Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

All threads that are locked or marked for deletion will be moved to this forum. The topics will be cleared from this archive on the 1st and 16th of each month.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by shiv »

Over the years I have heard, in various place, the media, on BRF and in person a number of "predictions", allegations and nonsensical questions which keep coming up over and over again. I just felt it might be a good idea to document them and collect them in one thread that can be updated from time to time. I will start with a list of things that I have heard, in no particular order.
  • 1. After WW 2 it was thought: All future wars will be by nuclear weapons delivered by long range,high altitude bombers
    2. Defence against bombers will be by high flying Mach 2 plus interceptors carrying missiles. The era of the aircraft gun is over
    3. If you can make a car you can make an aircraft
    4. There exist certain races called "martial races" who have some genetic ability to fight. (who reputedly were also are to rape and visit prostitutes with contracting syphilis)
    5. Why were 100 Indian army men deployed to catch 5 Pakistani infiltrators? This falls in the genre of "Why were 9000 police personnel employed to flush out 2 Boston bombers?" The point that is missed is that the security forces are not entering into some kind of joust where Sir Sipahi rides towards Sir Jihadi with a lance. The idea is to encircle, cut off escape routes, trap and kill,
    6. With modern guns bayonets are not needed. Why even have a bayonet attachment to a weapon?
    7. In an era of smart weapons dumb bombs are no longer needed
    8. You can simply remove one aircraft engine and replace it with a more powerful one, add on conformal tanks and get a much more potent aircraft easily. Only bureaucracy and corruption prevent that from happening
    9. The era of manned aircraft will soon be over. All wars will be fought by UCAVs
    10. The MiG 21 is a flying coffin and widow maker. Not true. The F 101 Voodoo and F-104 Starfighter were. Not the MiG 21.
Last edited by shiv on 28 Apr 2013 22:55, edited 1 time in total.
ArmenT
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 4239
Joined: 10 Sep 2007 05:57
Location: Loud, Proud, Ugly American

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by ArmenT »

Tanks are obsolete because anti-tank weapons are now too sophisticated -- This has been floating around since around 1925 and comes up roughly every decade or so (for instance, this article from 1933 in the Herald Journal)
member_22539
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2022
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by member_22539 »

^+1. Funny thing is that tanks have actually been taking part in fighting insurgencies as well, something that was totally unexpected after all this talk about tanks being too heavy and slow to matter in modern warfare.
Yogi_G
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 21 Nov 2008 04:10
Location: Punya Bhoomi -- Jambu Dweepam

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by Yogi_G »

1. Submarines alone will suffice, aircraft carriers are useless, after all the Chinese submarine surfaced close to US aircraft carrier and Russian aircraft flew over a carrier.
2. Chinese will be able to beat defeat India easily as they have more aircraft, submarines and men in their forces. Theater force strength, aircraft range and quality of course dont matter, only numbers matter.
3. Ruskie weapons are low quality and low tech while all western tech is simply better. Same extends to Indian weapons, they are always suspect.
vic
BRF Oldie
Posts: 2412
Joined: 19 May 2010 10:00

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by vic »

Re shiv

You really need to start a thread on your thought that India needs to rely on nuclear weapons for deterrence while making strong effort for indigenous defense production! Actually you put it better but I lost your post.
sudhan
BRFite
Posts: 1157
Joined: 01 Jul 2009 17:53
Location: Timbuktoo..

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by sudhan »

shiv wrote: 10. The MiG 21 is a flying coffin and widow maker. Not true. The F 101 Voodoo and F-14 Starfighter were. Not the MiG 21.
[/list]
Minor nitpick..I believe you meant F-104.. Not F-14
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by shiv »

sudhan wrote:
shiv wrote: 10. The MiG 21 is a flying coffin and widow maker. Not true. The F 101 Voodoo and F-14 Starfighter were. Not the MiG 21.
[/list]
Minor nitpick..I believe you meant F-104.. Not F-14
Corrected thanks. The F-14 incidentally had its own issues and there is a YouTube video where a carrier with F-14 is leaving for a tour and the captain says that its tough to leave knowing that at least one crew will not return. But yes the F-104 was a widowmaker.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by Sanku »

War is not possible between two countries armed with Nuclear weapons.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by SaiK »

^wrong.. the definition of war has changed from the formal ways to informal ways. so, it is still possible - information war, war against terrorism (pakism), sleeper cells, etc..

and what about incursions, chinese and paki short term invasion strategies, come deep inside, kill a few soldiers, and come back again to kill a two or more.. continue on keeping the border pressures, etc. i still term these are war components.
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by Sanku »

SaiK wrote:^wrong.. .
Yes, Saik-ji, that statement is wrong, that is why it is listed in the faked, failed and nonsensical assumptions list?
:-?
pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by pentaiah »

Wine is cheaper to make than War
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by Prem Kumar »

Love too
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by Prem Kumar »

A couple more Shiv:

1) The era of bombers are over because of PGMs and the arrival of multi-role aircraft that can undertake A2G missions

2) # of boots on ground doesnt matter because the Airforce is supreme and 1 bomb can kill 100 soldiers

3) Future Indo-Pak or Indo-Pak-Cheen wars will be short affairs because Unkils, Aunties and cousins will step in to stop it. Plus they will be localized affairs (sub-conventional is the new sweet word) because of the nuclear backdrop (another sweet word)
RamaY
BRF Oldie
Posts: 17249
Joined: 10 Aug 2006 21:11
Location: http://bharata-bhuti.blogspot.com/

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by RamaY »

My 2cents

1. War is destructive and cannot/will not help achieve national vision/objective goals
2. Peace must be achieved at any cost (don't know why this cost doesn't include war)
3. It will take 10132.11818 nukes to destroy Pakistan completely and 123543.14 nukes to destroy China. So let us not have any nukes
4. PoK, Aksai-chin, Arunachal Pradesh terrain is very difficult to militarily hold so let us give them to Pakistan and China
member_20317
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3167
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by member_20317 »

1) A rose in a gun barrel is a symbol of peace
2) India had TNW, India lied about TNW success, India has no TNW, India will not need to test, 25 KT used 12 times is same as 1 MT used once, etc. etc.
3) India can fight Pakis and hold Chinese in a two front war. Basically anything said without a confidence limit attached to it esp. when there is no downside to be had except an all too cheap, loss of face.
4) Economic exchange will save one from the need for going to war.
5) Guidance systems for area weapons are very expensive.
6) You fight the chinese in the mountains after they have made their first move. You fight the chinese in the mountains and not the mountains before you have reached the chinese. Himalayas are meant to be used to protect ourselves from chinese and they are cannot be used as a bottle cap to keep the Indian jiinee in.

This is a great thread. No need to put any reason in. Just pointers. :)
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by shiv »

Another myth is that the military must not give an inch. Unfortunately the military often has to give more than an inch in one area so that they can (hopefully) take a yard in some other area. Warfare does not allow the certainty of rhetoric that demands that not an inch must be ceded.

Sometimes all soldiers in an area simply get killed or driven back under a withering attack and the area gets run over. This is one aspect of reality that armchair generals and top class rhetoricians will not learn.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by shiv »

Another myth for which there is no proof is that India can make 1000 or more nuclear bombs. This is unlikely IMO. As far as I know India is sitting on a pile of un-reprocessed Plutonium, which, if reprocessed could produce a lot of bombs. If I am not mistaken, India abides by international agreements not to reprocess that fuel. I have no idea whether the number 1000 is possible or not, so the chances of India getting thousands of nukes is a myth as things stand.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by shiv »

Yet another myth is that if you lose more aircraft than an adversary in the early stages of war, you are losing the war. In reality heavy attrition is to be expected if you are fighting anyone other than Al Qaeda or Taliban. The reason is that when aircraft are sent in to attack over enemy territory (given that the enemy has similar technology and power as India) a fairly significant number may get hit while enemy defences and air bases are taken out. If that is achieved, losses later in the war will slow down.

India may have fuel reserves for a month of "hot war" like the 1971 war. At a stretch, India might make it 2 months. But not longer.

In the 16 days of the 1971 war, India lost 74 aircraft, Assuming that early losses are high and late losses are lower, then we can make a guesstimate that India might lose 50 aircraft in a month of hot war. In 3-4 months 25% or more of our air force will be wiped out. India does not have the ability to produce 50 replacement aircraft a month - so a prolonged hot war is out of the question. Some conclusion will have to be reached before then.

Better to use nukes if things get desperate. Also better to start now and develop the ability to produce 50 aircraft a month f need be.
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by Prem Kumar »

For the sanity of this thread, I think we need to keep the "nuclear myths" out of it - on either side of the debate.

We need to keep the discussion sub-conventional, against a nuclear backdrop :P
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12066
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by Vayutuvan »

shiv wrote:If I am not mistaken, India abides by international agreements not to reprocess that fuel. I have no idea whether the number 1000 is possible or not, so the chances of India getting thousands of nukes is a myth as things stand.
This may be a dumb question but how long does it take - weeks, months or years - to reprocess the fuel to weapons grade?
Prem Kumar
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4218
Joined: 31 Mar 2009 00:10

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by Prem Kumar »

There are also counter-myths. Take Stealth: the myth is that if your opponent has it, you might as well roll over and play dead.

The counter-myth is that - because one air-defense commander somehow managed to shoot down a solitary F-117 in Kosovo, stealth is useless. Low frequency radar will make stealth redundant. So, up yours Unkil
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by TSJones »

Russia and China build better jet fighters than the US.

The US clearly does not understand mission requirments in building short stubby air craft.

India may be tricked into buying US short stubby aircraft.

Chickens fly by better than US short stubby aircraft.

Chickens taste better than US short stubby aircraft.

US stole stealth idea from Russia where a visiting professor from India invented the idea of short stubby aircraft in order to make US spend too much money.

Ten thousand years ago India built stealth short stubby aircraft but dropped production because they knew it did not meet mission requrements.

The US does not have enough fiat money to build stealth short stubby aircraft.

US couch potatoes forget to breathe when they pilot short stubby aircraft.

The Chinese refuse to steal or copy design plans for US stealth short stubby aircraft thus proving Russian planes are better.

Indian Russian stealth airplanes will be better than Chinese Russian stealth airpplanes because Russia will not sell the the coolest stealth ideas to China.

The Chinese do not know how to steal and copy Russian stealth airplanes designs.

The US will give stealth stubby airplanes to Pakistan thus giving Pakistan air superiority over India and its Russian stealth airplanes.
Rudradev
BRF Oldie
Posts: 4226
Joined: 06 Apr 2003 12:31

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by Rudradev »

Desert Storm proved that the US is capable of winning wars once again.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by ramana »

Mujehddin = Freedom fighters

Actually they are Islamofascist terrorshits.
negi
BRF Oldie
Posts: 13112
Joined: 27 Jul 2006 17:51
Location: Ban se dar nahin lagta , chootiyon se lagta hai .

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by negi »

Biggest fake/nonsensical war/military assumption is NFU.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by SaiK »

okay sankutom ji.. i gotcha-ed into this thread now.

anti terror war is anti-islam war
secularism will keep us safe from real war
war is always military knowledge area
corruption can lead us away from war
india's tolerance threshold for war is high
we can easily take two-front war
ignore economy, infrastructure and focus military preparedness will lead us away from war

.. lot of fake or false positive assumptions..
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by shiv »

matrimc wrote:
shiv wrote:If I am not mistaken, India abides by international agreements not to reprocess that fuel. I have no idea whether the number 1000 is possible or not, so the chances of India getting thousands of nukes is a myth as things stand.
This may be a dumb question but how long does it take - weeks, months or years - to reprocess the fuel to weapons grade?
I think the figure is in years to reprocess large quantities.
PratikDas
BRFite
Posts: 1927
Joined: 06 Feb 2009 07:46
Contact:

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by PratikDas »

Rudradev wrote:Desert Storm proved that the US is capable of winning wars once again.
:rotfl:
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by SaiK »

There are no safe havens for terrorists!? why? -> pakistan
Vayutuvan
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12066
Joined: 20 Jun 2011 04:36

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by Vayutuvan »

shiv wrote:
matrimc wrote: This may be a dumb question but how long does it take - weeks, months or years - to reprocess the fuel to weapons grade?
I think the figure is in years to reprocess large quantities.
Thanks. That essentially shatters "India getting thousands of nukes" myth.
SaiK
BRF Oldie
Posts: 36424
Joined: 29 Oct 2003 12:31
Location: NowHere

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by SaiK »

the myth is invalid if you consider the years starting from yesterday.
Kersi D
BRFite
Posts: 1444
Joined: 20 Sep 2000 11:31

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by Kersi D »

SaiK wrote:There are no safe havens for terrorists!? why? -> pakistan

Why ? Indian prisons is, or at least was, a very safe for all terrorists.
ramana
Forum Moderator
Posts: 59773
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by ramana »

Sorry to say but KS Garu's observation that "conventional wars have become redundant in modern era."
pentaiah
BRFite
Posts: 1671
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by pentaiah »

US supplies Arms and Money to foster democracy in Pakistan and to protect against facist Hindustan

US and India are natural allies and US will make India super power
Sanku
BRF Oldie
Posts: 12526
Joined: 23 Aug 2007 15:57
Location: Naaahhhh

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by Sanku »

ramana wrote:Sorry to say but KS Garu's observation that "conventional wars have become redundant in modern era."
Yea!!! I beat Ramana garu to this one.
Sanku wrote:War is not possible between two countries armed with Nuclear weapons.
Manish_Sharma
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5128
Joined: 07 Sep 2009 16:17

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by Manish_Sharma »

Is it a myth or true that spent fuel coming out of submarine's/aircraft-carrier's reactor is ready to be used as a n-warhead?
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by shiv »

Sanku wrote:
ramana wrote:Sorry to say but KS Garu's observation that "conventional wars have become redundant in modern era."
Yea!!! I beat Ramana garu to this one.
Sanku wrote:War is not possible between two countries armed with Nuclear weapons.
IIRC this was not a KS original, even if he said it. He was probably merely repeating something that had been (wrongly) assumed would be true in the post WW 2 era
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by shiv »

Another myth:

"When you kill soldiers of an opposing army, they learn a lesson and will be scared in future"
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by shiv »

Manish_Sharma wrote:Is it a myth or true that spent fuel coming out of submarine's/aircraft-carrier's reactor is ready to be used as a n-warhead?
Probably not.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: Fake, failed and nonsensical military/war assumptions

Post by TSJones »

To produce a sustained chain reaction rather than a nuclear explosion, a reactor must not pack its fissionable atoms too closely together. They are therefore mixed with less-fissionable atoms that do not sustain the chain reaction. For example, in a reactor utilizing 235 U as its primary fuel, only 3 percent of the fuel is actually 235 U; the rest is mostly 238 U, a much less fissionable isotope of uranium. The higher the ratio of active fuel atoms to inert atoms in a given fuel mix, the more "enriched" the fuel is said to be; commercial nuclear power plant fuel is enriched only 3 to 5 percent 235 U, and so cannot explode. For a fission bomb, 90 percent enrichment would be typical (although bombs could be made with less-enriched uranium). Naval nuclear reactors, discussed further below, have used fuels enriched to between 20 and 93 percent.

Reactor byproducts. The neutron flow inside a reactor bombards, and by bombarding changes, the nuclei of many atoms in the reactor. The longer a unit of nuclear fuel remains in a reactor, therefore, the more altered nuclei it contains. Most of the new atoms formed are radioactive nuclides such as cesium-144 or ruthenium-106; a significant number are, if 238 U is present, isotopes of plutonium, mostly 239 Pu. (Absorption of one neutron by a 238 U nucleus turns it into a 239 Pu nucleus; absorption of one, two, or three neutrons by a 239 Pu nucleus turns it into a 240 Pu, 241 Pu, or 242 Pu nucleus.) Plutonium is found in nature only in trace amounts, but is present in all spent nuclear fuel containing 238 U. If it is extracted for use as a reactor fuel or a bomb material, it is considered a useful by-product of the nuclear reactor; otherwise, it is a waste product. In either case, plutonium is highly toxic and radioactive, and remains so for tens of thousands of years unless it is further transmuted by particle bombardment, as in a particle accelerator, reactor, or nuclear explosion. Reactors specially designed to turn otherwise inert 238 U into 239 Pu by neutron bombardment are termed fast breeder reactors, and can produce more nuclear fuel than they consume; however, all nuclear reactors, whether designed to "breed" or not, produce plutonium.

This fact has a basic military consequence: Every nation that possesses a nuclear power plant produces plutonium, which can be used to build atomic bombs. Plutonium sufficiently pure to be used in a bomb is termed bomb-grade or weapons-grade plutonium, and the process of extracting plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel is termed reprocessing. (The alloy used in sophisticated nuclear weapons is nearly pure plutonium, but the U.S. Department of Energy has estimated that an unwieldy bomb could be made with material that is only 15 to 25 percent plutonium, with less-unwieldy bombs being possible with more-enriched alloys.) Every nation that possesses a nuclear reactor and reprocessing capability thus possesses most of what it needs to build nuclear weapons. Several nations, including India and Pakistan, have in fact built nuclear weapons using plutonium reprocessed from "peaceful" nuclear-reactor programs. A large (100 MW electric) nuclear power plant produces enough plutonium for several dozen bombs a year.

Besides producing plutonium that can, and sometimes is, extracted to produce nuclear weapons, every nuclear reactor has the feature that if bombed, its radioactive contents could be released into the environment, greatly amplifying the destructive effects of a wartime or terrorist attack. Nuclear reactors thus have a two-edged aspect: as producers, potentially, of weapons for use against an enemy, and as weapons, if attacked, for an enemy.

Naval nuclear reactors. The primary military use of nuclear reactors, apart from the production of material for nuclear weapons, is the propulsion of naval vessels. Nuclear power sources enable naval vessels to remain at sea for long periods without refueling; modern replacement cores for aircraft carriers are designed to last at least 50 years without refueling, while those for submarines are designed to last 30 to 40 years. In the case of submarines, nuclear power also makes it possible to remain submerged for months at a time without having to surface for oxygen. Furthermore, reactors have the general design advantage of high power density, that is, they provide high power output while consuming relatively little shipboard space. A large nuclear-powered vessel may be propelled by more than one reactor; the U.S. aircraft carrier USS Enterprise , launched in 1960, is powered by eight reactors. Britain, France, China, and Russia (formerly the Soviet Union) have also built nuclear-powered submarines and other vessels.

Although the design details of the nuclear reactors used on submarines and aircraft carriers are secret, they are known to differ in several ways from the large land-based reactors typically used for generating electricity. The primary difference is that in order to achieve high power density, naval reactors use more-highly-enriched fuel. Older designs used uranium enriched to at least 93 percent 235 U; later Western reactors have used uranium enriched to only 20 to 25 percent, while Russian reactors have used fuels enriched to up to 45 percent. Small quantities of ex-Soviet submarine fuel have appeared on the global black market; larger quantities could be used as a bomb material.

Read more: http://www.faqs.org/espionage/Nt-Pa/Nuc ... z2S1Cfrftk

*Warning* I have not vetted this source.

More Info about this author:
http://www.larrygilman.net/
Post Reply