war is to force the "enemy" to give up his objectives, then why is Mass Media agitprop absent from the list of "effective elements"? True, your observation added the modifier "defensive" and in that respect perhaps a certain "Q" should take heart specially since his opponents have ruled out the "offensive".
I take your point, but as a matter of interest I thought I'd run down what Clausewitz actually said, since there's apparently some confusion, and got this
Quote
"Wir behaupten dagegen, der Krieg ist nichts als eine Fortsetzung des politischen Verkehrs mit Einmischung anderer Mittel. "

Sechstes Kapitel: B. Der Krieg ist ein Instrument der Politik
http://gutenberg.spiegel.de/clausewz/krieg/buch08.htm
or "We assert on the other hand that war is nothing but a continuation of political trafficking through the inclusion of other means."
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 2011 at 00:14
Actually, as far as I know the F-22 has yet to see any action what-so-ever!

Edited by opuslola - 11 Apr 2011 at 00:15
Back to Top
drgonzaga View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Plus Ultra

Joined: 01 Oct 2005
Status: Offline
Points: 6262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote drgonzaga Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 2011 at 03:51
Well, Gcle, my paraphrase while invoking Von Clausewitz and his contention derived from On War (1833) was more in line with the word play delivered by Zhou En-lai to the Saturday Evening Post in 1957--"All diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means".
 
As for translating Verkhers as "trafficking" I would not be so sure since this noun also means contact, communication or intercourse. Hence politischen Verkhers is better translated as "political intercourse" ergo diplomacy. The key the "s"...Verkher as traffic has no plural. Of course, the "trafficking" bit does fit in better with the dark view on the Prussian mindset. Nevertheless to save the old nobleman I much prefer to translate the conclusion as "the continuation of political intercourse by the involvement of other means".


Edited by drgonzaga - 11 Apr 2011 at 20:21
Honi soit qui mal y pense
Back to Top
Captain Vancouver View Drop Down
Council Member
Council Member
Avatar

Joined: 29 Sep 2010
Location: Vancouver Isle
Status: Offline
Points: 2160
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Captain Vancouver Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 2011 at 04:22
One thing we can be sure of when gloating over technology is that things will change, and the change may be (and often has been) abrupt.
 
Battleships were a symbol of authority until they were eclipsed by aircraft at Pearl Harbour, Taranto, and Malaya. A couple of years made a big difference.
 
Today, aircraft carriers reign supreme, but mainly because they have been used, in latter years, predominently against third world countries. Technology is again suggesting a change, with the silicon chip trumping hardware.
 
What was splendid yesterday may soon be tomorrow's museum piece.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
WorldHistoria Master
WorldHistoria Master
Avatar
PM Honorary Member

Joined: 06 Dec 2004
Location: Luxembourg
Status: Offline
Points: 13262
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 11 Apr 2011 at 11:44
Originally posted by drgonzaga drgonzaga wrote:

Well, Gcle, my paraphrase while invoking Von Clausewitz and his contention derived from On War (1833) was more in line with the word play delivered by Zhou En-lai to the Saturday Evening Post in 1957--"All diplomacy is the continuation of war by other means".
I agree various people have improved the soundbite quality of the thought. That's one reason I thought I'd find the original.
Quote  
As for translating Verkhers as "trafficking" I would not be so sure since this noun also means contact, communication or intercourse. Hence politischen Verkhers is better translated as "political intercourse" ergo diplomacy. The key the "s"...Verkher as traffic has no plural.
The 's' in 'des ... Verkehrs' marks the genitive case: "continuation of...". You need it watever the translation.
Quote
Of course, the "trafficking" bit does fit in better with the dark view on the Prussian mindset. Nevertless to save the old nobleman I much prefer to translate the conclusion as "the continuation of political intercourse by the involvement of other means".
Actually I thought of 'intercourse' first off, but it's a word I'm somewhat leary of, having once for a term actually taught teenagers in grammar school. Smile
 
Moreover, yes, 'trafficking' struck me as expressing the disdain for politics of a Prussian aristocrat.
Citizen of Ankh-Morpork.

Never believe anything until it has been officially denied - Sir Humphrey Appleby, 1984.

Back to Top
SPQR View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 31 Oct 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 917
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SPQR Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2011 at 01:31
Originally posted by opuslola opuslola wrote:

Actually, as far as I know the F-22 has yet to see any action what-so-ever!


Opuslola is correct, the F-22 is still going thru testing and as of last year it should be mission ready.

source:

F-22 near perfect

A funny thing an Australian pilot said about the F-22

"The thing denies your ability to put a weapons system on it, even when I see it through the canopy. It's the most frustrated I've ever been."


Edited by SPQR - 12 Apr 2011 at 01:33
Nationalism is an infantile disease. It is the measles of mankind.

- Albert Einstein
Back to Top
opuslola View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 22 Feb 2011
Location: MS, USA
Status: Offline
Points: 1009
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote opuslola Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 12 Apr 2011 at 23:05
SPQR, interestingly, it seems that modern warfare need "modern" children to understand it.
Back to Top
GeranHulmaster View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 01 Oct 2011
Location: Manila
Status: Offline
Points: 18
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote GeranHulmaster Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Oct 2011 at 03:50
medieval to modern warfare's most effective element..... is the common soldier :D

seriously, with all the technologies used to hunt bin laden, boots on the ground still did the job.
It is a useless life that is not consecrated to a great ideal. It is like a stone wasted on the field without becoming a part of any edifice.

-Jose Rizal, Philippine National Hero
Back to Top
Panther View Drop Down
Moderator
Moderator
Avatar
Editorial Staff

Joined: 20 Jan 2006
Location: Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 4577
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Panther Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 02 Oct 2011 at 21:09
Seeing that there is a "all of the above" option, i went with "other". Not really a weapon but an idea for the successful implementation of "combined forces" as the most effective military element of modern warfare.

Edited by Panther - 02 Oct 2011 at 21:10
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.109 seconds.