Crashdown109

But I'd like to know what functions, as in what manned stations, are common to the CIC and what the use is of the bridge of a vessel. If possible, list the crew and officer stations for the CIC and Bridge separately. Thanks.

Who does ? I think you're mistaking wishful thinking with reality. As CV said, mostly everyone signed them (and some of the accompanying treaties often thought as being part of it), but no one follows them to the letter. And as he implies, you're most likely including all warfare international laws, treaties and agreements under the banner of the Geneva convention, which is wrong You do know that the Geneva convention really only deals with the treatment of wounded soldiers (and since 1929, POWs) and the respect of non-belligerents ? Weapons and their lawful usage is NOT covered by it. The first convention (1864) dealt with creating volunteer corps for the treatment of wounded soldiers on the battlefield, and the clear identification of medical army personnel and volunteers. The second extended the first (1906) (note, nothing about civilians as of yet) The third, in 1929, defined rules for POWs, it was revised in 1949, when the Fourth convention was signed, adding treatment of civilians to what is commonly referred to as the Geneva Convention (as you can see, there are four, plus many revisions). Mostly everyone does NOT follow the Geneva Conventions to the letter, which completely forbid civilian casualties, or the more PC term of "collateral damage", as a means of waging war. It also forbids any form of rough treatment of POW (aka interrogation techniques), which everyone partakes in, even the so nice Canadians It also calls for a certain protocol to warfare, which is never followed these days : declarations of war, when they're effected at all, are done after hostilities have well started... (note : this might be actually be part of Hague conventions...) Parts of the Geneva convention are sadly outdated in face of modern warfare : it was put in place at a time when the establishment still thought in terms of set battlefields, the 19th century. That's why it's been updated at late as 2006. Again, it deals with the issues pertaining to the consequences of war, more than the actual conduct of war, even if it includes guidelines (which no one follows in the Western world, we all bomb majorly civilian targets to get at the enemy) on its conduct. As for what weapons and practices are legal, signatories can't even agree on the limitations, and they have specialized lawyers who deal with that kind of militaro-diplomatico-legalese for a living. So, for the rest of us, it's even harder to make heads or tails of it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions Note : I'm no expert or lawyer Most of that I was already aware of, but thanks. And no, I was not lumping all treaties into one cohesive body of law. I just was wondering why it seems like the Geneva Conventions are followed even to the extent we are led to believe.

Then it must have a steep curve, the polar ice cap has shrunk by 50% since the '70's according to one source. But, is man entirely to blame? No, Mother Nature has a hand in it.

So why is it that there are treaties against Anti-Satellite Weapons and combat shotguns, which everybody uses in violation of those treaties, yet everyone almost without exception follows the Gevena Conventions to the letter?

When did this "war" start? I didn't heard anything about it until I logged on the AP site this morning.

I remember something the Brits used to say back when steamships were being considered for military use. Something about sailors were ready to be blasted by cannon and cut by saber but not scalded to death. I wonder what they'd think of engineering spaces being turned into steam rooms fro recreational use.

Cool. But doesn't THAAD already work? Or can we not yet sell that to them? Is there some flaw in the THAAD missile I'm not aware of that the SM-3 does not have? I ask, because I have the sinking (no pun intended) feeling that we are going to have to call out the Draft eventually and those bases well become perminent (think Japan and West Germany, the early Cold War, all over again. Only with nuke-armed Islamists).

Exactly! Hell, I how to make a cheep form of napalm: styrofoam and gasoline. Mix it up, pour into a glass bottle, seal the opening and wrap some burning newspaper to the neck and throw.

Thank you all. I now have a lot of searching to do.

Anybody have a site address I could look up? I was afraid that it would be too complex to post on a forum, so I guess I could ask for specifics like if they use the Humvee or the CH-47 Chinook. Thanks for your time.

Does NATO used the same gear as US forces? I know they use the same rifle rounds and such, but do they fly the same cargo planes, choppers, Humvees, ect?

It seems that they convieniently forget about the rest of that sentience, the part about "shall not be infringed". If it were me calling the shots, people would be able to buy anything from Ruger 10-22s on through Uzi SMGs and H&K G36s to old German 88mm guns (people already do the latter, but munitions for them are a pain to find. People do own 105mm howitzers to clear mountain passes in places like Alaska and parts of the Sierra and Rockies, so why not automatics? Further down on the stupid dial; people can buy old-school cannons out of Dixie Gun Catalogue at any age with their daddy's credit card but you have to be 21 to own an F*ing HANDGUN!? I think I could kill more people with an artillery shell than a few bullets). The only stipulation would be the licences to sell such. If the individual states what to ban or limit certain classes of guns, their folly.

I honestly doubt that it makes any difference. Everybody already knows what they're up to, and has decided to ignore it. Unless and until they uncork what the RAF used to call "a bucket of instant sunshine" over Israel, toothless sanctions are the worst they'll likely suffer, IMO ... I'm sure the Israelis are already prepared to make some sort of preemptive strike. The Mossad are probably all over this one like flies on crap. I agree, toothless sanctions don't motivate people. Coming on like a whirlwind of high-tech fury does.

Odds are, the other ships in the Kitty Hawk's escort group are already either on station or in enroute. And just because you know the destination and point of disembarkment doesn't always mean that you have clue one what course it will set to get there.

It does seem odd, and more than a little disconcerting. Especially since I don't think the Kitty Hawk and Nimitz are traveling together. The Nimitz CSG was in the East China Sea as late as 16 March, conducting an Expeditionary Strike Force (ESF) exercise with the Essex Expeditionary Strike Group (ESG). Meanwhile, as this article indicates, the Battle Cat didn't leave port until Tuesday, 18 March. They may be rendezvousing with each other or other combatants at some point, but until then, Kitty Hawk seems a little exposed. I think that is logical, given the situation. More ships are probably even already on station near Japan or Austrialia and are enroute. It will take some doing to sink two CVBGs anyway.

How long is a piece of string? I'm afraid your question is impossible to answer (and any answer would be subject to considerable debate) without more variables. Does the fictional nation have an unlimited defense budget? What is its shipbuilding capacity? What kind of ships does it hope to build? etc etc etc Ok. Initial Data Land Area: 24.3 million square kilometers Population: 770.3 million at 2.3 percent rate of growth. Resources- Oil: ~35 billion barrels Iron Ore: ~2 billion metric tons Bauxite: ~25 billion metric tons An undetermined amount of uranium and other resources. Current industries are advanced and along with the standard of living, comparable to US figures. The initial fleet, prior to the mass build up, consists of essentially green-water forces; small destroyers, diesel subs and cutters with no aircover beyond shore-based planes. The Improvment Projects include CVNs along the lines of the Nimitz, CGNs of both Ticonderoga and Kirov classes (in other words, one is an escort for the CVNs, the other is a Surface-to-Surface combatant) and a sophisticated array of destroyers and nuclear submarines. No plans for troop carrying vessels as of yet. Recent History: Nation formed as a Pan-African economic bloc which morphed into a sort of Sub-Saharan Empire, which instigated wide-spread reforms and projects to improve the economic conditions. The result, after about eight-ten years of constant toil is a fairly modernized nation with nuclear power production and noticably improved living situations across the continent. I hope this helps. I'm trying very hard to keep the situation as realistic as possible with seeming ridiculous, but I have to admit this looks silly on the surface of it all. Any help would be most appreciated. Thanks. So, five years to build up the industries, two leads to prep the yards and a five-year mass construction period.

So, in the sinario, the navy in question would use as a CIWS the Rafael Typhoon GSA with a Mauser (Rheinmetall) BK-27 autocannon, correct? If I got that right then I can move on to my next major question, in order for this fictional nation to amass the naval strength to rival the USN, how often over a period of five year would it have to put ships out on the water? Mind you, some of them will be nuclear driven and quite large (think Nimitz and Kirov). If not feasable, estimate amount of years ontop of the original five it would take.

They should bring it back, for the men when they are off duty. No loopholes or circumvention of the regs, just straight, up-front service.

Currently, I'm working on a wargaming project with some from friends of mine. It involves a fictional navy using mostly imported weapon systems. In this case, marrying the Rheinmetall MLG 27 to the multifunction Rafael Typhoon. I figure that the Typhoon is the dominant system while the MLG 27 is the weapon subordinant to the system. Do I have this right? Thanks.