What wars would YOU have fought in?

[Sabine Grant]

Well, i spent the first Gulf War in an air-conditioned space, watching computer lights blink as they regularly checked the range from us to certain interesting locations in the evil empire. there was a certain risk to my life, what with the whole sub being a ship designed to sink, but there was the same exact risk during periods of peace.
So, Hell, i'd fight in any war if i could be in MCC, 4000 nautical miles from the bad guys.

MCC = Missile Combat Crew?

Missile Control Center.

I could never be in a sub. I've never really been closterfobic, but when thinking about being in a sub I get closterfobic feelings.

I suspect Keith was referring to Trident subs (SSBN) or Ohio Class boats. The internal structure is quite spacious.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Personally, I'd rather judge from the couch.

Vietnam. The lottery kept me out from the draft.

Umm... you could have enlisted voluntarily.

I generally had the idea of "risk your life".

Well, i spent the first Gulf War in an air-conditioned space, watching computer lights blink as they regularly checked the range from us to certain interesting locations in the evil empire. there was a certain risk to my life, what with the whole sub being a ship designed to sink, but there was the same exact risk during periods of peace.
So, Hell, i'd fight in any war if i could be in MCC, 4000 nautical miles from the bad guys.

Mmmm... subs. I'd love to serve on a tuna sub.

 

[Jayjay]

Star Wars

 

[Keith&Co.]

Is it true that one Trident sub can destroy half the world with nukes?

I'm not entirely sure how you'd measure that. A big enough nuclear exchange, even if limited to half the world, would irradiate the entire world over time.

All i know is that one sub can carry a significant percentage of the US's entire nuclear arsenal. Although treaties keep knocking the number down. We're currently developing an option to fill a tube with cement cores and lock it shut, to limit the number of missiles it can carry.

 

[dystopian]

Is it true that one Trident sub can destroy half the world with nukes?

No. An Ohio class submarine can carry 24 Trident II missiles (the British Vanguard carries 16). Each missile can have up to 14 W88 (475kt) or W76 (100kt) warheads, but they are limited to 8 under current treaty laws. (I've read that there are further treaties in the work that may limit the number of tridents themselves) That theoretically allows a single sub to destroy 192 targets (although, not knowing the technical details of how they're deployed, I imagine a single missile's warheads all need to be targeted within a specific area); which is a *lot*. But nowhere near enough to destroy 'half' the world with nukes, even taking radiation into consideration.

It does make for a quotable meme or movie line, however.

 

[dystopian]

Star Wars

Ugh, I think you mean the Clone Wars. There were no wars called the Star Wars in 'Star Wars'. /nerd

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are we only talking about willingness to fight on the front lines, or contribute to the war in any other capacity? I think I would have been more useful in a logistics or technical role than fighting on the front lines of various wars. I would have been willing to participate in WWII for sure.

Yeah. Since soon after adulthood I've had medical issues that would make almost all combat roles out of the question--I need complete control over my diet in order to function at a reasonable level. I'd be much more useful as a weapons engineer than a soldier.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Is it true that one Trident sub can destroy half the world with nukes?

No. An Ohio class submarine can carry 24 Trident II missiles (the British Vanguard carries 16). Each missile can have up to 14 W88 (475kt) or W76 (100kt) warheads, but they are limited to 8 under current treaty laws. (I've read that there are further treaties in the work that may limit the number of tridents themselves) That theoretically allows a single sub to destroy 192 targets (although, not knowing the technical details of how they're deployed, I imagine a single missile's warheads all need to be targeted within a specific area); which is a *lot*. But nowhere near enough to destroy 'half' the world with nukes, even taking radiation into consideration.

It does make for a quotable meme or movie line, however.

No US boomer carries a full missile loadout.

One tube is always reserved for a suborbital communications satellite--it's a last-resort communications option if everything else is down, to be used before the sub commander decides there will be no orders from higher authority.

As for the missile warheads--while there will be limits it's a matter of Δv, not area per se. The maneuvering engines are on the bus, not the warheads. It must position for each target and drop a warhead.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Star Wars

Ugh, I think you mean the Clone Wars. There were no wars called the Star Wars in 'Star Wars'. /nerd

As long as he's willing to help the loyal citizens of the Empire defeat the Jedi menace, I'm fine with him calling it anything he wants.

 

[dystopian]

Ugh, I think you mean the Clone Wars. There were no wars called the Star Wars in 'Star Wars'. /nerd

As long as he's willing to help the loyal citizens of the Empire defeat the Jedi menace, I'm fine with him calling it anything he wants.

Ugh, the Clone Wars were about the Republic fighting insurgent systems that seceded from the Republic, using a clone army that fought on the same side as the Jedi! It isn't until after the insurgency (and thus after the Clone Wars have ended) is defeated that Palpatine uses the clones to kill the Jedi and become emperor. Get your timeline right! /nerd

 

[Jayjay]

Star Wars

Ugh, I think you mean the Clone Wars. There were no wars called the Star Wars in 'Star Wars'. /nerd

Well the clone wars was over by the time of the events in 'Star Wars' so that couldn't have been it. Which begs the question, what did the empire call its ongoing hostilities against the rebels? Star Counter-Terrorist Operation?

(On second thought, it would make sense that it's called Star Wars by historian and journalists even if not referenced by that name in the movies. If the war that was fought primarily by clones was called the Clone Wars, then it would make sense that a war fought by Death Stars could be dubbed as Star Wars...)

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Ugh, I think you mean the Clone Wars. There were no wars called the Star Wars in 'Star Wars'. /nerd

Well the clone wars was over by the time of the events in 'Star Wars' so that couldn't have been it. Which begs the question, what did the empire call its ongoing hostilities against the rebels? Star Counter-Terrorist Operation?

Hostilities against the rebels were a unilateral decision by the Emperor and the Galactic Senate never actually passed an official resolution declaring war on them. At best, it can be termed a "police action".

Sure, they blew up a planet or two during their policing, but just think of them as Missouri police.

 

[George S]

Meanwhile, back in reality, there's this ISIS thing.

ISIL/ISIS is composed of Sunni anti-Shi'ite extremists who have proclaimed The [new, Sunni] Caliphate has arrived: The Islamic State of Iraq and Levant. As in the old Caliphate, the Caliph has authority over all Muslims. The Muslims in Kurdistan are Shi'ite. Do the math.

A Dutch biker gang has joined the fight, siding with the Kurds. Would you side with either? I wouldn't. I don't have a dog in that fight.

 

[George S]

Back on topic. I had the chance to opt to fight in that Viet Nam War. I chose a middle ground and joined a medical unit. I took x-rays. Prior wars? I would be a medic in a hospital. Any and all.

 

[arkirk]

None. These wars are all the same...two WRONG sides against each other.

 

[bilby]

None. These wars are all the same...two WRONG sides against each other.

Really? You think that the British and Nazi Germany were both wrong? That the world would have been a better place if the Nazis had just been allowed to take over all of Europe unopposed? Or that they could have been stopped without violence?

I agree with you that most wars are pointless and unjust; but the Western Front in Europe from 1939 - 1945?

 

[George S]

None. These wars are all the same...two WRONG sides against each other.

Really? You think that the British and Nazi Germany were both wrong? That the world would have been a better place if the Nazis had just been allowed to take over all of Europe unopposed? Or that they could have been stopped without violence?

I agree with you that most wars are pointless and unjust; but the Western Front in Europe from 1939 - 1945?

No one can predict the future and no one can predict the past. They are all in the realm of "what-if." My father trained fighter pilots in that war. Because of Pearl Harbor, Congress declared War. Then Germany declared War upon us and we reciprocated. We won. But we had remained neutral about the Western Front until just after December 7, 1941.

 

[rousseau]

Depends.

Given who I'd be if I was alive in those eras, probably one or two.

Given who I am now, none. As one soldier I'm a pawn in the chess-board of a bunch of psychopaths heading countries. I'm not willing to risk my only life for the sake of global politics even if my side is just.. my own life is just way too valuable to me to put myself in the line of fire.

Does that make me selfish? I don't think so. If I could press a magic 'fix everything' button I'd do it... but to be one of hundreds of thousands of casualties who are all individually making minimal difference.. nope. Let the 'heroes' do it.

 

[bilby]

Really? You think that the British and Nazi Germany were both wrong? That the world would have been a better place if the Nazis had just been allowed to take over all of Europe unopposed? Or that they could have been stopped without violence?

I agree with you that most wars are pointless and unjust; but the Western Front in Europe from 1939 - 1945?

No one can predict the future and no one can predict the past. They are all in the realm of "what-if." My father trained fighter pilots in that war. Because of Pearl Harbor, Congress declared War. Then Germany declared War upon us and we reciprocated. We won. But we had remained neutral about the Western Front until just after December 7, 1941.

I know all of this; but you were wrong to do so.

US neutrality from 1939 to the end of 1941 is a shameful record that should embarrass those who called for it at the time. In the same vein, British and French inaction between March 1936 and their eventual declaration of war on August 3rd, 1939 was shameful; the people who turned a blind eye to the Nazi regime's illegal militarisation can, perhaps, be forgiven for wanting to avoid war, but they had no excuse for not being aware of the massive human rights abuses occurring in Germany at the time; and once war was declared by France and Britain, the USA really had no excuse for not directly joining with the democracies to fight the fascists. The existence of Lend-Lease shows that the US government knew which side was right; and yet they chose not to help until after France had been subjugated, and after the threat of the same happening to the UK had largely passed.

The Soviet Union won that war. Ironically, their regime was almost as disgusting as that of the Nazis. It is to the eternal shame of the USA that they did not send a military force to assist the democracies in Western Europe until they were themselves directly attacked by the Empire of Japan.

 

[arkirk]

None. These wars are all the same...two WRONG sides against each other.

Really? You think that the British and Nazi Germany were both wrong? That the world would have been a better place if the Nazis had just been allowed to take over all of Europe unopposed? Or that they could have been stopped without violence?
I agree with you that most wars are pointless and unjust; but the Western Front in Europe from 1939 - 1945?

WWII was much more a war between fascist nations for domination. It is true, the Germans had atrocities in their territory. Britain had its own atrocities brewing in the far east, Africa, etc. The U.S. was engaged in strategic economic warfare with Japan long before pearl harbor. There was no innocence to defend anywhere. That is the way Gandhi saw it too.

WWII had no rules for anybody, though some poor devils tried to imagine there were and usually paid heavily for their imagination. It was not a "good war." There are none.