Gentlemen

[Mush Martin]

Just a quick survey for votes and comments.

Have We as gentle advanced enlightened beings
of a much more highly advanced nature
(Im choking on that)

Lets just go with.

Gentlemen & Ladies.
Have we seen Our last "global submarine conflict"
in history?

feel free to submit speculations and comments.
have a vote while your here.

[Mush Martin]

I voted yes because History repeats itself as it is a learning aid for
monkeys.
(look mummy the monkeys are funny!)

I am not one who beleives that we will never see another

An educated people in an advanced industrial democracy swayed to extremism by the persuasive powers of manufactured consent.

Can still happen in my opinion.
is their one among us who thinks that cant happen in this day and age.?

Just my opinion
MM

[TarJak]

I hate to say it but I think there are more wars to come and chances are at least one of them will be a more traditional nation v nation or coalition v coalition stoush, subs will therefore get involved, hopefully not with nuclear weapons, but almost certainly against shipping and commerce.

[zaunkonigII]

Oh yes, there will be sub wars in the future. I think a large portion of the future navies will be submarine, including carriers (think Sen Toku, only larger). We see a trend towards stealth in today's military tech - take the F-22 as an example.

[Mooncatt]

i also voted yes i think the modern submarines have so much more firepower these days they would be a valuable asset in future wars to come. not to mention they are nuclear capable well some of em are

[Biggles]

impossible to say, we don't know what the future has in store for us....but I voted no anyway....

[Brag]

Asimetric warfare is the emerging defense doctrine du jour. Wr have seen excellent examples of this recently in Lebanon and of course Iraq. Submarines are the "cheap" response to aircraft carriers. There are only a few countries capable of carrying out a global campaign against shipping. However, I do see the possibility of mine warfare on a global scale where submarines are used as layers.

Imagine this scenario: Dormant mines laid on the approaches to Norfolk to be activated at a later date by the sound signature of an aircraft carrier. This could be an unatributable attack. I also see the development of a torpedo-mine that will seek its target when activated. It will be interesting to see who else will develop the pulsating torpedo. (Iran has hinted that it has them).

We also have a situation for which there is no historical precedent. The U.S. is the predominant naval power. Except for a handful of tankers it has no merchant fleet. This is an abnormality that leads to interesting strategic scenarios.

We have plenty of reasons for conflict and countries are developing and buying quiet submarines. So I vote, yes. There is a threat of a global submarine campaign.

[CaptainAsh]

I don t think we will see it the way we saw it before.
But the oceans are deep. And for a mobile missile platform, depth is a good place to hide.

Merchant hunting? I don t think so... It s so much more efficient with plane or missile. Why should we hunt them?
But I m surprise we haven t saw any commercial sub actually. Large cargo going under water to avoid whatever can occur on surface...

[Captain Nemo]

Just a quick survey for votes and comments.

Have We as gentle advanced enlightened beings
of a much more highly advanced nature
(Im choking on that)

Lets just go with.

Gentlemen & Ladies.
Have we seen Our last "global submarine conflict"
in history?

feel free to submit speculations and comments.
have a vote while your here.

Mush Martin if you mean "global submarine conflict" as part of a world war, then hopefully yes we have seen our last global submarine conflict. But no doubt submarines will be used in smaller conflicts most probably to deliver cruise missiles. Remember, the only time a nuclear submarine has been used to sink another ship was during the Falklands war when HMS Conqueror sunk the Belgrano in 1982, a small conflict between two nations.

Nemo

[Mush Martin]

I meant global conflict as opposed to large or small continental conflicts.

Ps I love the story of HMS Conqueror. your appealling to my good side.

[f16falcon]

Lets hope not, but i think if there is it would take months rather than years due to technology, i dont think we will see a submarine war as in WW2....which has to be a good thing.

[Eagle Eye]

I sincerely hope there will never be another world conflict. But if there was submarines would play a major part. the U.S. and many European countries still possess excellent ASW capabilites and have extremely powerful and stealthy attack boats. They would be used to attack enemy combatant ships and submarines and eventually merchant shiping. They'd be used to conduct missle attacks on well defended shore instalations.
And new submarine classes like the Virginia class would be used to insert speacial operations teams and do intelligence gathering. Subsmarines are the second most powerful naval threat(excluding ballistic missle subs) after the Aircraft carrier. And it doenst need a dozen ships to defend it.

[Iron Budokan]

Yes, but the subs will be easily destroyed, especially in this day and age. Not to say the subs won't get in their licks first, but it won't last.

It's easy to kill subs. They're incredibly fragile. All you have to do is find 'em first. And in the immediate future, with the technology coming on line, that won't be such a difficult proposition.

[Mush Martin]

Yes, but the subs will be easily destroyed, especially in this day and age. Not to say the subs won't get in their licks first, but it won't last.

It's easy to kill subs. They're incredibly fragile. All you have to do is find 'em first. And in the immediate future, with the technology coming on line, that won't be such a difficult proposition.

Tehcnological evolution like most natural systems is reciprocal.

advantage to the other guy next year.

an evolutionary sharpening of the claws.

[Heibges]

Hyman Rickover said 40 years ago, that all the surface fleets would be wiped out in 3 to 4 days. That is truer today than it was then.

If there is a Global Submarine Conflict is will likely be between the United States, and the European Union.

[dcb]

I voted no because, given how lethal war technology is today, a global conflict would mean the end of civilisation. Period. And, besides that, any global conflict would end within hours now - just the time for nukes to reach their targets. The times of mobilising a country's army in two weeks and then waging a world war for some 4-5 years are over. Now countries have their armies already in place. Just give them the order and they react.
If a conflict becomes global, then global means also using the most lethal weapons, as well. And nobody - even politicians - would be that crazy to start something that will end into nukes. This was also the case at the peak of the cold war, and even then they were rational enough not to start the apocalypse.
Today's submarines are just means of intimidation and they will only be used - as they have already been - in local conflicts, with limited scope and traditional (non-nuke) weapons.
If anything global starts, then may God help us. The submarine boys would have no home to return to. Remember that great movie "On the beach"?

[Mush Martin]

I voted no because, given how lethal war technology is today, a global conflict would mean the end of civilisation. Period. And, besides that, any global conflict would end within hours now - just the time for nukes to reach their targets. The times of mobilising a country's army in two weeks and then waging a world war for some 4-5 years are over. Now countries have their armies already in place. Just give them the order and they react.
If a conflict becomes global, then global means also using the most lethal weapons, as well. And nobody - even politicians - would be that crazy to start something that will end into nukes. This was also the case at the peak of the cold war, and even then they were rational enough not to start the apocalypse.
Today's submarines are just means of intimidation and they will only be used - as they have already been - in local conflicts, with limited scope and traditional (non-nuke) weapons.
If anything global starts, then may God help us. The submarine boys would have no home to return to. Remember that great movie "On the beach"?

Actually the view that any global conflict will involve a total nuclear exchange is a little naive. whats the point of starting a war if you cant
win the prizes and what is a defence against the destruction of your nation destroying your nation. area denial is a valid tactic however when applied to homeland and population there is only so much even an irrational leader
will exchange, I realize spite happens but even in the least developed nuclear powers there are safeguards to prevent such an act of individual
spite. No there may be exchanges of varying types My bet is that the cookie goes to the guy that can develop the 12 kg conventional exploxive with a none radioactive yeild of say 1 kt and whoever controls the moon controls earth orbit and by implication and extension rules the earth.

but the only way I could see us destroying the entire thing is if we had
already lost to somebody other than us.

[Heibges]

Didn't Einstein say that he "didn't know how WWIII would be fought, but WWIV would be fought with sticks"?

[TarJak]

i agree that it is not likely to be the way we have seen it previously. Merchant shipping is much more easily and cheaply attacked by air than sub, that doesn't discount target of opportunity by any large scale campaign against merchant shipping will most likely be from the air.

Submarines have evolved two platforms, missle for offensive capability against land targets and hunter killers targeting the missle boats.

Just because Russia has little capability in either left from the cold war, doesn't mean that there are not other navies developing capabilities in both areas.

Will there be another global conflict? Given our previous history I can;t say that this is impossible and unfortunately I feel the next global conflict is likely to escalate on religious rather than purely nationalistic grounds.

I hope that we can avoid such a catastrophe, however as long as there is ignorance and arrogance in world leaders, there is likely to be conflict which could lead to wider consequnces than first imagined. Look at the incident which triggered WWI. A fairly unimportant member of a european royal family was shot and people from as far away as Australia and Japan became involved within weeks!

[dcb]

Actually the view that any global conflict will involve a total nuclear exchange is a little naive. whats the point of starting a war if you cant
win the prizes and what is a defence against the destruction of your nation destroying your nation.

Far from being naive, I find it very realistic. And this is precisely why there has been no global conflilct in the last 60 years. Otherwise, don't you think superpowers would have started it back in the '60s, at the peak of the cold war? Especially with the imense amount of hatred they developed against one another? And yes, this is also what Einstein said: "I don't know what WW3 will be fought with, but WW4 will certainly be fought with sticks and stones." (not certain about the exact phrasing, but this was the general idea)

[Mush Martin]

Dont misunderstand Im not saying it cant happen that way and I really didnt
mean to dis you its just that there are an awful lot of scenarios that dont
involve a strategic exchange.

Sorry
MM

[Jimbuna]

I voted no :D

[Boris]

I voted no, if only out of wishful thinking.

If there is a large scale conventional war in the future, ie WW3... then god help us

[codmander]

humans are explorers by nature we are not ant or bees- sorry to say if we dont find warp speed for space we are doomed to die and/or kill ourselfs:dead:

[Mush Martin]

humans are explorers by nature we are not ant or bees- sorry to say if we dont find warp speed for space we are doomed to die and/or kill ourselfs:dead:

Necessity is the mother of invention after 85% of the resources are gone
is when things will start to get interesting, I think that although we cant
see it from here, that we will make it in as much as dandelions make it.

MM