General question on weaponry... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Steel Panthers World At War & Mega Campaigns



Message

Sturmbannfuhrer -> General question on weaponry... (8/3/2002 12:30:54 AM)

Okay...Spwaw there are certain categories of battlefield rockets that serves as artillery support and so on...They give area denial characteristics and destroys units within that certain perimeter of destruction.When compared to battlefield/cruise missiles like the SCUD & FROG system, how the hell does it work...? Do they target a single target, or issit an area denial weapon also or issit used to destroy specific targets...

I know its not in the game or time period, i just gotta know how this system works...:rolleyes:

Dont fire me ok...hehehhe:D



Jim1954 -> (8/3/2002 1:21:29 AM)

I think the guidance systems on those early types were extremely crude if they existed at all. I believe the carpet bombing concept was what they were trying to achieve. Pick an area and blast the h*ll out it till nothing moves.

Scud , Frog Cruise et.al. are pre targeted for a specific impact point, I believe, ... building, bridge, foreign leader's office complex, house etc. etc. .

At least that is what I think you were asking. Pardon my oops if I read it wrong.



antarctic -> (8/3/2002 8:07:09 AM)

[QUOTE]Scud , Frog Cruise et.al. are pre targeted for a specific impact point, I believe, ... building, bridge, foreign leader's office complex, house etc. etc. . [/QUOTE]

I don't think the Scud was that accurate. It had the accuracy of the typical WW2 guided missile (eg V1, V2), and was probably designed to deliver tactical nukes (I think) or as a terrorist weapon (a la Iraq in the Gulf War).... or i guess you could try and use it as arty (bit on the expensive side, though...

Antarctic



Jim1954 -> (8/3/2002 9:03:57 AM)

You are most probably right. Most of my interests and knowledge lie in the realm of WW2 and not much after that.



G_X -> (8/3/2002 9:06:59 AM)

I think SCUDs were designed for Weapons of Mass Destruction...Nukes, Bio/Chem warefare, things of that nature.



Sturmbannfuhrer -> (8/3/2002 10:38:40 PM)

Did they ever carried multiple warhead ammos in them...?:confused:



G_X -> (8/4/2002 7:26:51 AM)

I don't think SCUD's can be MIRV'd (Or is it MLRV'd? I always saw it as MIRV)

That's the use of multiple (nuclear) warheads from a single ICBM, the missile goes up, apexes, the cone splits into all it's warheads, and each can target cities a good range appart by adjusting their fall back to earth over the long distance an ICBM drops when it comes down.



gainiac -> It's MIRV............. (8/4/2002 11:01:53 AM)

M(ultiple) I(ndependently targetted) R(eentry) V(ehicles).

Amongst the multiple warheads one can choose from an assortment of passive and active decoys as well as sophisticated Electronic Countermeasures Packages...........

MIRV's are COOL.

:)

Martin



G_X -> (8/4/2002 12:47:40 PM)

Thank you.

MIRV's are heinous, and are the most destructive thing ever devised by man, when your house is gone because a Russian warhead, that was from a MIRV capable missile, and you survive the blast, but die of radiation poisoning, they won't be cool.

Nukes are bad, Mmmkay?

Besides, it puts the army out of a job to have nukes, let's stick to conventional warfare.



gainiac -> Nukes aren't bad............. (8/4/2002 8:42:06 PM)

American Nukes are the single thing that kept the U.S.S.R. from having their way with Europe, and Asia, if not the world.

Nukes served their function as a vital deterrent for quite some time keeping the Reds at bay.

Besides they won't be phased out until a new "politically correct" super weapon of mass destruction comes out.

What makes nuclear war so taboo and conventional war OK?

Many people still die, it just takes longer conventionally.

It's OK to fire bomb a city (Dresden, Tokyo, etc...ad nauseum) bot god forbid you use a TAC nuke.

It can be argued that nuclear weapons in the hands of the superpowers have kept things relatively stable for the last 60 years except for a few minor (in comparison to a World War) regional conflicts.

Besides my comment was in pure regard for the sophistication of MIRV technology.

Last time I checked this was a Wargamer's site, so I don't think my view is in any way offbase.

Martin



Bing -> (8/5/2002 12:55:22 AM)

A SCUD is a garbage can with a rocket motor at one end and a payload (small) at the other. Hitting anything with a SCUD is more a matter of luck than skill - this is a Nike-Ajax (-Hercules) man speaking.

Guidance for Katyushas and their equivalent? Sure, point it where you want it to go, elevate for what you think it will need. Press firing button. A redleg who knew his business could probably get an impact area within 100 meters of where he wanted, maybe a little closer but not much.

If he didn't know his trade .... you get a complete miss a la the rocket "barrage" that preceded the Normandy landings - all of the rockets missed, landing in the swampy and flooded areas behind the beach defenses. Made the troopies who were upchucking their breakfast in the landing craft feel better, maybe, but I doubt if it even scared the Germans.

Bing



G_X -> Re: Nukes aren't bad............. (8/5/2002 6:32:46 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by gainiac
[B]American Nukes are the single thing that kept the U.S.S.R. from having their way with Europe, and Asia, if not the world.

Nukes served their function as a vital deterrent for quite some time keeping the Reds at bay.

Besides they won't be phased out until a new "politically correct" super weapon of mass destruction comes out.

What makes nuclear war so taboo and conventional war OK?

Many people still die, it just takes longer conventionally.

It's OK to fire bomb a city (Dresden, Tokyo, etc...ad nauseum) bot god forbid you use a TAC nuke.

It can be argued that nuclear weapons in the hands of the superpowers have kept things relatively stable for the last 60 years except for a few minor (in comparison to a World War) regional conflicts.

Besides my comment was in pure regard for the sophistication of MIRV technology.

Last time I checked this was a Wargamer's site, so I don't think my view is in any way offbase.

Martin [/B][/QUOTE]


You can't prove that the USSR didn't overrun the rest of Europe because of Nukes, there's not enough evidence to either prove or disprove that. Conventional Warfare may be bloody, cold, and horrible, but I don't think you grasp the numbers that we'd be talking about if you started a nuclear war. Tactical Nuclear Warheads still poison the land, Nukes can't be used in an invasion, it's suicide to nuke a beachhead, then have your troops walk onto the beach while it's still Day-Glo Green from the Radiation.

Fire-Bombings are actually less murderous than destructive, it's not an instantaneous explosion that vaporizes almost everything nearby. London was Fire-Bombed too, IIRC.

As to the comment that nukes had kept the world stable, what kept the world stable before the nukes? Before WWI, were there that many massive conflicts on that scale? Not quite, some big ones though. Was Korea a small battle or two? No, not really. Was Vietnam? No, again. The world isn't stable even today. Nukes are not a deterent, or a defense, they are a weapon. I don't see that this has anything to do with what kind of site this is, and I never claimed that your views were...

[QUOTE]so I don't think my view is in any way offbase.[/QUOTE]

I was simply stating that Nuclear Weapons are not something that you call cool, they are an awe inspiring weapon of mass murder, as Nuclear Weapons have yet to be effectively used against solely military targets. Nuclear weapons also incur massive collateral damage, limiting their usage capabilities further.

I'm not a pacifist, I simply don't like the idea of nuking a city, killing millions of innocents, just to get a few targets inside the city. There's a PBS site that has the destruction radius for several modern kinds of Nuclear Warheads, I believe a 10 megaton Airburst, 10 Megaton Groundburst, and a 25 Megaton Airburst.

If I can find the site, I'll post it here, though I'm sure many here have seen it before.



VikingNo2 -> (8/5/2002 6:35:49 AM)

Can't we all just get along:D :D :D



G_X -> (8/5/2002 6:39:51 AM)

I was trying to get allong :)

Then I woke up :p :D ;)

OH yes, Bing...your description of a SCUD is perfect...


That and all this about Nukes is MHO, remember that. I just have different views than you, I'm not saying you're wrong, opinions aren't fact and can't be wrong. I'm just saying I believe Nukes never solved anything, except to cause more problems.



VikingNo2 -> (8/5/2002 6:43:10 AM)

Now that we are getting along, lets fight:cool:



chief -> (8/5/2002 11:00:17 AM)

In regards to using the 'A' bomb against exclusive military targets.
Hiroshima was one of Japans largest naval bases in the home islands. The military and civilian population was warned by leaflets and radio that a new weapon was to be used and to evacuate. Naturally the sumarai mentality of the Japanese military told the population it was all STUFFING (lack of suitable word). The rest is history. This info came from the book "Hiroshima" an account of civilian and military personnel on that day.



G_X -> (8/5/2002 11:59:43 AM)

I've read the said book, and yes, it was.

But if anyone up at the top honestly believed the Japanese would take it as anything but Propaganda, then they were a very stupid fool, especially as the book doesn't tell you that there were tons of Leaflets dropped all over both Germany and Japan and elsewhere to convince troops and civilians to surrender and not fight.

:( Sad to say it doesn't matter if they tried, telling someone you're going to shoot them 100 times then telling them you're going to do it one more time before shooting them doesn't give you the excuse of saying "I warned them" really.



bigtroutz -> (8/5/2002 1:22:09 PM)

errr, back to the original topic.....

the best rockets are the US 4.5 ", Brit Land Matress, SU Katyusha.
In general, if you fire from shortish range (~20 hex) you get roughly a 6 x 6 hex pattern, but this grows larger the further away you are from the target.

Generally, I am after supression in the target zone but you DO get alot of kills if the infantry is moving.

I use rockets to blunt an enemy offensive, or prepare an are for an offensive. If I get good coverage, I general just drive in and eat the enemy like popcorn.:D

Back to the side topic:

If nukes were so good, why havent they been used in 50 years? Nukes is a last resort, they make a big mess environmentally and politically. But think of the alternative....we all hate to lose.



gainiac -> The Nature of War (8/5/2002 9:36:15 PM)

G_X,

"You can't prove that the USSR didn't overrun the rest of Europe because of Nukes, there's not enough evidence to either prove or disprove that."

Your right I can't prove this, but I'm willing to bet that the U.S.S.R. found Pershings to be quite an intimidating variable of the total equation. Conventionally Europe could not stand up to an invasion by the Soviets. Pershings ensured that a Soviet invasion would never succeed.

"Conventional Warfare may be bloody, cold, and horrible, but I don't think you grasp the numbers that we'd be talking about if you started a nuclear war."

I fully grasp the capabilites of nuclear weapons. I worked with various types of ordnance when I served my country.

"Tactical Nuclear Warheads still poison the land, Nukes can't be used in an invasion, it's suicide to nuke a beachhead, then have your troops walk onto the beach while it's still Day-Glo Green from the Radiation."

I agree with you here as well, none of the above are valid tactics in which to employ a Tac-nuke.

Tac-nukes are a last ditch resort when you absolutely positively have to stop an otherwise conventionally unstoppable assault.

Like something along the lines of what would have been the probable Soviet gambits employed if they invaded Europe.

"Fire-Bombings are actually less murderous than destructive, it's not an instantaneous explosion that vaporizes almost everything nearby."

Look up the casualty totals for Tokyo and Dresden due to "conventional" firebombing.

"The U.S. bombing strategy of 1942-44 against Japan was expanded in a big way in March 1945, beginning with the fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9 and 10, 1945. The area of Tokyo selected was four miles by three miles, a zone with a civilian population density of 103,000 per square mile. A high concentration of incendiary bombs dropped from the huge U.S. B-29 Superfortresses ignited a series of fires, fanned by brisk winds, which raged out of control within half an hour, the result of which was that more than 15 square miles of Tokyo was burned out. About 100,000 men, women and children were killed and another 100,000 people were made homeless. According to the U.S. Army Air Forces: "No other air attack of the war, either in Japan or Europe, was so destructive of life and property." (18) (19)"

Here's the link: http://www.ieer.org/comments/bombing.html

"It was now argued that one of the main objectives of night-time blanket bombing of urban areas was to undermine the morale of the civilian population and attacks were launched on Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden and other German cities. This air campaign killed an estimated 600,000 civilians and destroyed or seriously damaged some six million homes."

"On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 135,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 250,000. Whatever the figure, it was probably greater than the 51,509 British civilians killed by the Luftwaffe during the whole of the Second World War and the 70,000 immediate deaths at Hiroshima after the dropping of the first atom bomb on 6th August 1945."

The atom bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also examples of area bombing. It has been estimated that over the years around 250,000 people have died as a result of these two bombs being dropped.


Here's another: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWarea.htm

"London was Fire-Bombed too, IIRC."

The Jerries never had anything close to the awesome offensive capabilities of the USAAF.

"As to the comment that nukes had kept the world stable, what kept the world stable before the nukes? Before WWI, were there that many massive conflicts on that scale? Not quite, some big ones though."

The US kept the Soviets at bay. Nope I can't prove that. Tell me why did they engage us in an arms race?

"Was Korea a small battle or two? No, not really. Was Vietnam?"

Compare the casualty totals to WW2 and in relative terms Korea and Vietnam were minor conflicts.

"No, again. The world isn't stable even today."

I agree the world isn't stable today, but I still hold the position that if it wasn't for the United States of America's policy of Mutually Assured Destruction the Soviets would have acted in a much more aggressive manner during post WW2 history.

"Nukes are not a deterent, or a defense, they are a weapon."

Since when is being a deterrent, defense, and a weapon mutually exclusive?

For Example:

If I have a shotgun, and a LARGE german sheperd to protect my home from forcible entry is that not a deterent? I would think so due to external warning sign on my property, i.e. "Beware of Dog", "Beware of Owner", "NRA sticker on my car"......

Is it not a defense because if those warnings aren't heeded and my sovereignty is violated my dog will attack the home invader and I will shoot them to protect my family?

I think the method in which the dog and shotgun are used qualifies both as a weapon as well.

"I don't see that this has anything to do with what kind of site this is, and I never claimed that your views were...


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so I don't think my view is in any way offbase.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"I was simply stating that Nuclear Weapons are not something that you call cool, they are an awe inspiring weapon of mass murder, as Nuclear Weapons have yet to be effectively used against solely military targets. Nuclear weapons also incur massive collateral damage, limiting their usage capabilities further."

I find it morally hypocritical that on this very website it's been expressed that flame throwers are considered cool, quad 50's are considered cool, massive rocket bombardment's are considered cool....etc ad nauseum..........but a nuke isn't?

(Yes I know it's a game, but it's a game that abstracts one of the more unsavory qualities of reality.)

I"ll clarify that my statement (MIRV's are cool) was in regard to the pure technology involved. Appreciation for the ingenuity of the weapons platform. Not the human destructive implications.

Sorry for any confusion. :)

I pose this question;

At what body count is massive wholesale horrible murder of human beings no longer cool?

After all WAR IS MURDER. State sanctioned. After a complete and utter breakdown of diplomacy and civility.

Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing /'m&r-d(&-)ri[ng]/
Date: 13th century
transitive senses
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE d : to defeat badly
intransitive senses : to commit murder
synonym see KILL


"I'm not a pacifist, I simply don't like the idea of nuking a city, killing millions of innocents, just to get a few targets inside the city."

I'm not pacifist either I'm a realist, and however much I don't like it there are times and places where violence on any scale is unavoidable.

I believe that certain situations can warrant nuking a city, historically speaking I find that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are justifiable. Horrible none the less, but justifiable.

I find that ideologies where it's acceptable to kill in one fashion and not another are born of ignorance and sadly paridoxical.

War is atrocity which manifests itself when the greed of a few holds sway over many and all hell breaks loose.

However If your going to wage war your stomach better be made of steel and you must be willing to employ whatever means are necessary in order to defeat your perceived enemies.

Armed Forces Kill. Leaders coordinate this killing.

Warfare is simply the brute strength uncivil will of one portion of society to hold sway over another.

Yours in friendly thought provoking debate,

(In other words............Sorry If I come on to strong.... :) )

Martin



chief -> (8/5/2002 11:57:49 PM)

Warriors need weapons, weapons need manufacturers, manufacturers need workers, workers are civilians, ergo civilian casualties are necessary to break the chain of war. Whenever we attack the source we win. When we play a political war (Korea, and VietNam) we come out on the short end of things. My two cents.:mad:

PS: Throw in another political boo boo "The Gulf War":(



fud -> (8/6/2002 12:13:10 AM)

The SCUD was originally one of the first Soviet battlefield tactical rockets. It only carried one warhead - HE, biological or chemical. (I can't remember if SCUDS got tactical nuclear warheads - I'll check if I think of it.) The SCUD1 had a liquid fueled rocket - I think it was kerosene and liquid O2. It's biggest drawback was the amount of support it required - it was unlikely to get off a second shot. The SCUD2 was similar, but it had a wheeled transporter that made it a lot easier to 'shoot and scoot'.

The SCUD actually did have a guidance system, though it wasn't nearly as sophisticated as what is available now. The missle was aimed in the direction of the target - the targetting mechanism measured the rocket's velocity during flight and, after considering the pre-programmed trajectory, cut the engine when the rocket reached what should be approximately the right spot. Needless to say, this doesn't provide pinpoint accuracy. However, it was guided - I think that the unguided missles like the katyusha's are better examples of 'garbage cans with rocket motors'.

And just to fuel the fray..... Maybe 'fascinating' is a better word than 'cool'. I'm fascinated by human history and the big role that armed conflict has played in it. But at the core of it, I'm pretty appalled that so many people accept it instead of trying to move mankind beyond it.

Sorry about the soap box.

fud



gainiac -> YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!What he said!!!!!!!!! (8/6/2002 12:17:12 AM)

"And just to fuel the fray..... Maybe 'fascinating' is a better word than 'cool'. I'm fascinated by human history and the big role that armed conflict has played in it. But at the core of it, I'm pretty appalled that so many people accept it instead of trying to move mankind beyond it. "

Right-O.......Maybe "cool" is a wrong choice of word on my part.................I've never been known for my sensitivity.

:)

Martin



fud -> (8/6/2002 1:04:33 AM)

The SCUD was originally one of the first Soviet battlefield tactical rockets. It only carried one warhead - HE, biological, chemical or tactical nuclear. Although SCUDS were included in the armories of Warsaw Pact nations, only the Soviets had the nuclear warheads to fit them. The SCUD1 had a liquid fueled rocket - I think it was kerosene and liquid O2. And a transporter based on the JSIII chasis. It's biggest drawback was the amount of support it required. The SCUD2 was a slightly bigger rocket, and it had a wheeled transporter that made it a lot easier to 'shoot and scoot'. The same transporter was used for later Soviet ground rockets.

The SCUD actually did have a guidance system, though it wasn't very sophisticated. The missle was aimed in the direction of the target and an accelerometer on board cut the engine when it reached a pre-set velocity. Needless to say, this doesn't provide much accuracy. However, it was guided - I think that the unguided missles like the katyusha's are better examples of 'garbage cans with rocket motors'.

And just to fuel the fray..... Maybe 'fascinating' is a better word than 'cool'. I'm fascinated by human history and the big role that armed conflict has played in it. But at the core of it, I'm pretty appalled that so many people accept it instead of trying to move mankind beyond it.

Sorry about the soap box.

fud



Jim1954 -> (8/6/2002 1:07:21 AM)

Best Use of Tactical Nukes?

Undoubtably Starship Troopers. The only good bug is a dead bug!



fud -> Sorry about the double post (8/6/2002 1:08:01 AM)

HEy All,

Sorry about he double post - my computer locked, so I went to lunch and posted again when I got back - never thought that the first one got through. I did check a couple of my facts, though....

stay cool,

fud.



john g -> Re: Re: Nukes aren't bad............. (8/6/2002 1:57:41 AM)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by G_X
[B]


Fire-Bombings are actually less murderous than destructive, it's not an instantaneous explosion that vaporizes almost everything nearby. London was Fire-Bombed too, IIRC.

[/B][/QUOTE]

London was sporadically firebombed, it did not suffer a firestorm like Dresden.

It is one thing to have buildings burning, it is another to have a fire that is so powerful that it generates gale force winds sucking the oxygen right out of the city. Many people were suffocated during the firestorm attacks that were not anywhere near the fire.

Personally I would prefer the flash death of a nuke to the coughing choking death of a firestorm.
thanks, John.



G_X -> (8/6/2002 2:34:39 AM)

Pershings to my knowledge are tanks...>_>

Is there an ICBM/Nuke Capable MRBM that I don't know about called a Pershing as well? That's quite possible.

To clarify my own statements:


I don't believe Nukes can be used in a "Tactical" sense. To me, Tactical Sense is what WaW is, and I don't see me nuking my enemy in a game like WaW, Ever, even with a 100 hex (5km) map, I'd still basically destroy everything on the map. That's not Tactical, that's Strategic, what I view Nukes as being. That's just my viewpoint.

Also...529 bombs to fire-bomb Dresden. Compare this to the Single (1) Bomber it took to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima.

This is what I mean by more murderous/destructive. If every one of those B-29's only had 10 bombs, that's 5290 bombs to do that kind of damage, Vs. 1 A-Bomb.

That's what I meant before, sorry I didn't make myself clear.

See, my views and your views of stability are apparently different. I don't view the Cold War as a time of stability in any way, shape, or form. I don't think the world has been stable at all for several hundred years. I don't think it will be stable any time soon. Yes, COMPARITIVELY (Emphasized so I'm sure you see it :) ) Vietnam and Korea were "Minor" conflicts. But tell that to the people who lost Fathers, Brothers, and Husbands to those two conflicts. Hard to explain to them why they died for such a "Minor" reason, don't you think? No war is trully "Minor" as the government tries to think of them, this is what I believe caused many of the mistakes in Vietnam, specifically the Air Force's inability to bomb civilian-populated areas at the begining of the war.

Also, if we had used Tactical nukes against Russian soldiers, what would have stopped them from using Strategic Nukes against us? Nothing, New York, Washington, San Francisco, LA, Atlanta, Memphis, Houston, Dallas, Hawaii, and alot of others I'm sure the USSR had Nukes aimed at would be hurting, and our Strategic Nukes would have gone off as well, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, Valdivostok...

I don't call that stable, I call that Pin-Drop, IE, the first Pin that drops blows the whole thing blows sky high. If you can call that stable, and I suppose you can...then I wish I could share your Optimism :)

And...
quote:

The US kept the Soviets at bay. Nope I can't prove that. Tell me why did they engage us in an arms race?
...

Sorry, I see your point, but the Russians, especially in the 70's an 80's were ahead of us in some areas, they were NOT that technologically backwards as most people seem to think, alot of our Euro-pals were much more backwards than the USSR was.

They did this despite the fact that they had very few of the rights America has as a democratic nation, as well as Stalin's purges, and the Gulags, which put alot of the brilliant minds of the USSR to work in slave-labor.

But to get to my point, you failed to tell me...What kept the world stable before nukes? Is the world that much more stable with them? DESPITE Pin-Drop?

As to your Shotgun/Dog theory...those are Defenses, and Deterrents.

But you're missing my point, those things guard your home, and keep people out. This is like someone sneaking into your almost-defenseless home, and you go over to his house and blow away his wife and kids while he robs you.

Does that make sense? I'd love to explain further, but the post is getting rather long, and is off topic for the thread really. I want to keep this up, it's hard to find someone who'll keep a light heart while arguing like this.

And as to your "Morally Hypocritical" theme, I've done that myself, yes. But I meant it in game usage, I'm sure if I had a Quad 50 pointed at me I'd not think it was cool :D :p

I wanna keep this up, so feel free to e-mail me, [email]talarus@yahoo.com[/email] This goes for anyone else as well, perhaps we could gather AIM names or something and all of us get together in a chat room to talk it out? It's just interesting stuff, especially if it stays in the (relatively) light hearted and good-spirited atmosphere it seems to be in now.

quote:

London was sporadically firebombed, it did not suffer a firestorm like Dresden.

It is one thing to have buildings burning, it is another to have a fire that is so powerful that it generates gale force winds sucking the oxygen right out of the city. Many people were suffocated during the firestorm attacks that were not anywhere near the fire.

Personally I would prefer the flash death of a nuke to the coughing choking death of a firestorm.
thanks, John.


I think that London also had alot of civillians keeping the bombings from getting out of hand, running around pouring water on the sparks and such. I'm not sure, but it's what I've read.



VikingNo2 -> (8/6/2002 2:59:44 AM)

No Nukes the EMP messes up my internet connection:D


By the way, in my opion there most powerful weapon the US ever had was our economy



My two cents;)



P.S. This was interesting reading I enjoyed it, thanks



gainiac -> Well............... (8/6/2002 4:10:14 AM)

"Pershings to my knowledge are tanks...>_>

"Is there an ICBM/Nuke Capable MRBM that I don't know about called a Pershing as well? That's quite possible. "

Go Here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/theater/pershing1.htm

To keep a long story short, American Pershings in Europe were kinda like Soviet Nukes in Cuba..............X-cept we kept ours there until arms limitation treaties started being agreed upon.........

To clarify my own statements:


"I don't believe Nukes can be used in a "Tactical" sense. To me, Tactical Sense is what WaW is, and I don't see me nuking my enemy in a game like WaW, Ever, even with a 100 hex (5km) map, I'd still basically destroy everything on the map. That's not Tactical, that's Strategic, what I view Nukes as being. That's just my viewpoint."

No argument from me on this point, I don't buy into the "tactical" use of nuclear weapons either, it can only lead to strategic destruction.

"Also...529 bombs to fire-bomb Dresden. Compare this to the Single (1) Bomber it took to drop the A-Bomb on Hiroshima.

This is what I mean by more murderous/destructive. If every one of those B-29's only had 10 bombs, that's 5290 bombs to do that kind of damage, Vs. 1 A-Bomb."

I agree with you here as well, nukes are exponentially more efficient in terms of destruction per ounce.........

I was merely pointing out that conventional technology was already at a great enough level in which to kill hundreds of thousands of people relatively quickly.


"That's what I meant before, sorry I didn't make myself clear. "

That's cool, :P, :), No problem here............

"See, my views and your views of stability are apparently different. I don't view the Cold War as a time of stability in any way, shape, or form. I don't think the world has been stable at all for several hundred years. I don't think it will be stable any time soon. Yes, COMPARITIVELY (Emphasized so I'm sure you see it ) Vietnam and Korea were "Minor" conflicts. But tell that to the people who lost Fathers, Brothers, and Husbands to those two conflicts. Hard to explain to them why they died for such a "Minor" reason, don't you think? No war is trully "Minor" as the government tries to think of them, this is what I believe caused many of the mistakes in Vietnam, specifically the Air Force's inability to bomb civilian-populated areas at the begining of the war. "

My comparison absolutely positively in no shape fashion or form has the intent to belittle the ultimate sacrifices made by so many in the service of this great nation.

They all deserve Congressional Medals of Honor as far as I'm concerned.

In terms of sheer numbers Vietnam and Korea PALE in comparison to the casualties sustained in WW2.

"Also, if we had used Tactical nukes against Russian soldiers, what would have stopped them from using Strategic Nukes against us? Nothing, New York, Washington, San Francisco, LA, Atlanta, Memphis, Houston, Dallas, Hawaii, and alot of others I'm sure the USSR had Nukes aimed at would be hurting, and our Strategic Nukes would have gone off as well, Leningrad, Stalingrad, Moscow, Valdivostok..."

That in a nutshell is EXACTLY what M.A.D. is!!
(Mutually Assured Destruction)

"I don't call that stable, I call that Pin-Drop, IE, the first Pin that drops blows the whole thing blows sky high. If you can call that stable, and I suppose you can...then I wish I could share your Optimism "

Imagine what the world would be like now if the Soviets were the only Superpower.

And...

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The US kept the Soviets at bay. Nope I can't prove that. Tell me why did they engage us in an arms race?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...

"Sorry, I see your point, but the Russians, especially in the 70's an 80's were ahead of us in some areas, they were NOT that technologically backwards as most people seem to think, alot of our Euro-pals were much more backwards than the USSR was.

They did this despite the fact that they had very few of the rights America has as a democratic nation, as well as Stalin's purges, and the Gulags, which put alot of the brilliant minds of the USSR to work in slave-labor."

I never compared relative technological achievements, the U.S. simply OUTSPENT the Soviets, and "STAR WARS/ SDI" was the brilliant icing on the cake, the straw that broke the camels back, and nearly the US Economy as well.

"But to get to my point, you failed to tell me...What kept the world stable before nukes?"

Nothing that I know of.

Is the world that much more stable with them?

I'm glad we (The U.S.) has them, alot of them, it keeps the balance of power EVEN, even if it is/ was a global Mexican standoff.

"As to your Shotgun/Dog theory...those are Defenses, and Deterrents."

They are also weapons in my example.

Main Entry: 1weap·on
Pronunciation: 'we-p&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English w[AE]pen; akin to Old High German wAffan weapon, Old Norse vApn
Date: before 12th century
1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy
2 : a means of contending against another



"But you're missing my point, those things guard your home, and keep people out. This is like someone sneaking into your almost-defenseless home, and you go over to his house and blow away his wife and kids while he robs you."

I never said it was perfect (Strategic Nuclear Deterrent), but without any PURELY defensive alternative in which to negate a nuclear attack, your best bet is to have enough bombs to wack your neighbor if you don't trust them. I truly believe that Minutemen, MX, Pershings, Tridents, Poseidons, and Polaris, kept the U.S.S.R. from running amok.



"Does that make sense?"

Yup, I think we agree in more ways than we both realize, with a few relatively "minor" :P contentions. :)

"I'd love to explain further, but the post is getting rather long, and is off topic for the thread really."

Oops!!! Sorry to all concerned for the thread hijacking!!!!

"I want to keep this up, it's hard to find someone who'll keep a light heart while arguing like this."

Socrates is a personal hero of mine.

Even though the world is still shaky at best currently, I think overall it's a relatively safer place without the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. having knives at each others throats.

I'm sad to say that I don't have much faith in the current leadership of the nations of this world. If their ever was a time for great people to rise up and take the reins it's now more than ever.

I'm done. :)

Are you?

(I hope!!!!!)

:)

Martin



G_X -> (8/6/2002 5:35:32 AM)

I suppose, there's only two main points I still disagree with you on, and those really probably won't change in either of us, so it'd be a waste of time to argue them.

:D I'm done.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.7636719