Chile's Place in Latin America

Chile Investment, how to invest in Chile, what to watch out for when investing, economic issues, currency exchange in Chile, and more.
User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 17374
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Frutillar, Chile
Contact:

Re: Chile's Place in Latin America

Post by admin » Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:28 pm

i also have my doubts about the threat of the russian hyper sonic missiles. they are notoriously hard to make reliable.
Spencer Global Chile: Legal, relocation, and Investment assistance in Chile.
For more information visit: https://www.spencerglobal.com

From USA and outside Chile dial 1-917-727-5985 (U.S.), in Chile dial 65 2 42 1024 or by cell 747 97974.

Huelshoff
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Sep 16, 2013 12:52 pm
Location: New Orleans, LA, USA

Re: Chile's Place in Latin America

Post by Huelshoff » Fri Dec 14, 2018 1:00 pm

Like much of the Russian military arsenal. During the Cold War some estimates had no more than half of the Soviet ICBMs getting out of the silos/off their launching pads. Yet 50% is still a bad day. I suspect that Putin knows this, and that is why he is so cautious in the "near abroad." Look at the trouble they had in Chechnya, Georgia, and Afghanistan.

I note that the Kuznetsov, when its operational, carries a full contingent of...15 planes. The Nimitz class US carriers carry normally about 64.

at46
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:13 pm
Location: Vancouver/Santiago

Re: Chile's Place in Latin America

Post by at46 » Fri Dec 14, 2018 3:07 pm

admin wrote:
Fri Dec 14, 2018 12:28 pm
i also have my doubts about the threat of the russian hyper sonic missiles. they are notoriously hard to make reliable.
Well, so far the Russians are the only ones who've been able to make them operational and put them in serial production. China has conducted successful tests but I haven't heard of them being accepted by the Chinese army yet. Americans are nowhere en el tema it seems. Still building huge expensive sitting duck ships and loading them up with expensive aircraft.

The big test of the Russian hypersonic missiles has already taken place and they passed with flying colors. It was on March 13th this year, only 13 days after they were first revealed by Putin on March 1st.

You'll recall the staged chemical attack in Eastern Gouta, in response to which US/Nato wanted to bomb government buildings in Damascus. The Russians threatened to shoot down not only the US/Nato missiles, but also their carriers. That would have been the very first actual Russia-US shoot out in a long long while. But, as we all know, it never happened, because the Americans lost the nerve. Good for them, and for everyone.

User avatar
admin
Site Admin
Posts: 17374
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2006 11:02 pm
Location: Frutillar, Chile
Contact:

Re: Chile's Place in Latin America

Post by admin » Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:20 am

i always take "wonder weapons" with a grain of salt. historicaly they rarely win a war, even if they work as advertised. typicaly the failure is in production and deployment volume.

for instance, would japane have surrendered had they known we only had two nukes. openhiemer had made bet for $5 that the first test would not even work. i sure would not want to be the poor bastard that has to go in to the test site and figure out why the first nuke in history did not detonate and defuse it.

how about germany's jet planes. yea they could have won war, 5 years earlier. the v2, v3?

even subs in wwll. it took several years to get the right mix of commanders in all the navies that produced them in great numbers to figure out how to use them effectively. by then the anti-sub technology had pretty much negated them. there was only a small window durring the whole war in which subs were little more than a weapon of terrorism.

"super weapons", tend to be most effective in the gap between the possesers figuring out how to use them effectively, and those defending against them learn how to counter them (or aquire them). other than that, they are typicaly useful as a reliable distraction for the otherside to waist resources trying to counter.

i could go on all day listing "super weapons" that were less than super in practice. exploiting or over coming the learning curve involved, is typicaly the only reliable super weapon in war.
Spencer Global Chile: Legal, relocation, and Investment assistance in Chile.
For more information visit: https://www.spencerglobal.com

From USA and outside Chile dial 1-917-727-5985 (U.S.), in Chile dial 65 2 42 1024 or by cell 747 97974.

User avatar
eeuunikkeiexpat
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 7395
Joined: Fri Sep 01, 2006 1:38 am
Location: Megalith of unknown origin near my digs, south V Region coast

Re: Chile's Place in Latin America

Post by eeuunikkeiexpat » Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:02 am

Well the Japanese were already talking with the US about surrendering and the nukes were not necessary except to show the Russians who were about to launch a new front against an already defeated Japan to stay out and that the US leadership was capable of being as psychopathic or more than the Russian leadership.
Generally, just a SPAM KILLER. You are on your own in this forum. My personal mission here is done.

BUT when necessary, by way of ridicule and truth revelation we shalt do war.

--eeuunikkeiexpat

Britkid
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 1645
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:59 pm
Location: Talagante area, Chile
Contact:

Re: Chile's Place in Latin America

Post by Britkid » Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:14 pm

The question is always posed as should they have used the nukes or not but to me there might have been a third way which would have been to use the nukes on the Japanese mainland but not on a city, and then threaten to use them on a city if the Japanese didn't surrender.

Ideal would have been to use them on high ground where the explosion could have been seen from a city, perhaps the city with the most Japanese army and political leadership in it. But set it off in a rural area where the number of casualties would have been far, far lower than use in a city.

That way, they could have avoided the loss of life in an invasion as well as the loss of life from setting off a nuclear bomb in a city.
In 2014/2015 I blogged about my life in Chile. http://web.archive.org/web/201601121940 ... age_id=268

at46
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:13 pm
Location: Vancouver/Santiago

Re: Chile's Place in Latin America

Post by at46 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:28 pm

admin wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:20 am
for instance, would japane have surrendered had they known we only had two nukes.
Well, yes, they would have. From wiki:
Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's research has led him to conclude that the atomic bombings were not the principal reason for Japan's capitulation. He argues that Japan's leaders were impacted more by the swift and devastating Soviet victories on the mainland in the week following Joseph Stalin's August 8 declaration of war because the Japanese strategy to protect the home islands was designed to fend off an Allied invasion from the south, and left virtually no spare troops to counter a Soviet threat from the north. Furthermore, the Japanese could no longer hope to achieve a negotiated peace with the Allies by using the Soviet Union as a mediator with the Soviet declaration of war. This, according to Hasegawa, amounted to a "strategic bankruptcy" for the Japanese and forced their message of surrender on August 15, 1945.[36][15] Others with similar views include the Battlefield series documentary,[2][10] among others, though all, including Hasegawa, state that the surrender was not due to any single factor or single event.

at46
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:13 pm
Location: Vancouver/Santiago

Re: Chile's Place in Latin America

Post by at46 » Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:57 pm

eeuunikkeiexpat wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 11:02 am
Well the Japanese were already talking with the US about surrendering and the nukes were not necessary except to show the Russians who were about to launch a new front against an already defeated Japan to stay out and that the US leadership was capable of being as psychopathic or more than the Russian leadership.
According to wiki, the Japanese were talking to the Russians, offering them territorial concessions in exchange for helping achieve a conditional surrender before the Americans. But I think given the long list of Japanese war crimes, it's only fair that the Russians did not accept their bribes and pursued them until they agreed to an unconditional surrender.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes

41southchile
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 496
Joined: Mon Jun 12, 2017 2:39 pm
Location: Lakes Region

Re: Chile's Place in Latin America

Post by 41southchile » Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:24 pm

Britkid wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 1:14 pm
The question is always posed as should they have used the nukes or not but to me there might have been a third way which would have been to use the nukes on the Japanese mainland but not on a city, and then threaten to use them on a city if the Japanese didn't surrender.

Ideal would have been to use them on high ground where the explosion could have been seen from a city, perhaps the city with the most Japanese army and political leadership in it. But set it off in a rural area where the number of casualties would have been far, far lower than use in a city.

That way, they could have avoided the loss of life in an invasion as well as the loss of life from setting off a nuclear bomb in a city.
In a country that actually believed their emperor was god like, a country that committed more horrors that can be listed here, a culture where it was more honourable to kill yourself than surrender, where the use of kamikaze was standard practice , you honestly think setting off an atomic bomb where nobody lived would have convinced them to just throw up their hands and say OK let's surrender???????? Read a few books , start with some of the Tokyo war crimes trials books.
Also after the bombs , the Japanese On the international stage became some of the most anti nuclear weapons advocates in the world, well they were up until the 1990s I don't know if that is still the case.

I visited the Hiroshima Museum a few times, it was a very grim place, but I was impressed by it's focus on peace and anti nuclear weapons angle. War is hell, war is horrifying and cruel, always has been , that is the idea of war, to win at all costs and generally as history shows no matter what the cost. It's very easy to sit back (and some might even say almost disrespectful to those that were there) to try and say what should have been done 70 years later.
In the Lakes Region Chile for 6 years. It looks like New Zealand in some ways, and is nearly at the bottom of the world too, but there the similarities end.

bert.douglas
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 490
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:42 am
Location: San Diego, California

Re: Chile's Place in Latin America

Post by bert.douglas » Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:04 am

admin wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:20 am
i always take "wonder weapons" with a grain of salt. historicaly they rarely win a war, even if they work as advertised. typicaly the failure is in production and deployment volume.
...
"super weapons", tend to be most effective in the gap between the possesers figuring out how to use them effectively, and those defending against them learn how to counter them (or aquire them). other than that, they are typicaly useful as a reliable distraction for the otherside to waist resources trying to counter.
Anti-ship weapons have been a growing threat for a long time. There is no real defense. And the situation is getting worse. The USS Stark was completely disabled in 1987 by two Exocet missiles fired from a bizjet. One of the missiles didn't even explode, but the unburned rocket fuel started a fire in the CIC (combat information center). The guys on the Stark didn't know the missile was coming until it hit. The only current defense is CIWS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system
This amounts to a computer controlled gatling gun with radar. It shoots bullets at the missile. Maximum engagement range is about 5000 meters. At mach 10 this is less than 1 second.

The situation is very asymmetrical. The missiles are cheap. And defense against them is difficult. With technical advances, such as computational fluid dynamics and low cost miniaturized electronics, the missiles are steadily getting cheaper and better. So you can afford a swarm of them. This will overwhelm any defense. Most of the cost is in airframe design and software development for the control system. The actual unit cost of manufacture is low.

at46
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:13 pm
Location: Vancouver/Santiago

Re: Chile's Place in Latin America

Post by at46 » Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:20 am

bert.douglas wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:04 am
admin wrote:
Mon Dec 17, 2018 10:20 am
i always take "wonder weapons" with a grain of salt. historicaly they rarely win a war, even if they work as advertised. typicaly the failure is in production and deployment volume.
...
"super weapons", tend to be most effective in the gap between the possesers figuring out how to use them effectively, and those defending against them learn how to counter them (or aquire them). other than that, they are typicaly useful as a reliable distraction for the otherside to waist resources trying to counter.
Anti-ship weapons have been a growing threat for a long time. There is no real defense. And the situation is getting worse. The USS Stark was completely disabled in 1987 by two Exocet missiles fired from a bizjet. One of the missiles didn't even explode, but the unburned rocket fuel started a fire in the CIC (combat information center). The guys on the Stark didn't know the missile was coming until it hit. The only current defense is CIWS. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-in_weapon_system
This amounts to a computer controlled gatling gun with radar. It shoots bullets at the missile. Maximum engagement range is about 5000 meters. At mach 10 this is less than 1 second.

The situation is very asymmetrical. The missiles are cheap. And defense against them is difficult. With technical advances, such as computational fluid dynamics and low cost miniaturized electronics, the missiles are steadily getting cheaper and better. So you can afford a swarm of them. This will overwhelm any defense. Most of the cost is in airframe design and software development for the control system. The actual unit cost of manufacture is low.
I think you're talking about the Russian aircraft killer 'Kinzhal' or Dagger which zeros in at a speed of 10 Mach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal

They also have the Avanguard missile that flies over a distance of 12K km bringing 3-6 warheads with 150-300 kiloton each and hitting at over 20 Mach. It's also already in serial production. Apparently, it would take 50 American SM-3 missiles to shoot one down, basically making the American missile defense obsolete.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avangard_ ... e_vehicle)

bert.douglas
Rank: Chile Forum Citizen
Posts: 490
Joined: Sat Mar 16, 2013 12:42 am
Location: San Diego, California

Re: Chile's Place in Latin America

Post by bert.douglas » Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:31 pm

at46 wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 9:20 am
I think you're talking about the Russian aircraft killer 'Kinzhal' or Dagger which zeros in at a speed of 10 Mach https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kh-47M2_Kinzhal
China has several classes of missiles specifically designed to kill ships. One that has been around for years is an ordinary intermediate range ballistic missile, with an actively guided reentry vehicle. It can be launched from 1000 miles away. All you need to know is the location of the target ship. Any fishing boat or yacht with a sat-phone can provide this information. China also has satellites that track the position of ships at sea. It is impossible to hide an aircraft carrier.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DF-21#DF- ... ic_missile

Post Reply