PDA

View Full Version : The DOOM of any Air-Force IS inevitable !



Gerd_Schopfel
10-15-2004, 03:33 PM
This statement is very logical (as in very) so tell me what you think?

Here it goes:

Eventually, the Air-Force will cease to exist, because of our yearn to reach the stars. The concept is very simple: In the future, when weaponized spaceships will roam the solar system, there will be no need for any type of Air-Force, because anything that an AirForce can do, a Space-Force can do even better. The same goes to the Navy; it will share the same fate as the Air-Force, once Space-Force is a reality. The only other military branch that will prevail is the Army.
Thus, our military will consist of the Army and Space-Force.
The Dogfights and battles in the "not so distant future" will take shape in the vastness of outer space BABY!!

Ahh, ain't live radical!
What do you all think?
http://www.hohlbein.de/autor/uebersetz/tschechien_charity1.jpg

Cragger
10-15-2004, 03:38 PM
Someone skip their Ritalin this morning?

Gerd_Schopfel
10-15-2004, 03:44 PM
Cragger wrote:
Someone skip their Ritalin this morning?
===========
Ignorance confines your mind and your future.

Yellonet
10-15-2004, 03:47 PM
Yep, it'll be the space-fleet instead of the air-force.

We'll still be flying WW2 games though.

Agamemnon22
10-15-2004, 04:33 PM
Actually why would you want to weigh a space fighter down with reentry equipment if you can deploy a cheap airplane instead?

HART_dreyer
10-15-2004, 04:34 PM
The doom of humans are inevitable.

LStarosta
10-15-2004, 04:41 PM
The Idiots Are Taking Over.

LEXX_Luthor
10-15-2004, 04:43 PM
Air Force will always be.

But it will be AI planes or at best "monitor jockeys" flying un-personed planes from a shed.

Flight sim Devs may not be paying much attention to AI programming, but the military is. Be Sure.

Chuck_Older
10-15-2004, 04:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
This statement is very logical (as in very) so tell me what you think?

Here it goes:

Eventually, the Air-Force will cease to exist, because of our yearn to reach the stars. The concept is very simple: In the future, when weaponized spaceships will roam the solar system, there will be no need for any type of Air-Force, because anything that an AirForce can do, a Space-Force can do even better. The same goes to the Navy; it will share the same fate as the Air-Force, once Space-Force is a reality. The only other military branch that will prevail is the Army.
Thus, our military will consist of the Army and Space-Force.
The Dogfights and battles in the "not so distant future" will take shape in the vastness of outer space BABY!!

Ahh, ain't live radical!
What do you all think?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

W000T!

d00d u roxxorszs11!!11

u shuld tel teh goviment stead of us! Ur so logical. And u got so logical from readdin teh book with a space elf on teh cover you nitwit.


"Weaponized" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif Oh that's delicious.

FI.Snaphoo
10-15-2004, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>This statement is very logical (as in very) so tell me what you think?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Eventually, the Air-Force will cease to exist, because of our yearn to reach the stars. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think that's assuming that we somehow will either want to fight in space, or will cease to wage war on the rock that we're sitting on.

Waging war in space is,

A) Expensive
B) Really silly if you're fighting a country on your planet.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The concept is very simple: In the future, when weaponized spaceships will roam the solar system, there will be no need for any type of Air-Force, because anything that an AirForce can do, a Space-Force can do even better. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This takes a large (read LARGE) leap of faith, and suspension of disbelief in that it assumes that our future enemies will be off this planet. A space-force makes little logical sense if your enemy is next door to you. No government will sign off on an expensive, inefficient means to blow up their enemies, unless you can tell them that the casualty ratio will be heavily in their favor.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The same goes to the Navy; it will share the same fate as the Air-Force, once Space-Force is a reality. The only other military branch that will prevail is the Army.
Thus, our military will consist of the Army and Space-Force. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interesting, yet fictional, points here. The Navy and Air Force will survive just fine thanks.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The Dogfights and battles in the "not so distant future" will take shape in the vastness of outer space BABY!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't think so, for the reasons I've given. This isn't an eventuality. Not by a long shot. It's an interesting piece of fiction. But no where near the eventuallity that seems to be outlined in the original post.

Expense of space travel, lack of cessation of warfare on our planet, lack of enemies in the stars, all legitimately, and logically eliminate the need for a Space-Force.

Mackane1
10-15-2004, 06:27 PM
Yeah!!!...and we'll have rayguns and rocketshoes and stuff!!!

sunflower1
10-15-2004, 06:32 PM
I just want a transporter.

Daiichidoku
10-15-2004, 06:58 PM
One would never need "spaceships" in a cosmic war...it is simply a matter of moving (the more the better) mass with as much veocity as can be had, by whatever means of propulsion, and good aim...

As far as war goes, assuming you want to destroy something/one, fling asteroids into it with rocket/alternate engines strapped on/built in or moon based "gauss" type cannon shooting scores ofheavily armoured fission (or perhaps one day, fusion) bombs...all this from the most extreme ranges...but all that would only apply if there was an enemy within this solar system to fight...

At least for humans, with our life spans, whats the point in fighting [aliens] at the least 1.2 (million?) light years away

Maybe if there could be warp, or hyperdrive systems, and physices that could co-operate, or peerhaps wormholes, that opens the viability of manned "wessels"

Space wont be military except as concerns earth proper...all else will be exploratory, commercial and industrial...

As for myself, I want to "go where no man has gone before"...I like virgins, so sue me, lol

heywooood
10-15-2004, 07:01 PM
Owww...I bent my Wookie!

PlimPlam
10-15-2004, 07:35 PM
Hot space chicks are... well Hot! Too bad all the ones in star trek have browridges and various other unsigtly bulges all over.

TAGERT.
10-15-2004, 07:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Cragger:
Someone skip their Ritalin this morning? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ROTFLMAO!

FI.Snaphoo
10-15-2004, 11:51 PM
Having completely missed the "weaponized" comment, I now feel just a bit sillier for having laid out any type of rebuttal to this little bit of padded room pinings.

I felt silly before, but weaponized?

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Platypus_1.JaVA
10-16-2004, 12:02 AM
Good trolling http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

GvSAP_Wingnut
10-16-2004, 12:17 AM
Somebody's been playing too much Halo.

TheGozr
10-16-2004, 12:40 AM
lol...

Howie A
10-16-2004, 02:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by TheGozr:
lol... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

yes this has been an enjoyable moment http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jaurocha
10-16-2004, 02:54 AM
>>Actually why would you want to weigh a space fighter down with reentry
>>equipment if you can deploy a cheap airplane instead?

Because a €œspace€ fighter can engage and disengage an airplane at will, it just climbs over the airplanes maximum altitude.
Simple Boom and Zoom, just in and out of the atmosphere.
----
>Waging war in space is,
>A) Expensive
All wars are expensive. But if some one who is in war see a method that would give them an edge (possibly the victory) they would implement it no matter of the cost.

>B) Really silly if you're fighting a country on your planet.
Not if your war machines have the ability of space travel and the enemy€s don€t.
And look at the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) they are not sillly.
----
Interesting, yet fictional, points here. The Navy and Air Force will survive just fine thanks.

Yes the navy will survive, but the difference if there is space weapons will be big.
Take an aircraft carrier. It is hard to sink one of those. They are large and heavily defended. But if you have a space station with weapons it would be a much simpler task.
Just launch your guided freefall bombs and wait. They will hit hard and fast (mach 20 or so) and at that speed it doesn€t matter if then have payload or not, it could be railroad tracks and it would still sink the ship.
----
>Maybe if there could be warp, or hyperdrive systems, and physices that could cooperate,
>or peerhaps wormholes, that opens the viability of manned "wessels"

All most all big technologic advances have been ones that no one had foreseen.
----

If by Space-Force you mean some thing like in Wing Commander I don€t think it€s in the near future. Maybe when the human race have colonies on other planets. And even then it is probably more likely to bee local wars on that single planet.

But if by Space-Force you mean weapons in space I think it is more then likely.
Airplanes that have near orbit or orbit capability. Orbital stations that have the capability to target ground objects from space. The advantage of being able to launch troops from orbit (troops any where in the world in 30 minutes using some thing like the X-38 (the ISS life boat) or like in the book Star Ship Trooper, no not the suck a$$ movie the book).
Or maybe orbiting nukes, no launch or early warnings just drop them.

And if you have orbital weapons maybe the €œspace€ fighter is not that far away....

All this seem far fetched but what if we told some one in 1850 that the wars in the future will be fought in the air, that horses will no longer bee used in the military and that steam engines is going to be obsolete in a near future. Would he believe you....

FI.Snaphoo
10-16-2004, 04:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Because a €œspace€ fighter can engage and disengage an airplane at will, it just climbs over the airplanes maximum altitude.
Simple Boom and Zoom, just in and out of the atmosphere <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This assumes that we will as a whole figure out the problems of re-entry. And there are many. Re-entry into the atmosphere isn't as easy as dropping altitude if, in fact, you actually did gain enough energy to leave the actual atmosphere to begin with. Not to mention the current fuel consumption to get out of the atmosphere. At this point, it is not that feasible to realiably leave, and re-enter, the atmosphere, you want to add combat to that? I think not. All I need to do is bring up two unfortunate Space shuttle crews and your argument crumbles.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All wars are expensive. But if some one who is in war see a method that would give them an edge (possibly the victory) they would implement it no matter of the cost <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course they are. Wars are, by and large, financially waged. Your country fights a battle at an economic level in hopes to run the other country (countries) into bankruptcy. Thereby demoralizing the troops in question, without pay, your "loyal troops" dwindle.

But to add unnecessary expense is, without a doubt, silly. And that was my point.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Yes the navy will survive, but the difference if there is space weapons will be big.
Take an aircraft carrier. It is hard to sink one of those. They are large and heavily defended. But if you have a space station with weapons it would be a much simpler task.
Just launch your guided freefall bombs and wait. They will hit hard and fast (mach 20 or so) and at that speed it doesn€t matter if then have payload or not, it could be railroad tracks and it would still sink the ship.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Your entire statement hinges on one little word... if... "If" has many implications, and too many assumtions applied to it. If the cubs had won the world series, I would be a millionaire. But they didn't, so I'm not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All most all big technologic advances have been ones that no one had foreseen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

True enough. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>All this seem far fetched but what if we told some one in 1850 that the wars in the future will be fought in the air, that horses will no longer bee used in the military and that steam engines is going to be obsolete in a near future. Would he believe you.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Probably not. But, according to 1950's scientists, everyone by now is supposed to have rocket cars, nuclear* powered houses, and generally work less thanks to our robot slaves. Do we?

The simple fact remains that this is all supposition and fantasy, not logical progression or fact. Logical progression is what happens when you build or improve on what you have. Because this makes sense. This is logical. Radical changes happen because someone has an epiphany or a brainstorm that completely changes the entire process, or technology. These cannot be tracked, nor can they be counted on.

Am I saying it's impossible? No, I am saying it's not likely. Nor is it "the future" of military warfare.

*(It is at this point that I would like to point out that I am an American and I can correctly spell and say this word)

I am Snaphoo and I approve this message. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Tully__
10-16-2004, 04:23 AM
Certainly space vehicles have the potential to usurp the strategic role of the airforce but they're unlikely to totally replace tactical close air support for ground troops.

Extreme_One
10-16-2004, 04:24 AM
Weaponized!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

Cajun76
10-16-2004, 10:26 AM
I'm there. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/robotech01.jpg

Jaurocha
10-16-2004, 11:02 AM
quote:
________________________________________
Simple Boom and Zoom, just in and out of the atmosphere
________________________________________

quote:
________________________________________
This assumes that we will as a whole figure out the problems of re-entry. And there are many.
________________________________________
It should be €œSimple Boom and Zoom, just in and out of space€. Sorry my fault.
The difference is that to enter space you don€t have to leave the atmosphere, just enter the thermosphere. Roughly at 100Km (328000 feet) for comparison the max attitude for the SR71 is 26Km/85000 feet and for the U2, 21Km/70000 feet.
You don€t get the problems with reentry unless you leave the atmosphere and enter into real orbit.
And if you have an engine powerful enough to let you enter and leave space at will, you don€t have to rely on aerobraking for your reentry. So that problem will not be the hardest to solve.

quote:
________________________________________
All I need to do is bring up two unfortunate Space shuttle crews and your argument crumbles.
________________________________________
Compared to some thing that could even remotely be called a space fighter the space shuttle is a brick with engines.
Why? Because is has no ability to enter the atmosphere (but not leave space) and then leave again and it is not built for maneuvers but for aerobraking.

As for the unfortunate crews, honor to them.

quote:
________________________________________
Of course they are. Wars are, by and large, financially waged. Your country fights a battle at an economic level in hopes to run the other country (countries) into bankruptcy. Thereby demoralizing the troops in question, without pay, your "loyal troops" dwindle.

But to add unnecessary expense is, without a doubt, silly. And that was my point. ________________________________________
The cost for the U.S. Nuclear Weapons program so far is $5.5 trillion that is $5 500 000 000 000, and currently $96 million a day. That along with the money spent on the space race should cover it I think.
Yes it is over a long time but never the less the money is there and some one has spent them.

quote:
________________________________________
Your entire statement hinges on one little word... if... "If" has many implications, and too many assumtions applied to it. If the cubs had won the world series, I would be a millionaire. But they didn't, so I'm not. ________________________________________
Yes but the little word if is equally powerful both ways. If you had put your money on the Angels 2002 you would have won. The only thing you can be sure of is that you can€t predict the future, just make a best guess.

quote:
________________________________________
Probably not. But, according to 1950's scientists, everyone by now is supposed to have rocket cars, nuclear* powered houses, and generally work less thanks to our robot slaves. Do we?
________________________________________

As €œAll most all big technologic advances have been ones that no one had foreseen.€ is true, is the fact that many technologic dreams is bound to never happen.

quote:
________________________________________
This is logical. Radical changes happen because someone has an epiphany or a brainstorm that completely changes the entire process, or technology. These cannot be tracked, nor can they be counted on.

Am I saying it's impossible? No, I am saying it's not likely. Nor is it "the future" of military warfare.
________________________________________

Yes you are probably right. Radical things almost never happens, but it only require one radical, unforeseen step in engine technology. And maybe we then have engines that will allow cheap and inexpressive space flight. And from that to weapons in space... I think that is like the invention of the camera and nude photography. It is not the inventors main idea but it€s bound to happen.

I don€t think we disagree that much on the process. But we disagree on the probability. I think that there will be ships that can enter and leave space at will (Maybe not under my life time or my children€s but with in 250 year€s or so) and that some will be weaponized and I assume that you don€t believe that it is likely and if it becomes possible the ships will not be used in the military.

I just realized how much time I have spent on this subject and think that I should drop it and go to try and find a life some where....

Heavy_Weather
10-16-2004, 11:08 AM
well look at it this way, the cave men never thought of flying aircraft or ever seen one. theres no need for arrogance http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Mashie_Nibblick
10-16-2004, 11:14 AM
My cat's breath smells like cat food.

EDIT: I have to say, sometimes I find it a little funny when the Ubi Forum robots politely say, 'Thank you for contributing to this forum,' when I post something like this.

Obi_Kwiet
10-16-2004, 12:04 PM
Why? There isn't anything particularly usefull in the solar system. Traveling through interstellar is impossible. Why couldn't we fight down in the air like we always have? There's nothing to fight over up there.

Dolemite-
10-16-2004, 12:44 PM
None of this matters, becuase someday that big bright thing up in the sky we call the <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">SUN</span> is going to explode!! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif

Sharx66
10-16-2004, 02:11 PM
I wonder to wich country will belong the XWing and TIE fighter.

Oh .. And can i have an over-board please ? Marty has one.

Nanuk66
10-16-2004, 03:36 PM
I want some of the stuff that the Original poster was smoking plez.

Then we can go out and kick in some Star Trek fans...

PBNA-Boosher
10-16-2004, 03:48 PM
Won't it be great when we develop planes that can can fly with AI, AND defy physics too? I love FB AEP

Gato__Loco
10-16-2004, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
This statement is very logical (as in very) so tell me what you think?

Here it goes:

Eventually, the Air-Force will cease to exist, because of our yearn to reach the stars. The concept is very simple: In the future, when weaponized spaceships will roam the solar system, there will be no need for any type of Air-Force, because anything that an AirForce can do, a Space-Force can do even better. The same goes to the Navy; it will share the same fate as the Air-Force, once Space-Force is a reality. The only other military branch that will prevail is the Army.
Thus, our military will consist of the Army and Space-Force.
The Dogfights and battles in the "not so distant future" will take shape in the vastness of outer space BABY!!

Ahh, ain't live radical!
What do you all think? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


AAAAAAAH!!!!!! When I was 8 years old I used to think about this type of things. I'm glad its over...

Cajun76
10-16-2004, 04:46 PM
Now, keeping in mind I haven't started this discussion with a name like Gerd_Schopfel, http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif and then supported my arguamnts by another handle like Jaurocha http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif , the SDF and Veritechs were both a Air Force and Space Force. We just need alien technology to make it happan. The future is bright. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v30/Cajun76/macross_mechas_veritech_valkyries_galleries.gif

AlexDavies
10-16-2004, 04:48 PM
welcome, to the world of tomorrow.....TODAY!
government better start investing in some star destroyers, x-wings.........and P-40s lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

Kampfmeister
10-16-2004, 05:16 PM
[QUOTE]
________________________________________________
Originally posted by PlimPlam:
Hot space chicks are... well Hot! Too bad all the ones in star trek have browridges and various other unsigtly bulges all over.
________________________________________________

Yeah that's true, but at least all the really important equipment is still in place. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Besides what does it matter? In the future no one will have a military anyway, because we'll be too busy running for our lives through the corn fields to try to escape the talking apes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

WWSensei
10-16-2004, 05:32 PM
Anyone who wants to reduce the concept of orbital mechanics to a "simple" problem needs to come back when they've studied their first calculus class. The problem appears "simple" because you aren't capable of grasping the complexities.

Anyone who thinks having "space superiority" will eliminate current airforces and ground forces needs to quit repeating the same mantra espoused by every new proponent of a new technology since the crossbow. Read a history book and take note of all the failed claims that "the next best thing will render armies useless". I remember when nukes were supposed to do that.

Remember that well armed bombers were going to eliminate the need for fighters? Remember when air forces were going to eliminate the need for navies and armies? Remember when missiles would make guns on an aircraft obsolete?

Not that I don't think warfare won't be waged in space but the idea that all warfare will be waged in space and eliminate the need for other kinds of warfare only demonstrates a severe lack of knowledge of 1) space, physics and math, 2) history of warfare, 3) the human capacity for waging war, 4) military strategy of any kind.

Zatorski
10-16-2004, 05:34 PM
Many satellites in orbit around earth today are military. The gps satellites were not for civilian use until recently. Right now the Bush administration is moving ahead with a anti-missile (star-wars) program. From reconnaissance to drug interdiction, the unmanned orbital and drone craft is replacing conventional craft of a piloted aircraft. "The weaponization of space" is actually an issue that has a profile here in Canada.
Anti-satellite warfare and control of the intelligence is vital to many countries national defence right now. Political and military decisions are dependent on satellites now, even CNN needs them to operate.
Do not think of dogfighting in space and long deflection shots. Sending a pilot and a craft to orbit for a while on CAP is not what it is all about.
Intelligence, command and control, defensive and offensive punch, and the ability to deny your opponent the intel to operate will win wars, always has and always will. The €œweaponization of space€ has many worries for mankind, extreme financial and military risks, plus a world dominance stance by the only superpower left today. The invasion of Iraq would not have been feasible without the military in space and it is not going to get any less important as time goes on. Unfortunately the topic has all the makings of a new global arms race.

ElektroFredrik
10-17-2004, 05:08 AM
So you're saying this is our future? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
I can live with that... http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v251/elektrofredrik/stuff/Tailo-sqrl-evo.jpg

Destraex
10-17-2004, 05:26 AM
I think perhaps that if a planet is unified that the spaceforce with space marines would be dominant. However the police would at their business end would look more like the Army.

If planet not unified air force and navy will still exist, especially if we start living in the oceans.

BTW: Has anyone ever thought that we the gamers may be piloting the AI craft from a mothership or mother planet of some sort. I read a novel once with this concept.

Gerd_Schopfel
10-18-2004, 10:52 AM
WWSensei this is for you and others who lack to see the eventual progress we will make:

Your logical reply to my original post is understandable; it makes sense and history backs it up. But you forget one fundamental logic:
The purpose of any military is to protect its people by the most efficient and effective means possible. This can only be done with an extremely mobile force. Therefore, the society that understands this best will realize that MOBILITY lies in orbit! Eventually, there is no point in having Navies and Air-Forces which are restricted to the seas and stratosphere when technology allows us to go beyond that, to be even more mobile and allow crafts to lurk in the final frontier. I am just asking you "WWSensei" to expand your nerve impulses to see beyond the horizon. Your kind of thinking underestimates the potential and impact of technology on our existence. Remember, that in the future, craft that lurk in space will just as well swoop down and lurk in our planet: That my brother is what we refer to as mobility and thus, superiority! At any rate, one cannot be superior to something that is more mobile which in turn is more evasive!
==
From space, troops will deploy, weapons will engage and if the opponent is confined to his planet, then he is trapped, just as the people in a fortress are trapped.
NO POINT IN INVESTING ON SOMETHING THAT LURKS IN A RETRICTED SPACE: WASTE OF RESOURCES AND BLOOD. From space, planets are considered fortresses.
http://www.thenation.com/special/images/laser.jpeg
It has begun...

Extreme_One
10-18-2004, 11:02 AM
Gerd_Schopfel you've spent a long time thinking about this haven't you?

Worrying! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Gerd_Schopfel
10-18-2004, 11:04 AM
I hope you understood it. Did you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

tttiger
10-18-2004, 11:07 AM
"There's nothing wrong with him that can't be cured by a large dose of Thorazine and a polo mallet"
-- Woody Allen.

ttt

Gerd_Schopfel
10-18-2004, 11:10 AM
Hey folks, if you don't understand what I'm trying to get across in this post, then don't bother replying to it.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

BSS_Goat
10-18-2004, 11:27 AM
Can I be a stormtrooper I always thought they were coolest!!

Chuck_Older
10-18-2004, 12:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
Hey folks, if you don't understand what I'm trying to get across in this post, then don't bother replying to it.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, yes. Space elves and such. We know.

Jaurocha
10-18-2004, 12:52 PM
quote:
----
Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
Hey folks, if you don't understand what I'm trying to get across in this post, then don't bother replying to it.
----

quote:
----
Yes, yes. Space elves and such. We know.
----

Noppe that€s the point you don't... or you do but like to mock people.

If you follow the path of your logic it means that we can€t travel in space easy and cheap and therefore we will never have a space force.
But with that logic we would still have ships of wood because it was once believed that you couldn€t build ships of things that didn€t float.

There are many problems that need to be solved. And no one can be sure that it will happen. But with the development of new engine types and of new materials the maximum altitude of aero planes will increase a little at a time. And maybe one day they will reach space. And the Air force has then become the Space force.

Space ship one is a first small step in that direction.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/xprize_full_coverage.html

Just because it is science fiction doesn€t mean that the fiction won€t become science.
It has happen before....

Chuck_Older
10-18-2004, 12:59 PM
Ok, clever trousers.

Tell me why a space force is a good idea. To fight the Gamalons, Perhaps? The Red Lectroids are coming by? George Jetson's gone postal?

Rebel_Yell_21
10-18-2004, 01:02 PM
LECTROIDS!!! *Points in the distance and runs*

Capt.England
10-18-2004, 01:08 PM
Just one point of view on this subject.

Say in 200 years time man has used up all the Earths resources. The next step would be to start mining say, Mars and of course base's would be set up. Say if the Government of Mars gets P.O'ed about Earth taking all the Martian resources and decided to keep all their stuff for them self's. They know Earth would send Armed forces and so to stop Earth invading they have to attack the ships before reaching Mars.

Now, does this sound too far fetched?

BTW, I liked the planet of the apes reply. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

LilHorse
10-18-2004, 01:48 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Obi_Kwiet:
Why? There isn't anything particularly usefull in the solar system. Traveling through interstellar is impossible. Why couldn't we fight down in the air like we always have? There's nothing to fight over up there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Precisely. Furthermore, there will be no long term or large scale human presence (or I should say "manned" presence) in interplanetary space unless there is something out there that is going to make ocean liners full of money. It would have to be so valuable that it would justify, not only the billions in costs, but also the risking of human lives to get it. That or we would have to come up with some method of space travel that is tremendously cheaper, tremendously faster, and a lot safer and human friendly. The costs of figuring that out would not be worth it because, again, there is really nothing of monetary value out there.

Exploration can be managed quite well with ever more sophisticated robots. And what would the hurry be? So what if it takes 20 years to figure out Mars' past ecology instead of 5?

The only space based ventures that will have the potential for yielding profits will be orbital in nature (ie. space tourism, communications, manufacturing processes, etc.).

Gerd_Schopfel
10-18-2004, 02:30 PM
Jaurocha wrote:

"If you follow the path of your logic it means that we can€t travel in space easy and cheap and therefore we will never have a space force."
=====
Oh come on...Some of you guys think that there is nothing worthwhile up in space! Think that space travel will never become cheap or feasable. Give me a break. Space is the most important and resource rich frontier of all! The only real problem is the distance between things, but that can be solved by continually developing propulsion systems. Don't forget that there is a #!@*&?! load of energy up in space...I mean we are eventually going to run outta resources in this beautiful blue sphere...and that we re not going to be using the rocket engines invented by the Germans forever. As a matter of fact, check this out:
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/PAO/html/warp/ipspaper.htm
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/bpp/

If you have any understanding of the Universe, you will realize that it's a F!&*$ big place rich with trillions of trillions of planets in billions of galaxies and who knows what else. So there is great life and resources out there without a doubt!! And like a said, it's just a matter of time before space an other planets becomes our new home. I mean it could happen in the near future, like in 2000 years or so. That is near furture when you compare how long we have been in existence.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Now can some of you see why a space force might be feasable??

Cajun76
10-18-2004, 03:12 PM
I find it disturbing you're quoting and apparently arguing an out of context quote posted with your other handle. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif They have medication in space, too.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Jaurocha wrote:

"If you follow the path of your logic it means that we can€t travel in space easy and cheap and therefore we will never have a space force." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Gerd_Schopfel wrote:

Oh come on...Some of you guys think that there is nothing worthwhile up in space! Think that space travel will never become cheap or feasable. Give me a break. Space is the most important and resource rich frontier of all! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Btw, "rocket" engines were not invented soley by the Germans. Hopefully we'll leave that kind of thinking behind before the "near" future comes around. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Platypus_1.JaVA
10-18-2004, 03:14 PM
I believe that the US and the Soviet Union had agreed a looooong time ago NOT to station any kind of weapon system capable of striking earth in outer space. So, eleminating the strategy to launch nuclear bombs from the moon and Putting multi terawatt lasers in satelites.

Platypus_1.JaVA
10-18-2004, 03:16 PM
And so, no space based counter measuers system will be build and no space force will be develloped unless we colonize other planets/solar systems.

Platypus_1.JaVA
10-18-2004, 03:17 PM
Boom & Zoom out of space, that's a good one. Let's see what the LW will has to counter that one. (probably going back to the WWI fighters)

Chuck_Older
10-18-2004, 03:28 PM
So let me get this straight.

If I don't buy the idea that a Space Force with armed Space Ships is the wave of the future, I also think that space travel and space exploration is useless.


This has got to be the stupidest attempt at trolling ever. Wait right here, I have an award for you, Gerd/Juarocha

Chuck_Older
10-18-2004, 03:30 PM
I can't access photobucket right now, so you're going to have to wait for your "Happy Freak" award. It's worth the wait.

Jaurocha
10-18-2004, 03:47 PM
quote:
----
Ok, clever trousers.
Tell me why a space force is a good idea.
----
I don€t think it€s a good idea. I think it€s a bad idea, but what I think doesn€t matter. I think nuclear weapons is a bad idea but that doesn€t mean sh*t.

What I do think is that mankind will find an inexpensive way to travel to and in space. And when you have that ability then it will only be a matter of time before we have space ships that carry weapons. The airplane is a good example... how long after the first flight did we have planes that carry weapons... not even 15 years.

And if the enemy have vessels that can travel to space, maybe more then 4 times higher that your air craft. Do your air craft really have a chance? Or will the enemy just out climb them and then come back for another attack when he feels for it?

And there will be (there already is I think) treaties that regulate weapon use in space but if all nations have the power to launch space ships then the treaties will have to be enforced and those who don€t sign the treaty will have to be watched and if they try to get space supremacy, there will be conflicts and maybe wars.

The running point seem to be that we at present time can€t se an enemy... well I can think of a race that is the most likely one.... go out in the bathroom and look in the mirror and you will se one... assuming you ARE human of course...
If somebody answers no on that question this thread would become really interesting.

And if there is anyone that believes that mankind isn€t capable of starting a space war and that there can€t be any reason for one then maybe they should study the history of the war this sim is about. Nobody could ever find a reason to try and wipeout a whole population right.

quote:
----
Precisely. Furthermore, there will be no long term or large scale human presence (or I should say "manned" presence) in interplanetary space unless there is something out there that is going to make ocean liners full of money. It would have to be so valuable that it would justify, not only the billions in costs, but also the risking of human lives to get it. That or we would have to come up with some method of space travel that is tremendously cheaper, tremendously faster, and a lot safer and human friendly. The costs of figuring that out would not be worth it because, again, there is really nothing of monetary value out there.
----

As for value in space...
If there is nothing of value out there why are the ISS being built?
How about to have monopole on low gravity production and research?
If we have fusion reactors. There is a lot of helium-3 on the moon. And NASA state that €œ Helium-3 could be mined and transported to Earth. Some early estimates place the value of helium-3 equivalent to buying oil at $7 a barrel.€
Last time I checked the oil prize was around $50.
Mars has enormous amounts, deuterium. Deuterium is the key fuel not only for both first and second generation fusion reactors, but it is also an essential material for the nuclear power industry today. In addition, deuterium is very valuable; it's current market value on earth is about $10,000 per kilogram, roughly 50 times the price of silver. At current deuterium prices, Mars could possibly be able to gain an annual export income potential of $10 billion.
And if you have come to mars then you have large quantities of silver, germanium, hafnium, lanthanum, gold, iridium and the asteroid belt to mine.

quote:
----
The only space based ventures that will have the potential for yielding profits will be orbital in nature (ie. space tourism, communications, manufacturing processes, etc.).
----
And that is exactly what€s driving the research to day. Look at Space shop one. And when we have a cheaper way of traveling in to space then those ships will be weaponized.

One thing I know is that there is allot of people that won€t rest in there search of ways to travel to space. And I also believe that some day they will succeed. Not to day, maybe not to morrow but eventually they will. Mankind is very stubborn.

quote:
----
If I don't buy the idea that a Space Force with armed Space Ships is the wave of the future, I also think that space travel and space exploration is useless.
----
Noppe but you have more faith in mankind then I have. I believe that what ever vessels humans build some one will put a weapon on it.

To
Cajun76
Chuck_Older
And for me being the same as Gerd_Schopfel... I don€t know about him but I€m from Sweden. And I made my military on F16 Edit: (air force base) so if some one wants to ask questions to verify they are more then welcome.
Removed :*******************************************.
If you can€t understand this I€m sure that some one can translate it for you.

And if this is a stupid attempt at trolling why are you still here....

diomedes33
10-18-2004, 04:19 PM
Show me an engine based in real world physics that would make any of this possible. Right now the best useable anerobic engine we have are the liquid rocket engines on the shuttle. The STS needs 4.3 million pounds of propellant to get a 200,000 lb vehicle into orbit.

The best engine that I know of is the Nuclear Thermal Rocket, but that has a nasty habit of spreading radioactive particles in the atmosphere.


Just to give an idea (very rough numbers)
Geosync Orbit ~20,000 mi altitude 6800 mph
Low Earth Orbit ~350 mi altitude 17,000 mph

If the craft is not going these speeds at these altitudes its going to fall back to Earth. There is no lift up there, the only other way to counter this would be thrust. This thrust will require a tremendous amount of fuel.

Unless we are on the break of a new discovery, I doubt we will see a spaceforce in our lifetime. Its just not economical.

----------------------------------------------
My post count is 190, that's awesome.

FI.Snaphoo
10-18-2004, 05:19 PM
Let's go over this again. Starting with logic, as that seems to be the buzzword for this little brain dump.

Logic [Lojik]
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>1) The study of the principles of reasoning, especially of the structure of propositions as distinguished from their content and of method and validity in deductive reasoning.

2)
a. A system of reasoning: Aristotle's logic.
b. A mode of reasoning: By that logic, we should sell the company tomorrow.
c. The formal, guiding principles of a discipline, school, or science.
3) Valid reasoning: Your paper lacks the logic to prove your thesis.

4) The relationship between elements and between an element and the whole in a set of objects, individuals, principles, or events: There's a certain logic to the motion of rush-hour traffic.
Computer Science.
a. The nonarithmetic operations performed by a computer, such as sorting, comparing, and matching, that involve yes-no decisions.
b. Computer circuitry.
c. Graphic representation of computer circuitry.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>WWSensei this is for you and others who lack to see the eventual progress we will make: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Eventual? Possibly. But what evidence do you have to support your theory? That's all it is, a theory, I hope that you fully understand that. But it's obvious that you don't as you keep reporting it as fact. Eventuallities are inevitable, what you are describing is barely probable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Your logical reply to my original post is understandable; it makes sense and history backs it up. But you forget one fundamental logic: <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am fairly sure that you're forgetting the basic rules of logic. Logic is, as stated above, valid reasoning. You've provided no valid reasoning why we will require spaceships to shoot each other with. Sure there are resources out there. But as of yet, there has been no proof that we will need to take them by force. When that changes, your theory becomes a touch closer to logical progression.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
The purpose of any military is to protect its people by the most efficient and effective means possible. This can only be done with an extremely mobile force. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a true statement. But it has nothing to do with why a Spaceforce would be necessary. So, this point, is worthless.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Therefore, the society that understands this best will realize that MOBILITY lies in orbit! Eventually, there is no point in having Navies and Air-Forces which are restricted to the seas and stratosphere when technology allows us to go beyond that, to be even more mobile and allow crafts to lurk in the final frontier. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A large point you're missing is, that we don't have reliable technology to be able to do that. I'll say that again. A large point you're missing is, that we don't have reliable technology to be able to do that. While I think it's interesting to think about, it's not an eventuallity as you say it. It's, at best, a slim possibility.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I am just asking you "WWSensei" to expand your nerve impulses to see beyond the horizon. Your kind of thinking underestimates the potential and impact of technology on our existence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And your kind of thinking overestimates the potential impact of technology on our existance. I think that there is some middle ground here. I think that we can put away all of the "frikken laser beams" and "Death Stars" and understand that humanity does not build technology that they don't need. Right now, and into the forseeable future, there is no need for the technology that you describe. Period. There may be a need thousands of years into the future, but I find that to be a ridiculous subject, and moot by my way of thinking.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Remember, that in the future, craft that lurk in space will just as well swoop down and lurk in our planet: That my brother is what we refer to as mobility and thus, superiority! At any rate, one cannot be superior to something that is more mobile which in turn is more evasive! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is only true if the enemy you're fighting is technically backwards. If your enemy has similar technology to yours, then your "superiority" is neutral, at best.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From space, troops will deploy, weapons will engage and if the opponent is confined to his planet, then he is trapped, just as the people in a fortress are trapped. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is a very limited scenario. You're assuming too much here. You're assuming that this "SpaceForce" will have a technological advantage over its adversaries, which, quite frankly, it might not. You're assuming that everyone will fight in the manner that you're describing, being that humans are diverse, they will not. Frankly, this entire section isn't very "logical". Though you seem to think it is by the LARGENESS of the next paragraph.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>NO POINT IN INVESTING ON SOMETHING THAT LURKS IN A RETRICTED SPACE: WASTE OF RESOURCES AND BLOOD. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Whew! Big all caps here. There must be some powerful point to it, right? It's big! Sorry, no logical point here either. Move along.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>From space, planets are considered fortresses.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

By whom? By the book you read that gives you some "magical" insight to the future? When you come up with some actual logic and fact to back up your theory, then you can tell me about the downfall of planetside deployments. Not before.

Chuck_Older
10-18-2004, 06:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jaurocha:
quote:
----
Ok, clever trousers.
Tell me why a space force is a good idea.
----
I don€t think it€s a good idea. I think it€s a bad idea, but what I think doesn€t matter. I think nuclear weapons is a bad idea but that doesn€t mean sh*t.

What I do think is that mankind will find an inexpensive way to travel to and in space. And when you have that ability then it will only be a matter of time before we have space ships that carry weapons. The airplane is a good example... how long after the first flight did we have planes that carry weapons... not even 15 years.

And if the enemy have vessels that can travel to space, maybe more then 4 times higher that your air craft. Do your air craft really have a chance? Or will the enemy just out climb them and then come back for another attack when he feels for it?

And there will be (there already is I think) treaties that regulate weapon use in space but if all nations have the power to launch space ships then the treaties will have to be enforced and those who don€t sign the treaty will have to be watched and if they try to get space supremacy, there will be conflicts and maybe wars.

The running point seem to be that we at present time can€t se an enemy... well I can think of a race that is the most likely one.... go out in the bathroom and look in the mirror and you will se one... assuming you ARE human of course...
If somebody answers no on that question this thread would become really interesting.

And if there is anyone that believes that mankind isn€t capable of starting a space war and that there can€t be any reason for one then maybe they should study the history of the war this sim is about. Nobody could ever find a reason to try and wipeout a whole population right.

quote:
----
Precisely. Furthermore, there will be no long term or large scale human presence (or I should say "manned" presence) in interplanetary space unless there is something out there that is going to make ocean liners full of money. It would have to be so valuable that it would justify, not only the billions in costs, but also the risking of human lives to get it. That or we would have to come up with some method of space travel that is tremendously cheaper, tremendously faster, and a lot safer and human friendly. The costs of figuring that out would not be worth it because, again, there is really nothing of monetary value out there.
----

As for value in space...
If there is nothing of value out there why are the ISS being built?
How about to have monopole on low gravity production and research?
If we have fusion reactors. There is a lot of helium-3 on the moon. And NASA state that €œ Helium-3 could be mined and transported to Earth. Some early estimates place the value of helium-3 equivalent to buying oil at $7 a barrel.€
Last time I checked the oil prize was around $50.
Mars has enormous amounts, deuterium. Deuterium is the key fuel not only for both first and second generation fusion reactors, but it is also an essential material for the nuclear power industry today. In addition, deuterium is very valuable; it's current market value on earth is about $10,000 per kilogram, roughly 50 times the price of silver. At current deuterium prices, Mars could possibly be able to gain an annual export income potential of $10 billion.
And if you have come to mars then you have large quantities of silver, germanium, hafnium, lanthanum, gold, iridium and the asteroid belt to mine.

quote:
----
The only space based ventures that will have the potential for yielding profits will be orbital in nature (ie. space tourism, communications, manufacturing processes, etc.).
----
And that is exactly what€s driving the research to day. Look at Space shop one. And when we have a cheaper way of traveling in to space then those ships will be weaponized.

One thing I know is that there is allot of people that won€t rest in there search of ways to travel to space. And I also believe that some day they will succeed. Not to day, maybe not to morrow but eventually they will. Mankind is very stubborn.

quote:
----
If I don't buy the idea that a Space Force with armed Space Ships is the wave of the future, I also think that space travel and space exploration is useless.
----
Noppe but you have more faith in mankind then I have. I believe that what ever vessels humans build some one will put a weapon on it.

To
Cajun76
Chuck_Older
And for me being the same as Gerd_Schopfel... I don€t know about him but I€m from Sweden. And I made my military on F16 so if some one wants to ask questions to verify they are more then welcome.
Och om du inte tror p¥ det s¥ kan du ta en gl¶dgad eldgaffel och stopa upp i r¶ven.
If you can€t understand this I€m sure that some one can translate it for you.

And if this is a stupid attempt at trolling why are you still here.... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All this is nonsense, and you have a peculiar way of twisting History to 'prove' your points.

Firstly, if there wasn't a war in Europe coincidentally at about the same time Aviation was starting to really prove it's worth, do you think we would have stuck guns on a plane in 15 years?

You let on the be a military pilot, so why don't you mention that the armed forces in WWI viewed the airplane as less than a serious weapon? It evolved into a potent weapon over time. I know why you don't, it's because it doesn't serve your argument well.

Next, all your arguments are all well and good, but you lack a mission for your space force of armed spacehips. What is that elusive mission? To simply gain altitude on your enemy? Hogwash. Ever hear of satelliets and ICBMS? ICBMs don't need to have nuclear warheads.

So what's next for a mission? You need to counter you're enemies' space forces? Why do they have space forces? To waste money on programs that won't help as you overrun his country with conventional weapons? His nifty spaceships won't help much at that point. You are trying to tell me that a space force will be superior to atmospheric aircraft in all situations? Why? How? You're an F-16 jock, right? So you tell me how that pig of a spaceship will have enough fuel on board to do all these things, have enough thrust to weight to carry a weapons and presumably countermeasures package, two propulsion systems, and somewhere a pilot or a humanoid if you prefer ( http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif ), perhaps two or more, because this is going to be a vessel of some size to do all these things, and now you're telling me that a Saab with a conventional pilot can't shoot it down? THAT'S crazy talk. So you want a nuclear reactor on the spaceship or somesuch. great. Whole host of issues with that...

Next we have "Why are we doing X Y and Z if there's no value in space?" Man is an explorer. "Because it's there" is why people climb mountains, but not, according to you, why we go into space.

Mars is great and all, but again, what is the military need for all this on Mars, exactly? having all the materials we need on Mars for a Space Force is great, but again, we are stuck with no Mission for them on Mars or beyond.

And we think you're Gerd because it's a nifty coincidence with your registration date and the fact I see you in no other discussions but this one.


Being an F-16 jock is great, but what does that add to your credibility as forecaster of the need for an armed space force, exactly? I don't see the connection. I once was naughty with an engaged girl who wasn't engaged to me, and that was great, too, but it doesn't make me an authority on the need for armed space vehicles.

Now, as for whatever vessels we build we will arm, you need to take a walk outside and look around. Warfare is not all around you, but vehicles are. I've never see a jetski with a machine gun in real life. Nor have I ever seen a taxicab with a weapon mounted on it. Your arguments on this point are a little...odd to say the least. You'd be better served by arguing that the Space Shuttle can PUT weapons in space so in a way, armed spaceships already exist. I would shoot that idea down, if you pardon a little play on words, but's that another subject.

Have you ever sat in on a meeting about designing something in a conventional fighter jet? I have. I've talked to guys from El Segundo and I see what needs to be done to change a fastener on a military jet. I don't for one second think a dime is being spent on armed spaceships until there's a mission for them AND a clear enemy AND a reliable way to put man into space en masse. I don't seem to recall hearing about the existence of any of those three things. Do you?

I'm here because all this amuses me. If nobody has told you, this is a game forum. We like to think of it as a simulation, but really, it's entertainment and game can apply. So I am being amused. Why are YOU here? You sure do take this seriously. Are you a recruiting officer for the United Earth Federation Space Force? You are going to have to work out that pesky little problem of no viable mission for your armed spaceships, I'm afraid. You see, you talk of a "race" that is an enemy. Science Fiction, and also circular logic when you mention us as the enemy, because there is no reason to have a space force in any country, so we don't need to arm ourselves against ourselves in space. Your thoughts on History concerning the subject are also strange, because well, again, there's no war in space that can't be fought here on Earth more cheaply. First you need a target in space. How many military targets are there in space, again? I forget. Is it Zero? I think it's zero.


And, leaving me a message in another language that I may not speak is a pathetic attempt to vex me that has failed. Miserably, I might add. Have the guts to say it if you are going to say it or else shut your cry hole, is my thoughts on that. See? I said 'cry hole' because that's what I REALLY thought,I didn't post it in Aramaic or Old Slavonic so that you couldn't understand me, I at least showed you the respect to just say what I wanted to say.

ImpStarDuece
10-18-2004, 07:32 PM
For a look at some of the practicalproblems to do with the commercial exploitation of the moon, our cloest solar neighbour, look here

http://fti.neep.wisc.edu/FTI/pdf/fdm1191.pdf

Interesting and realistic approach to a concept that has been floated by science fiction writers since the 30's.

At the moment many of the obstacles are nigh on insurmountable. Propulsion, fuel, distance, cost of getting something into orbit.

Space combat, if it did occur, would preclude human interaction on anything but a strategic level. Why? Well if we have the technology to cleanly and cheaply launch extra orbital vehicles i will assume a level of technology that allows us to hit targets moving at beyond 40, 000 kph. That means launching weapons intially moving at an appreciable fraction of c (speed of light in a vacuum) before you start to bring in things like linear or coil accelerators, particle beams or other exotic weaponry.

No human is EVER going to be able to have a reaction time that will be equal to that kind of velocity. Sith man. AI and robotic/computer control is the only thing that will ever have a chance. Humans have enough of a problem with sppeds below 1000kph. The refresh rate of the human eye alone isn't fast enough to deal with objects moving any faster than that. Youd need the reactions of a snake (300 times faster than a humans) and the eyes of a dragonfly (which has a refresh rate about 20 times better than ours) and still you would struggle.

Any space combat that occurs is going to be at the mercy of relative velocity and orbital mechanics. My best guess is that humanly crewed mother ship would launch Ai piloted independently controlled 'shipiles' that would seek their own destruction. High tech kamikazies with electronic brains spewing out decoys, sub-munitions, kinetic missiles and carrying nuclear warheads. Distances involved would mean that the evemy would never even approach visible range. Most would be conducted at distances measured in the tens of thousands of kilometers.


This is a silly topic and i cant believe i just wasted my time writing this.

Philipscdrw
10-18-2004, 08:08 PM
Space weapons? That's not a silly idea. No X-wings or manned spacecraft, but satellites armed with nuclear warheads or solar-powered lasers.

Have you played Sim City 2000? Do you remember the microwave power plant? There was a satellite in orbit with large banks of solar cells which beams its energy down as a microwave laser (a maser) to the power station, and occasionally it would miss and set fire to things. Now, if you had something like that in orbit you could rain microwave death onto the heads of your enemies, or light your own cigarette from space. Very James Bond idea but it is hypothetically feasable.

If war breaks out in space, it would be between laser-armed autonomous solar-powered satellites, not X-wings or Mars or wormholes.

And if we mine Mars, we'ld send autonomous robots to do it. By that time, the aerospace industry will have much more experience of UAVs ect.

And a Rapid Reaction Force in dropships: it is feasable but won't happen in this 50 years.

Jaurocha
10-19-2004, 05:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
You let on the be a military pilot,
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No I€m not a pilot. I said that I made my military service there (I meant F16 the air force base in Sweden, Not the Lockheed fighter), and as you surely know there are much more personal then pilots on an airbase.

Actually I€m a transmission technician and have the responsibility to se that all wire and radio transmissions work on radar stations.

So I€m sorry if I mislead you it was not my intention. Nor was it my intention to try to boost my credibility. What I meant was that if some one was in doubt, I have a background that people on this board easy can verify with a couple of questions.

So once more I€m not a pilot.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
so why don't you mention that the armed forces in WWI viewed the airplane as less than a serious weapon? It evolved into a potent weapon over time. I know why you don't, it's because it doesn't serve your argument well.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No it serves my argument well. Because now it is you who se a technology as less than a serious weapon. And time will tell if it will become one or not.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Next, all your arguments are all well and good, but you lack a mission for your space force of armed spacehips. What is that elusive mission? To simply gain altitude on your enemy? Hogwash. Ever hear of satelliets and ICBMS? ICBMs don't need to have nuclear warheads.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
At present time I can€t se any clear mission for a space force. But then nobody could se the need for air lines for 100 years ago. Now they are everywhere.

I think that with accessibility comes the capability of exploitation.
And with and with exploitation comes economic interest.
And with economic interest comes conflict.
And with conflicts comes weapons.

As I said before, you seem to have more faith in mankind then I have. I think it is in the human nature to wage war, not because of the grater good or some thing, but because people think of it as a possible solution for a problem, and I think is kind of sad.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
and now you're telling me that a Saab with a conventional pilot can't shoot it down?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I said what?
I reread my post and could not find any reference to SAAB or to conventional pilots. So this comment puzzles me.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
"Because it's there" is why people climb mountains, but not, according to you, why we go into space.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Couldn€t agree more. That is what will get mankind there. But as I said above...
With accessibility comes....

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
And we think you're Gerd because it's a nifty coincidence with your registration date and the fact I see you in no other discussions but this one.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually I registered in April (I think) but it seams that you get your regdate with your firs post.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Being an F-16 jock is great, but what does that add to your credibility as forecaster of the need for an armed space force, exactly?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
As I said before I€m not a pilot. Sorry for any misunderstandings.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I don't for one second think a dime is being spent on armed spaceships until there's a mission for them AND a clear enemy AND a reliable way to put man into space en masse.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Seems that USA disagrees.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
You'd be better served by arguing that the Space Shuttle can PUT weapons in space so in a way, armed spaceships already exist.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
When you are right you are right.

€œThe Bush administration appears to have a serious interest in anti-satellite (ASAT) weapons, and the Pentagon has announced its intention to pursue a testbed for space-based missile defenses by 2008.€

€œA number of other relevant treaties and international agreements exist, but the legal framework addressing space weaponization is far from comprehensive. Continuing the peaceful use of space will require cooperation among space-faring states and refined international laws and means of dealing with conflict.€

€œUCS's project on space weapons is intended to analyze the range of technical issues underlying the development, use, and control of space weapons, and to use this analysis to develop recommendations for US and international policy on these issues.€

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/space_weapons/index.cfm

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
Now, as for whatever vessels we build we will arm, you need to take a walk outside and look around.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You have a point that normally people don€t put weapons on there car, boat or jetski. But take a look at any war zone and you will se that people mount weapons on what ever they need to or can find. And I don€t think that space ships will be an exception.

quote: Are you a recruiting officer for the United Earth Federation Space Force?
Noppe I don€t believe that it will happen under my lifetime.

quote: You see, you talk of a "race" that is an enemy.
Well yes, the human race.
Many humans seem only to happy to kill to get what they want.

quote: because there is no reason to have a space force in any country , so we don't need to arm ourselves against ourselves in space.
----
Again it seems that USA disagrees. And I don€t think they are alone.

quote: History concerning the subject are also strange, because well, again, there's no war in space that can't be fought here on Earth more cheaply.
----
Then why are we building expensive air crafts when it would be much cheaper to use infantry? Just a man and an inexpensive machinegun.

You think that waeponized space crafts are bogus just because you can€t se any direct use for it.
I se it more like the development of submarines. The idea begun around 1600 and for 300 years the ideas developed. Until around 1900 when the technology finally arrived to make those ideas in to some thing that could be use full and not just a strange locking experiment. So if you ask me what real threats I se right now. I€d say none. And I don€t see any technology that in a near future would enable us to build a space force of some sort.

But I se the ideas. And I look at history and se that if some one has the idea and the technology develops to support it then the ideas will become reality.
You say that you can€t se the scenario of a space force become reality to day.
And I say that nor can I. The difference seems to be that you believe that it will never happen and I believe that given time it will.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
I'm here because all this amuses me. If nobody has told you, this is a game forum. We like to think of it as a simulation, but really, it's entertainment and game can apply. So I am being amused. Why are YOU here?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It seems that we are here for the same reason.
I find this an interesting topic, and try my best to find valid arguments. That€s why I wonder when you say...

€œThis has got to be the stupidest attempt at trolling ever. Wait right here, I have an award for you, Gerd/Juarocha€

€œI can't access photobucket right now, so you're going to have to wait for your "Happy Freak" award.€

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chuck_Older:
And, leaving me a message in another language that I may not speak is a pathetic attempt to vex me that has failed.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Sorry about that. I was very angry yesterday because I felt that you called me a liar. I could translate it for you but I don€t think it would help the situation. So I will remove it and hope that I didn€t offend you to much.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-19-2004, 06:36 AM
Well I think the chances of ever seeing a space force are minimal because as has been proved here.

Man cannot even get on using the fooking interweb let alone the real world so how the hell is he ever gona cope in space.

Any kind of mass space migration requires a joint global effort by mankind and not just anyone nation. In short unless we all suddenly get hit by a magic love ray from outta space forcing us all to behave and co-operate the whole concept is doomed from the begining.

We will most likely continue to argue over our planets rapidly diminishing resources splitting into ever smaller and smaller factions until we eventual reduce ourselves to the level of cave men once more.

The future is doomed the future is Human.

Unless....

you make me your Planetary leader where upon I will enslave you all to build me a massive mud man army to pilot my mighty space warships in their never ending quest for interstellar dominance.

Bow before me Earth men for I am your tru master

mwuahahahahhahahahha ahahahahha ahahah
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Chuck_Older
10-19-2004, 07:28 AM
Juarocha-

I see we are misunderstanding each other

As for me being offended, have no worries about that

Gerd_Schopfel
10-19-2004, 08:59 AM
Ohh ****! I spend all this time writing this post for Chuck_Older and when I was about to be finished I accidentally exit the window and all is lost. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/cry.gif AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHh...it's such an awful feeling. Anyways, I'll paraphrase:

Chuck_Older you need to realize that your thinking is OUTTA THIS WORLD! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif
What I mean is that, you either do not care, or just don't want to open up the possibilities that we humans ((homo-sapiens...yes in the end we are all monkeys)) are capable of conquering space as we have our troposphere and stratosphere ( I mean Air-Force) in the last 100 years or so. We all know that every frontier must be protected. In other words, we humanoids wage war in every frontier: ground, sea, air, and eventually...take a deep breath... space (no joke, take it seriously Chuck_Older). The is no way to deny it. Eventually we humans will have spaceships with weapons lurking in space and in turn use them in conflicts with eachother or other beings from far away. Sure with our current technology and world affair there is no freaking need to conquer space, but we all know better: It ain't gonna be like this forever: We will always be advancing our technology/knowledge to meet the unpridictable world we live in. Just because a concept is far fetched doesn't mean its not credible. One more thing, our logical thinking of things have deceived us many times over, so just because something is not logical does not mean it is magical fluff!


Chuck_Older, I hope you had a good sleep yesterday night !

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-19-2004, 09:29 AM
Hmm I am willing to bet that you probably weigh about the same amount as a Duck and so by my logic that makes you............

A witch !!! A witch !!

Quick lads grab him!!

This one talks purdy about the world not being flat too

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Gerd_Schopfel
10-19-2004, 12:24 PM
I have one word for you tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:

Bless you child bless your heart and soul!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-19-2004, 01:06 PM
CHILD !?! F%^$ing CHILD !?!?

Your a bloody scientologist aint yah? Adimt it or I am breaking out the thumbscrews !!

I bet you got a fooking landing pad in your back yard too don't yah hmmmm ?

Confess now and we may yet show mercy.

Then again we may just torch the whole village!!

Oh and get Torquemada in here we got one to go extra crispy and hold the fries!!

Wheres my freaking firebrand?

(wanders of ranting)

Child !! He said ! Bloody deviant!! And him with a fooking foil cap on an'all! I ask you whats the world coming to? In my day the little green men were goblins and any one talking about space travel got excomunicated and a red hot poker up the jacksie if they was lucky. Well I am gona fix his wagon and his bloody duck too you wait and see!!

(Sound of metal scraping on flint)

Bloody cheapo lighters never bloody work when you need em to

WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE GIVE ME A LIGHT FFS!!

Jaurocha
10-19-2004, 02:06 PM
I think this is one of the, kind of on topic (air planes and if the air force is going to be obsolete or not) and yet so far off topic (wild arguing if a space force will ever exits), I€ve seen in a long time.

To Chuck_Older
Nice to hear that there is no hard feelings.
And it has been interesting to hear your view on the topic.
And... well, the world would not be a very interesting place if every body agreed on every thing, would it.http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Gerd_Schopfel
10-19-2004, 02:10 PM
Indeed Jaurocha, indeed. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Capt.England
10-19-2004, 04:03 PM
Just wait until the Greys/Grays* get you all, humans! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

This message includes Ameriglish for all space cadets in the U.S.***

HansKnappstick
10-20-2004, 03:03 AM
In these forums, we sometimes discuss merits of constructions such as Bf109Z or that Gotha flying wing. Now, discussing space warships is actually more justified: the Bf 109Z has never flown and will never fly, it is a pure fantasy, while space warships can eventually come.

Humanity will move into space eventually unless it destroys itself before that. Why? I do not know. In 1492, people also didn't see any particular reason for leaving beautiful Spain to go to these dirty small islands that have been just discovered... But these opinions changed and people from many European nations colonized new lands _and_ found profit in this.

In the colonial era, the goals of many European wars lied principally in Europe, and yet warfare was waged in the colonies. With varying effectiveness. But at least one numerous, vivid and creative nation of the modern world is a direct result of such a colonial rivalry of European countries.

Yes, many things that were hoped for in 1950's did not come true to this day. My bet is that the technological progress got slower now when nations spend more money on unemployment benefits and medical research aimed at extending a human life expectancy from 79.85 to 83.36 years. But time will come when we stop looking backwards (or will be forced to do so).

For those of you claiming that something is not technically feasible, please recall the words of that wise professor of technical sciences who prove 1900 (IIRC) that no craft heavier than air can ever fly.

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-20-2004, 04:10 AM
This would seem to be a more tangible argument for the so-called DOOM of any airforce


http://www.metalstorm.com/04_video_ucav.html

Gerd_Schopfel
10-20-2004, 01:04 PM
tHeBaLrOgRoCkS that website has nothing to do with this post man.

Sorry try again

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

FI.Snaphoo
10-20-2004, 03:31 PM
Actually, you're wrong Gerd_Schopfel, the Balrog's post has everything to do with this topic. You claimed to know about the fall of the Air Force as we know it. MANY, many people have proven you wrong for at least the forseeable future. And the Balrog's post only makes more sense. We are currently using more an more unmanned vehicles in military roles. Obvious less threat to human life. So, the logical conclusion is that more than likely the future generation of fighters will be unmanned.

As there is no need for space anything (other than exploration) in the forseeable future, this information is easier to see as a possibility for many reasons. One, we are using unmanned craft currently, we aren't using space fighters of any kind currently. Two, we are developing more unmanned vehicles then ever before. No one, to my knowledge, is developing a space fighter. Three, there is a need for unmanned vehicles and aircraft. There is no such need for space fighters.

You keep claiming that the lot of us who seem to argue against you have closed our minds to possibilities. Perhaps it is you who has focused too much on the future, and not looked close enough at the possibility that this "inevitability" is nothing more than fantasy.

Philipscdrw
10-20-2004, 04:48 PM
An airforce of UAVs is still an airforce!

There was n

HansKnappstick
10-21-2004, 04:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by FI.Snaphoo:
(yadda yadda) the _logical_ conclusion (yadda yadda) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because mankind has carried warfare in every environment it touched, from the atmosphere to oceanic depth, from Sahara desert to Himalayas, the logical conclusion is that the warfare in space will come. Trying to foresee the particular form it will take is a waste of time, however.

I agree with Snaphoo with the part of the umnanned craft. We see the trend now. But the ultimate fight will be carried out by men - and on the ground...

Heavy_Weather
10-21-2004, 06:30 AM
what Snaphoo said http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Gerd_Schopfel
10-21-2004, 11:03 AM
FI.Snaphoo wrote:
"...many people have proven you wrong for at least the forseeable future."
=========
When are you going to realize that you are hitting on the wrong keynote Snaphoo. You just said it yourself: That I'm wrong in the forseeable furture...no duhhh...I never said that the Air-Force will come to an end in the forseeable furture, but rather eventually. Eventually is the keynote that you need to be hitting! In other words, far superior space-fighters will dominate stratosphere flying aircrafts of an Air-Force EVENTUALLY!!!!!!...Thus, there will be no need for an Air-Force anylonger, simply because aircraft cannot compete with spacecrafts. The same way ballons are no match against aircrafts.
Hopefully this clears things up for you buddy!

Good night
http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Luftwaffe_109
10-21-2004, 07:52 PM
Hmm... looks like someone left the window of the psychiatric hospital open again... (pfft, space forces... lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif).

Gerd, your logic is deeply flawed. Now it is certainly a possibility that armed warfare may well come in some incarnation to space one day(possibly clumsy weapons to destroy other satelites, or means to strike at targets on earth, quite frankly I can't fathom any other SANE purposes for the weaponisation of space, though some may well exist).

However, this notion of space fleets and space marines, etc, being inevitable is just ludicrous. I'm sorry but the mere notion is absurd. You have yet to provide any evidence at all for how to construct such fighting machines, how to afford the, or even what use they will have. Instead you argue that it must happen because humans will find a way (presumably you also argue that they'll find a REASON too, galatic domination perhaps http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif)??. Well to that loony idea all I will say is that you've been watching too much Star Wars.

As to this notion of spelling the doom of the airforce, rubbish.

Answer me this:
-When cavalry was developed did it spell the end of infanty? No.
-When ships were developed did it spell the end of infanty? No.
-When armoured vehicles were developed did it spell the end of infanty? No.
-When aircraft were developed did it spell the end of infanty? No.

On to the navy:
-When mines were developed did it spell the end of the surface navy? No.
-When submarines were developed did it spell the end of the surface navy? No.
-When the airforce was developed did it spell the end of the surface navy? No.
-When missile weaponry was developed did it spell the end of the navy? No.

One can conclude that with the development of each and every inovation in warfare countermeasures are ALWAYS found and earlier tactics, techniques remain neccessary in some form (eg. we still and always will need to send people on the ground to capture and hold ground).

So what makes you think that a "SPACE FORCE", even if such a thing could exist (which is something you certainly have not demonstrated, much less shown to be inevitable) would spell the end of air power, which I daresay is a far more efficient means of gaining air supremacy then a fleet of enterpises or death stars?



Since I don't like to make a habit of talking to loonies this is the last you'll hear from me about the subject.

HansKnappstick
10-22-2004, 04:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:
Hmm... looks like someone left the window of the psychiatric hospital open again... (pfft, space forces... lol http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif).
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, it very comfortable to begin like this if we want to politely disagree with someone.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
Gerd, your logic is deeply flawed.
(...)
However, this notion of space fleets and space marines, etc, being inevitable is just ludicrous. I'm sorry but the mere notion is absurd. You have yet to provide any evidence at all for how to construct such fighting machines, how to afford the, or even what use they will have. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, but it is you who has to provide a proof that there will never be such a thing like space fleets or fighters. Can you?

HansKnappstick
10-22-2004, 04:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Luftwaffe_109:

Answer me this:
-When cavalry was developed did it spell the end of infanty? No.
-When ships were developed did it spell the end of infanty? No.
-When armoured vehicles were developed did it spell the end of infanty? No.
-When aircraft were developed did it spell the end of infanty? No.

On to the navy:
-When mines were developed did it spell the end of the surface navy? No.
-When submarines were developed did it spell the end of the surface navy? No.
-When the airforce was developed did it spell the end of the surface navy? No.
-When missile weaponry was developed did it spell the end of the navy? No.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nice try. How about this:
-when gunpowder arms were developed, did it spell the end of the bow? Yes, eventually.
-when armour and motorized weapons were developed, did it spell the end of using the horse? Yes, eventually.

Gerd_Schopfel
10-22-2004, 07:21 AM
Right on target HansKnappstick.
You understood it well.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Luftwaffe_109
10-22-2004, 05:12 PM
HansKnappstick - "Sorry, but it is you who has to provide a proof that there will never be such a thing like space fleets or fighters. Can you?"

Hans, let me tell you a little something about logic. If you say something is inevitble the onus is on YOU to provide even a kernle of evidence to support your admitadly absurd notion. The onus is not on somebody else to prove that, even in the most far-fetched and fantastical scenario your fantasy will not eventuate.

Hmmm, back to basics. This is how we construct a logical argument:

-Contention (Yours is that space fleets will make obsolete air forces).
-Arguments (I'd suggest you first talk about how they would eventuate, how they could be built, afforded, maintained, their usefulness if any and finally, why on earth they'd replace an airforce which would always be able to do the job more cheaply and efficiently. You havent acutually provided any such arguments).
-Evidence (Nuff said)

HansKnappstick - "Nice try. How about this:
-when gunpowder arms were developed, did it spell the end of the bow? Yes, eventually.
-when armour and motorized weapons were developed, did it spell the end of using the horse? Yes, eventually."

Let me put it this way: Ships have been a means of transport of goods, etc, over large distances for many hundreds of years. When aircraft were developed did they spell the end of ships? No, ofcourse not, large bulk movement by ships is still much cheaper and efficient that aircraft transport and thus still has a role to play even in the modern world.

NOW, to prove why an airforce would be doomed with the advent of a "SPACE SHIP FLEET" you need to provide some REASONS, as I have already demonstrated that newer technologies certainly do not always make obsolete older ones (eg. even some of the newest cruise missiles, have not made obsolete some of the oldest, infantry).


One other point. Why SHOULD warfare go to space? Notice that even here on earth warfare is not practiced in certain inhospitible or inaccesabile regions (eg. Antarctica, deep sea trenches, etc). Remember that cost and logistics will always play a part. Why should it be pracitised in the far more inhospitible and far more inaccesible outer space, with the vast costs associated with putting anything out there, let alone a space cruiser??

In any case, I find this discussion no longer serves any purpose, as there is no point speculating on something that probably will never exists (eg. space fleets ala Star Trek, etc) or something we can't predict (eg. the incarnation that any combat in space, if at all any, will take). Good day.

LStarosta
10-22-2004, 07:24 PM
You ALL have it wrong. The Air Force will just simply evolve to encompass new technology.


All your air force are belong to me.

Gerd_Schopfel
10-25-2004, 10:33 AM
Luftwaffe_109 you need to realize that this post is not about PROOF. Get over it man, for some things, there is no way that it can be proven. The perfect example is the topic of this thread: It cannot be proven. It cannot be proven that in the future man will set foot in Mars. So get it through your thick skull that proof is not necessary to envision new ideas that become reality. Ironically, our own history backs this concept over and over and over... You don't even have to look back that far.

http://web.elsatnet.cz/panek/web/obr/nuclear/Umbrella612c5.jpg

Chuck_Older
10-25-2004, 10:37 AM
This is still going on?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/53.gif

Gerd_Schopfel
10-25-2004, 10:41 AM
Yeah, how about you pitch in buddy?!

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/10.gif

Chuck_Older
10-25-2004, 11:02 AM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

If you bother to read your own thread, you will find that I already did, back on page one or two, buddy http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/mockface.gif

Gerd_Schopfel
10-25-2004, 11:25 AM
I know you have posted stuff in this thread before, but instead of winnnig, put down something worth posting...instead of "This is still going on?".

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-25-2004, 11:29 AM
Awww Chuck no more Jim Clark? I guess the new toys have arrived eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-25-2004, 11:32 AM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/niceday.jpg

'GASP'

'Did that guy say the airforce was doomed?'

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-25-2004, 11:33 AM
Yeah Hans its ineverable errr inevertable yeah like what he say Hans

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/teamamerica250b.jpg

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-25-2004, 11:34 AM
Pst the doom of washing machines is inevitable also .......
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/robot09.jpg

tHeBaLrOgRoCkS
10-25-2004, 11:38 AM
maybe you would prefer
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v323/tHeBaLrOgRoCkS/planes/galvatron.jpg

Transformers are inevitable tooo

Now all I need is a fooking time machine

Chuck_Older
10-25-2004, 11:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by tHeBaLrOgRoCkS:
Awww Chuck no more Jim Clark? I guess the new toys have arrived eh? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'll go back to Jimmy after I get my hands on PF.

For now I need to see my Hawk http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Chuck_Older
10-25-2004, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Gerd_Schopfel:
I know you have posted stuff in this thread before, but instead of winnnig, put down something worth posting...instead of "This is still going on?".

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am winning? Oh good. I love to win.

My post was designed to show my contempt for this rigid thinking you have that your conclusion is the only right one. And I see that it worked. Good on me.

See, the whole problem is, and I think I may have pointed this out, that your own arguments can work against you.

You say History shows us this will happen because many ideas became reality. Like this:

"So get it through your thick skull that proof is not necessary to envision new ideas that become reality. Ironically, our own history backs this concept over and over and over... You don't even have to look back that far. "

Nice intro, that. A sure way to sway the unwashed masses is to insult them.

Anyhoo, you conveniently forget the other side of that coin you flipped with that quote I have given you: that History also shows that many ideas fail, even if they are good.

In fact, History shows us that most ideas are crackpot notions. History backs this concept too, over and over.

So. All this is still going on? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Gerd_Schopfel
10-25-2004, 01:55 PM
I like the images some of you put into this post. It shows how diverse and futuristic some people are! Great stuff...to a certain extent. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif
Anyways, I guess some people can't be convinced about certain things, the same way I can't be convinced about certain things. So let's leave it at that and with that said, I thank all the participants who put the effort to show their opinions in this post. Thus, it's time to let this post die down and never be heard of again.

Good day, and remember...THE DOOM of any Air-Force is inevitable http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Cajun76
10-25-2004, 03:21 PM
Yep, and every garage in 1989 was supposed to have a nuclear powered helicopter and car, and Mach 2 passenger jets were to be common. It was inevitable by the year 2000...... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

BlakJakOfSpades
10-25-2004, 05:41 PM
wheres mine??? are you holding out on me? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif