Praxus

I read the first one a month or two ago, it was quite good. I think I'll get the second one soon. I'll certainly check it out, thanks for the recommendation.

Leisurely, but indepth. All of the above. I'm willing to read up to two books a month. Which is about what I did when reading about ancient Rome.

I have recently read Paul Johnson's book on George Washington and "American Scripture". This spurred interest in the period, does anyone have any recommendations on what books about or from that period would be a good read?

In the two different diagrams there were two different guns. The one on the LM boat was a 35mm millenium cannon and the one from GD has a 57mm cannon. Both of them had SeaRAM (replacement for Phalanx) which is what I think you were talking about. From what I've read it's very effective against incoming cruise missiles. I will have to give it this: it would be quite an effective anti-cruise missile/sub screen for the rest of the fleet. Giving it some more powerful weapons wouldn't hurt either. I saw some videos from the 35mm gun that is going to be on the LM version (if it wins). It can knock out boats (like the one that hit the USS Cole) and helicopters very effectively. I don't know that much about the 57mm gun, but I believe it's Swedish. http://www.gizmag.com/go/4006/ Just imagine what kind of weapon systems we would have if the tree of liberty was refreshed (so to speak).

Yah, they fire them at varying angles and varying amount of powder so they can get up to 8 rounds to land at the exact same time. A single salvo from a BB can put 9, 16" rounds on target. In their FCS (Future Combat System). It's the NLOS-C (non line of site-cannon) variant. They should have just kept the Crusader IMHO. Guns can reach a target in several minutes. A missile takes over an hour to reach the target. If an outnumbered unit is surrounded chances are a missile will get their too late. I'm sure it will be done in the most exspensive inefficient manner.

Actually I was referring to the AGS on the DD(X). It is a 155mm Howitzer (62 caliber I believe) that can pump out 12 rounds/minute. It's the only real NSFS asset we will have in the foreseeable future. They are trying to give a destroyer the capacity to do something it can not. It can only hold 700 rounds of 155mm ammunition while a BB can hold 1600 rounds for the 16" (406mm) guns on top of 10,000+( I don't recall the actual number) rounds for the 5" guns (121mm). And all of this you get for the price of an initial production DD(X). Given the political climate, your probably right. If we should or not, is a different question entirely. The DD(X)'s AGS will have a range of 100 miles, if we're lucky and they manage to get through the design phase without a hitch. It will have to be well within range of anti-ship missiles and will have to rely on it's stealth to stay alive. Where as with a BB, you may be able to see it, but you can't do crap about it. It also has no credible weapons. http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/images/...M_msncap_05.jpg (Lockheed Martin) http://peoships.crane.navy.mil/lcs/images/...alconcpethr.png (General Dynamics)

The 16" 50 caliber guns on a the Iowas are the most accurate of their kind ever built. With new rounds that were developed by DARPA in the 1980's (and proved to be successful) the range of the guns are extended from a mere 25 miles out to 100+ miles. Combined with GPS guidance in these warheads, the Iowas would be the most effective warships in our arsenal. We have a major lack of NSFS (Naval Surface Fire Support). The plan to fill this gap will not be fulfilled until the new DD(X) class destroyers get into service. Even then it will not be able to match the capability of the battleships. In fact a battleship in a single day can deliver a payload per day that is 6 times greater then a carrier. Total cost of reactivating, upgrading, and running 2 Battleships is the same as it costs to just buy 2 B2 Bombers (roughly 2 billion dollars). The amount of firepower that a battleship can deliver for it's cost is unbeatable by any foreseeable platform. Just imagine: Post one off these off the coast of North Korea with upgraded shells, improved fire control system, firefinder radars, and 61 Caliber 5" Guns we would deliver over 1600, 16" shells and over 10000, 5" shells on an incoming North Korean invasion force. A single tomahawk costs 1.2 million dollars and can't provide immediate NSFS. A single 11" Sabot BB(base bleed) round would cost 1/5th of that and it can provide immediate NSFS. Anything within 50 nm can be taken out by unguided rounds that cost 1/1000th of a Tomahawk. This on top of the fact that in order to match the payload of a single BB you would have to have 1600 VLS cells filled with Tomahawks, and we don't even have 1600 tomahawks in both fleets combined (pacific and atlantic), let alone in one theater of operations.

It stands for "Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile". In tests it took down incoming drones maneuvering at 9 g's at Mach 2+ (roughly the same capabilities of missiles like the Moskit or Sunburn). http://www.raytheon.com/products/stellent/...ms01_055809.pdf

I hear ya. First the ship would have to get within range of the target ; that is to say avoid carrier based American air assets (given that these ships are full size destroyers, it's impossible). Which means they would have to get within 90km of the outer most Aegis destroyer to just reach just the destroyer, and even closer if they want to hit the Carrier. Once it is fired, it would have to avoid SM-2s, ESSM, and then Phalanx from numerous ships. Then of course if it even hits the Carrier, it isn't going to sink it, as it requires 6-7 hits (according to Soviet estimates) to knock out a US Carrier. They also said they couldn't do anything to a Battleship but that's a whole different story. The ESSM is the most effective from what I have read, something that the British ships in the Falklands lacked (along with Aegis radar).

From what I understand, the first sea force to respond would be the Carrier Strike Force from Japan, which at the moment is the Kitty Hawk and it's Battlegroup. The Nimitz is also in the Pacific at the moment. So these are two major sea forces in the area. We also have hundreds of fighters in Japan and South Korea. So immediately we could shift some of the air assets from Japan to the Philippines to support the defense of Taiwan. From what I have read, Taiwan would have to hold for two weeks before our Carriers could get there. Given the fact that the US/Taiwanese forces would outnumber Chinas modern aircraft well over 4:1, we would have complete air dominance over the straight of Formosa. As for anti-ship missiles such as the Sunburns. They will pose little if any threat given the light air defense of the PLAN and the shear distance away that the US Carrier groups will be. The main threat is silent diesel submarines. The US considers Carriers to be strategic assets. If a nuclear weapon is used to destroy a carrier battle group, we go to Defcon one and China disappears in 40 minutes from their use of a nuclear weapon. They wouldn't have to worry about that, they would be dead.

The Chinese Navy is vastly inferior to that of the United States. They have a very limited blue water fleet, mostly with obsolete technology. The only real "modern" Ships they have (but even they are a bit outdated) are the 052C Lanzhou Class and several Sovremenny Class destroyers. As it stands at this juncture, it is impossible for China to take Taiwan by force even without US forces. The more likely outcome of an attack at this point, is the entire Chinese invasion feet becoming a new reef.

If they are representative of European intellectuals, they are worst off then I thought.

A real competiter to Intel claiming Intel is a monopoly. How Ironic.

I've listened for exactly 5 minutes, and I feel like slapping her. She doesn't prove anything she claims and misrepresents pretty much everything he says.

I would much rather, keep all of them in our hands. Give Taiwan about 5,000 Cruise Missles. China would think twice before attacking a nation with the capacity to sink their entire invasion fleet. Also give them some PAC-3 Patriot batteries to defend against the over 500 Ballistic Missiles they have pointed towards Taiwan. China would be impotent.

If you want to talk about a good Muslim general, I think Saladin would be up there.

Simply because we need more nukes then that to use as a deterrent to Chinese and Russian aggression. We need a regular force, because sometimes it is in our interest to convert nations to Capitalist Republics instead of killing them all and irradiating their natural resources.

They would simply bring over the surplus from the last year, as it is unlikely they would spend more then 400 billion in a year.

Are copyright laws even necessary? Why don't the record companies make a EULA for their CD's like software companies do? Stating that by purchasing this CD, you agree to not do X (i.e. transferring it on the internet).

Interesting, lets just hope they get all of it done soon:)

From what I understand, Thebes for a short period was freer then the Roman Republic. There were only two classes, the free, and the slaves. As apposed to Rome where there were the aristocracy, plebs, and slaves.

My knowledge of ancient history doesn't come close to Free Capitalist or Alon, however I must say that the Romans not only made a republic, but the word itself comes from the latin res publica, which is a system that mixes Aristocracy (Senate), Democracy (Popular Assembly), and Monarchy (Consuls). Also from my studies thus far, it seems that the Greeks never created a Republic, they made limited Democracies such as the Boeotian Federation but never a Republic. The closest thing I can think of to another Republic is ancient Carthage, and that's Phoenician in ancestry. Just a little addition:)

Absolutely, never denied that. He simply stated that the belief was held in both wars and affected how we fought. He also stated that it was exspecially the case in Vietnam. The fact is that we did not control a lot of the the territory in South Vietnam and we controled next to none of the territory in North Vietnam. We would find where the enemy was, engage him, and try to destroy him, but we would never take hold the ground, and we certainly didn't try to capture Hanoi, which was probably the best bet to ending the war. Yes it is a different type of war that the enemy was fighting, and that's his point. We tried to apply the same strategy as in World War II to this extent: Instead of capturing North Vietnam, we tried to defeat the enemy by annihilation like we did with the Japanese.

I recently started to read "Ripples of Battle" by Victor Davis Hanson, and he brought up what seemed to me as a very good point. His point was basically that because of the means by which we had to defeat the Japanese was by annihilation, it convinced us that all Asians fought in the same manor. So when we fought in Korea and especially in Vietnam, instead of fighting for territory (such as Hanoi) we tried to annihilate their forces, and this is what lead ultimately to our pullouts. What do you guys think?

If I am not mistaken, the simple fact that a severly mentally disabled person does have at least to a very small degree reason, it still has all the rights as every other person.