Gentlemen

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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"?

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]

Originally Posted by Mush Martin

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

[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

[Mush Martin]

Originally Posted by 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

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