I find especially useful the threat- and conflict-level classification proposed by Rear Admiral Richard Hill (RN) in his paper Medium Power Strategy Revisited. It is stated both in OPNAVINST 9070.1A and its predecessor. Nonetheless we consider ships designed according to the best contemporary practices as “survivable.” This simply demonstrates that survivability cannot be determined without defining the predicted level of threat. explosives – was sunk by aerial, light torpedoes with 330 lb. Brown’s “ Nelson to Vanguard“, in which the battleship Prince of Wales – designed to withstand 1,000 lb. A more realistic and historical case is discussed in D. An aircraft carrier will hardly survive the explosion of a nuclear torpedo under her keel. It is always the possible to offer examples to support a TRUE assertion. We can say also that this is an emotional way of applying logic, justified in cases when pure logic is viewed does not satisfy emotional positions.Ĭonsider whether the following statement is TRUE or FALSE: When there is strong disagreement on a specific issue, it is sometimes useful to state the reasoning carried to its extreme in order to mark the boundaries of common sense. This lets us reconsider the validity of the initial assumptions and is a loose variation of the reductio ad absurdummethod.
In discussing LCS survivability patos dominates over logos. These Greek words refer to our emotions, rational mind, and values. In general, the arguments fall into one of three broad categories - patos, logos, or etos. Yet there is something wrong with the debate about LCS survivability. Survivability is justifiably important as it is one of the key characteristics that differentiates warships from commercial vessels. Prince of Wales: Victim of survibability or the changing operational environment?īloomberg News recently again raised the issue of LCS survivability.