Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Rictor on July 03, 2005, 02:05:20 am
-
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4131583
AFTER he was conscripted last autumn, says Peter, an 18-year-old from Korolyov, he was frequently forced by his older comrades to climb through a hole in the fence at his base and beg for cash in a local town. There were beatings with stools and belt buckles, burnings with a cigarette lighter, and he was forced to give blood every two weeks to bring in a few more roubles. In the end, he ran away.
“You know what graffiti I wrote on the fence the other day?” Dmitri Oparin, a conscript from Chelyabinsk, wrote to his family during his service in the Moscow region. “Let me out of here.” With his twin brother Alexander, Dmitri was drafted in June 2003. After an especially brutal beating by a sergeant, the brothers deserted last November. They killed two policemen and Alexander died during a siege. Dmitri has been diagnosed with schizophrenia.
“Conscription,” Tolstoy wrote of the mid-19th century Russian army, “was like death.” Things may have improved a bit for the 350,000-odd young Russians now drafted in two batches each year. But scarcely a week passes without a case of conscripts being murdered, killing themselves, freezing to death, or deserting and sometimes going on violent rampages. According to official figures, the armed forces suffer roughly 1,000 non-combat deaths every year. Military prosecutors uncovered 46 in just one week in June.
I always thought the Russian military was brutal, but they're losing more people yearly to hazings and suicides than the US is losing in Iraq.
There was also an article recently, though I can't find it now, about how the government is closing down the military section of most Russian universities, which is how many people managed to avoid doing active service. Thank God I'm not Russian.
-
didnt the russians have problems with this back in the nepolionic era. conscrition just doesnt work. it makes for crappy soldiers. the russians should have learned their lesson by now.
-
Russia cannot afford volunteer service so it has to resort to cheap levy troops...
-
Originally posted by Nuke
didnt the russians have problems with this back in the nepolionic era. conscrition just doesnt work. it makes for crappy soldiers. the russians should have learned their lesson by now.
They may have had crappy soldiers, but they sure as hell kicked the stuffing out of Napoleon's Troops...well...keeping in mind that the Russian Winter is one of the main parts of Russia's Defensive Garrison...
-
you must have studied a different battle then i did. napoleon had his moments against the russians. but all great conquerers fall eventually.
-
The Russians did well against the French in the battle of Borodino. The French won nothing but the right to say that they've won. Only when Russia herself is in grave danger do her troops start fighting properly.
Otherwise, like in World War I and Afghanistan, they're really not of that high quality. It's a Russian trait, but not unique to just Russia. If Russia's armed forces are in such a bad shape, would that mean you'd rather be a North Korean soldier? Perhaps try a few months in China's Red Army? They just hide away their internal military disorganization more than the Russians, who are at least in a semi-democratic country and is not nearly as paranoid and secretive as the Soviets were.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Russia cannot afford anything...
there, fixed the post.
-
You keep forgetting that they are still mantaining the world's 2nd nuclear arsenal, which is not something cheap...
Rest assured that unlike their army you cannot say their ballistic missiles are inefficent...
-
Originally posted by General Freak
who are at least in a semi-democratic country and is not nearly as paranoid and secretive as the Soviets were.
We are talking about the country whose president is former head of the KGB, where all liberal media has effectively been destroyed and whose foreign policies are still hampered by the fact that they refuses to admit that they perhaps had done something wrong in the last 60 years or so?
-
Their Army was actually once even more efficient than their Nuclear Arsenal. During the Cold War, the Red Army was something to be feared, even though it was mostly good ol' fashined Soviet Propaganda. The thing to remember is that; the Red Army, while quite well equipped (at least compared to the Russian Navy :p - the less said about them after their loss to Japan in 1904 the better) was not an offensive Army. No matter what, the Soviets could not have conducted an effective invasion all the way to France, let alone come close to threatening the United States - a fact so poigninently shown during their actions in The Great War; and Afganistan, even though they were so unfairly outclassed by the opposition in that particular engagement (the Afganis had Rambo for Christsake!). Indeed, the Red Army was a defensive army, an army well suited to their climate, and capable of repelling an invasion, backed of course by the faithful Russian Winter - a true force to be reckoned with. But, i'll agree, Russia is by far past its Use-By Date, with its *remaining* power firmly rooted with its Nuclear Capabilities, but while inefficient, the Russian Army - as Gen. Freak so elloquently put - "Only when Russia herself is in grave danger do her troops start fighting properly."
-
Originally posted by Zarax
You keep forgetting that they are still mantaining the world's 2nd nuclear arsenal, which is not something cheap...
Rest assured that unlike their army you cannot say their ballistic missiles are inefficent...
I'm not sure 'maintaining' would be the most correct term to use.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'm not sure 'maintaining' would be the most correct term to use.
Err, that's the problem of having english as 3rd language :p
What about "is still in possess of"?
-
Point 'em at China...
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
Their Army was actually once even more efficient than their Nuclear Arsenal. During the Cold War, the Red Army was something to be feared, even though it was mostly good ol' fashined Soviet Propaganda. The thing to remember is that; the Red Army, while quite well equipped (at least compared to the Russian Navy :p - the less said about them after their loss to Japan in 1904 the better) was not an offensive Army. No matter what, the Soviets could not have conducted an effective invasion all the way to France, let alone come close to threatening the United States - a fact so poigninently shown during their actions in The Great War; and Afganistan, even though they were so unfairly outclassed by the opposition in that particular engagement (the Afganis had Rambo for Christsake!). Indeed, the Red Army was a defensive army, an army well suited to their climate, and capable of repelling an invasion, backed of course by the faithful Russian Winter - a true force to be reckoned with. But, i'll agree, Russia is by far past its Use-By Date, with its *remaining* power firmly rooted with its Nuclear Capabilities, but while inefficient, the Russian Army - as Gen. Freak so elloquently put - "Only when Russia herself is in grave danger do her troops start fighting properly."
whaaaaaat
The Soviet Army was heavily mechanized and even doctrinely, not even to speak of strategically, an offensive one - that was the stated purpose and most likely the purpose de facto. Offensive was always number first choice and the way the entire army was organized and equipped.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Point 'em at China...
Bad move, China got nukes AND the manpower to invade Russia...
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Bad move, China got nukes AND the manpower to invade Russia...
How many nukes does China have? Most recent estimates range from 20 to 300, and that's not much.
-
Originally posted by Janos
whaaaaaat
The Soviet Army was heavily mechanized and even doctrinely, not even to speak of strategically, an offensive one - that was the stated purpose and most likely the purpose de facto. Offensive was always number first choice and the way the entire army was organized and equipped.
I'm not saying that the Red Army was not designed to be an offensive army, i'm saying that in the end, it was a defensive force, its only reacted well in the face of invasion and direct attack. In many of the major outside engagements - ie. WWI, Afgan, etc. - the Red Army has fizzled (to the best of my knowledge, which albiet is limited, and keep in mind it's past midnight here and i'm totally talking out of my ass :p, but this is indeed my view on the subject)
Originally posted by Janos
How many nukes does China have? Most recent estimates range from 20 to 300, and that's not much.
Exactly! They're not a true Nuclear Power until they can go all out in terms of total planetary decimation, US-Style...:p
-
Originally posted by Janos
How many nukes does China have? Most recent estimates range from 20 to 300, and that's not much.
http://www.bash.org/?469107
From Bash.org
RvLeshrac> Terrorists> ****, maybe we shouldn't take hostages from countries whose people are more insane than us.
RvLeshrac> China> You give back hostages, or we kill all muslim.
NegaDuk> i think if they piss off china too much, they'll find that china, the US, and britain will turn the middle east into a big walmart parking lot
RvLeshrac> China> We use nuke. What we care you nuke us? We have billion more people.
NegaDuk> China> nuke beijing. we tried sars. it no work
RvLeshrac> China> We stop birth restriction, we make billion more. Three day.
NegaDuk> i think china's just being antisocial so someone will thin their population
RvLeshrac> Seriously.
RvLeshrac> China's answer to anything should be "We stop birth restrictions"
RvLeshrac> Stop flooding our markets with cheap goods, or we stop selling you soybeans. China> We stop birth restriction! US> ****. OK, OK! You can have the damned soybeans!
RvLeshrac> I bet that was the real reason Clinton gave them our satellite codes.
RvLeshrac> China> You give us code, or we flood world with chinese!
RvLeshrac> China> All your shirt shrink up like penis in arctic.
NightStar> damn those bad chinese laundry places
RvLeshrac> China> You never get decent haircut. You explain to women why no manicure.
RvLeshrac> China> We own you like Hong Kong.
-
Originally posted by Janos
How many nukes does China have? Most recent estimates range from 20 to 300, and that's not much.
More than enough to bring any single country to its knees...
No country can go ahead for much once its 20 most important cities are wiped out of the map.
And 300 nukes are enough to bring the world back to at least a couple of centuries ago...
Do you people think that nukes are like conventional weapons? :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Zarax
More than enough to bring any single country to its knees...
No country can go ahead for much once its 20 most important cities are wiped out of the map.
And 300 nukes are enough to bring the world back to at least a couple of centuries ago...
Do you people think that nukes are like conventional weapons? :doubt:
Oh yes they can. They can do it very well.
Maybe not in very long range, if the war gets drawn out and they have lost their highest echelons and they don't have a nuclear arsenal of their own. However, using your or even 200 nukes to destroy enemy's population centers has A) usually pretty big repercussions if you're facing a country with nuclear arsenal, B) little effect on your adversary's military power at that point, which is usually what wins the wars.
Strategic nukes are not always used against populace centers. Thats usually not even their primary mission. The real targets are much more important: enemy's nuclear assets - launch sites etc. - radar positions, transportation network, rallying points and command centers, manufacturing facilities. Also, some of these suck up far more than single warhead or even MIRV. You are familiar with the nuclear tactics against enemy nuclear missile shelters?
Also, you should maybe remember that if China has 20, or even 200, strategical intercontinental ballistic missiles, the russia has, what, over 2000? Then we have tactical weapons and submarine assets, and Russia is leading the war.
I am also wondering how 300 nukes - what size? - could bring the world back a several centuries. OK, you bomb every major city - you won't even destroy every one of them completely - and then what. That's about it. The point is, the difference between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons is not very clear - modern tactical nukes are very clean in terms of radiation and heavy elemements, and sometimes even yield smaller destructive power than most massive "conventional" explosives. Strategical nuclear assets are immensely powerful, but also insanely requiring in terms of research, R&D and economy.
-
Originally posted by Janos
Oh yes they can. They can do it very well.
Maybe not in very long range, if the war gets drawn out and they have lost their highest echelons and they don't have a nuclear arsenal of their own. However, using your or even 200 nukes to destroy enemy's population centers has A) usually pretty big repercussions if you're facing a country with nuclear arsenal, B) little effect on your adversary's military power at that point, which is usually what wins the wars.
Strategic nukes are not always used against populace centers. Thats usually not even their primary mission. The real targets are much more important: enemy's nuclear assets - launch sites etc. - radar positions, transportation network, rallying points and command centers, manufacturing facilities. Also, some of these suck up far more than single warhead or even MIRV. You are familiar with the nuclear tactics against enemy nuclear missile shelters?
Also, you should maybe remember that if China has 20, or even 200, strategical intercontinental ballistic missiles, the russia has, what, over 2000? Then we have tactical weapons and submarine assets, and Russia is leading the war.
I am also wondering how 300 nukes - what size? - could bring the world back a several centuries. OK, you bomb every major city - you won't even destroy every one of them completely - and then what. That's about it. The point is, the difference between nuclear weapons and conventional weapons is not very clear - modern tactical nukes are very clean in terms of radiation and heavy elemements, and sometimes even yield smaller destructive power than most massive "conventional" explosives. Strategical nuclear assets are immensely powerful, but also insanely requiring in terms of research, R&D and economy.
1) There's a thing called morale, and nukes fired on a city tends to break it quite well... Especially if the target has a culture with a certain value towards human life.
2) You don't need to level a whole city with a nuke, radiation is good enough to finish the job, no matter how "clean" (and chinese nuclear missiles aren't being copies of 1960s US tech) they are.
3) Take out the cold war nuclear strategy as you haven't an ocean between you.
In case of conflict between Russia and China it would be a total extermination war once nukes are fired.
Both sides gets the effect as winds have a nasty tendency to transport radioactive dust and other not so nice stuff around (Chernobyl anyone?) and so you can say goodbye to both countries logistical infrastructure, making the war a fight on terms of raw power between the remnants of both armies.
So, in the unlikely case of war you have
a) conventional war, where China would win (at no small cost of course) over Russia (alone)
b) both sides are dead (MAD)
4) Tactical nukes? No one got tactical nukes except the US that is resurrecting them after getting out of the Moscow treaty (congratulations btw), we're talking about strategic ones here.
5) How can 300 nukes bring the world back?
a) you level out the most importan economic centers for 50 years
b) you poison air, land, water and food with radiation
c) you fry a good share of world's electric equipment
d) as there would be no organized government on large scale anymore = anarchy and no development
-
Originally posted by Zarax
1) There's a thing called morale, and nukes fired on a city tends to break it quite well... Especially if the target has a culture with a certain value towards human life.
[/b]
Even though you really can't draw any laws from history, the historical predecent is usually at least telling. Tell us how many times civilian bombings have crushed the enemy morale?
2) You don't need to level a whole city with a nuke, radiation is good enough to finish the job, no matter how "clean" (and chinese nuclear missiles aren't being copies of 1960s US tech) they are.
If you use one nuke per city, you have to airburst it - actually, you should always airburst when engaging building complexes, much more destructive power that way - but way less fallout. Then you don't get too much of radiation, really. You could get a lot radiation by making the bomb a neutron bomb, when it would turn into relatively weak tactical nuke. Destrying civilian centers requires more than one nuke, and rendering the ground uninhabitable for longer time requires quite a bit of excessive ground-turning.
3) Take out the cold war nuclear strategy as you haven't an ocean between you.
In case of conflict between Russia and China it would be a total extermination war once nukes are fired.
Nuclear exchange strategy is pretty universal. The response time varies - if China launched a first-strike, Russia would have less time to decide their course of action than in US-Russia lobmatch.
Both sides gets the effect as winds have a nasty tendency to transport radioactive dust and other not so nice stuff around (Chernobyl anyone?) and so you can say goodbye to both countries logistical infrastructure, making the war a fight on terms of raw power between the remnants of both armies.
You need pretty hardcore nuclear wasteland for the winds to be some poisoned breath from hell over very long distances. Short distances yeah. Radioactive and poisonous dust is pretty heavy, and does not float over very long distances. The radioactivity itself is usually not the issue, but breathing heavy metals and other toxic instances.
So, in the unlikely case of war you have
a) conventional war, where China would win (at no small cost of course) over Russia (alone)
What would be the goals of China? Annex eastern Siberia? Doable. Get Russia surrender? Hmmm. The power point of Russian Federation is the western Russia, and the supply routes grow long. The toll on transportation capability would be enormous.
b) both sides are dead (MAD)
I guess not much would happen.
4) Tactical nukes? No one got tactical nukes except the US that is resurrecting them after getting out of the Moscow treaty (congratulations btw), we're talking about strategic ones here.
What, no tactical nukes? wtf
5) How can 300 nukes bring the world back?
a) you level out the most importan economic centers for 50 years
b) you poison air, land, water and food with radiation
c) you fry a good share of world's electric equipment
d) as there would be no organized government on large scale anymore = anarchy and no development [/B]
[/quote]
You have some pretty hardcore nukes there. Humanity has an incredible capabilty to repair damage and overcome.
Levelling out the most important economic centers, like New York, London, Berlin, Beijing and Tokyo - sure. Easy. I don't know who would do that though, but that's irrelevant. OK so now we have worldwide depression and something would propably happen.
Poisoning the air, land, water and food - with the same 300 nukes you have already used a part on grinding the major cities to dust? You can cause local famines (even on global economics the famines are for some incomprehensible reason local effects). Now you can scratch over at least 50 nukes, maybe even more.
EMP assaults? Go ahead, that's pretty good idea. They're repairable, though, and quite a significant amount of really important ones are hardened already.
As for the anarchy - someone will ALWAYS take control. Are you destroying all of the most important governments, along with good chunks of world's military power and so on, with the same 300 nukes you have already used to radiate food supplies (short-term), destroy major cities (geopolitical unforseemeable consequences) and cause EM pulses (nice). You have great strategical eye there.
Here's everything (http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/effects/effects.shtml) you need to know about nuclear weapon effects. It's long, though, but very accurate.
-
NB: China has 420 (declared) nuclear weapons.
France has 350, UK 200, US 7000, and Russia 8000. The US is said to have a further 3000 warheads in reserve, and Russia 11,000 in non-operational stockpiles.
-
Originally posted by Janos
Even though you really can't draw any laws from history, the historical predecent is usually at least telling. Tell us how many times civilian bombings have crushed the enemy morale?
How many nuclear bombings have crushed the enemy morale?
As of today 1/1 = 100%
If you use one nuke per city, you have to airburst it - actually, you should always airburst when engaging building complexes, much more destructive power that way - but way less fallout. Then you don't get too much of radiation, really. You could get a lot radiation by making the bomb a neutron bomb, when it would turn into relatively weak tactical nuke. Destrying civilian centers requires more than one nuke, and rendering the ground uninhabitable for longer time requires quite a bit of excessive ground-turning.
Tell that to the Japanese or those poor souls that lives in Nevada...
You need pretty hardcore nuclear wasteland for the winds to be some poisoned breath from hell over very long distances. Short distances yeah. Radioactive and poisonous dust is pretty heavy, and does not float over very long distances. The radioactivity itself is usually not the issue, but breathing heavy metals and other toxic instances.
Chernobyl's side effect got over half europe, and that was just a leak...
Again, tell that to Ukrainians.
Heck, even depleted uranium got pretty bad side effects, grab some statistics about cancer and leucemia near ex yugoslavia/gulf I vets/live ammo training complexes
What would be the goals of China? Annex eastern Siberia? Doable. Get Russia surrender? Hmmm. The power point of Russian Federation is the western Russia, and the supply routes grow long. The toll on transportation capability would be enormous.
Once China gets Siberia you can be pretty sure of a truce... Just the time to mine enough resources to deliver the finishing blow.
What, no tactical nukes? wtf
It's one of the START treaties, can't remember which one...
It banned tactical nukes until last year, when US refused to renew it...
[/quote]
You have some pretty hardcore nukes there.
No, you just need decent winds and they'll do the dirty job for you.
Humanity has an incredible capabilty to repair damage and overcome.
Levelling out the most important economic centers, like New York, London, Berlin, Beijing and Tokyo - sure. Easy. I don't know who would do that though, but that's irrelevant.
During Cold War there was at least one strategic nuclear warhead aimed at each major city in both NATO and Warsaw pact.
OK so now we have worldwide depression and something would propably happen.
Poisoning the air, land, water and food - with the same 300 nukes you have already used a part on grinding the major cities to dust? You can cause local famines (even on global economics the famines are for some incomprehensible reason local effects).
You keep forgetting the winds... Try reading any serious post-nuclear scenario, those made for India-Pakistan are quite detailed and can be used for Russia China due to many similarities
Now you can scratch over at least 50 nukes, maybe even more.
EMP assaults? Go ahead, that's pretty good idea. They're repairable, though, and quite a significant amount of really important ones are hardened already.
I don't think there is a single civilian structure hardened against EMP.
Hardened chips are hard as hell to make, have very low performance and are very costly, so only a few selected places gets them and most are inside of strategic bombers (B1).
As for the anarchy - someone will ALWAYS take control.
Sure, local warlords like Africa/Middle East
Are you destroying all of the most important governments, along with good chunks of world's military power and so on, with the same 300 nukes you have already used to radiate food supplies (short-term), destroy major cities (geopolitical unforseemeable consequences) and cause EM pulses (nice). You have great strategical eye there.
Once all major civilian infrastructures are out the military follows in short time, during cold war the estimated power to annihilate the whole human race was about 1000 warheads per side...
-
We need more...
-
Originally posted by vyper
We need more...
The less, the better...
-
No way, man. Nukes kick ass.
(http://tylerzander.com/images/slim.jpg)
YEEEEEEEEEEEEHAAAAAAAAAAAAAWW!!!!
-
Stanley Kubrick P0wns J00!
-
Originally posted by Zarax
How many nuclear bombings have crushed the enemy morale?
As of today 1/1 = 100%
Incorrect. Japan had already made surrender overtures, via Russia, before the Potsdam conference. The problem revolved around the retention of the Emperor. Final surrender granted Japan reflected this; they would have kept fighting right up until the whole country was a wasteland otherwise.
-
They killed two birds with one very big stone with the nuke in 1944, they got an active battlefeild test of it and they used it to fight their enemy. Althgough the test part sounds gruesome it seems to be easily beleivable to me.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
We are talking about the country whose president is former head of the KGB, where all liberal media has effectively been destroyed and whose foreign policies are still hampered by the fact that they refuses to admit that they perhaps had done something wrong in the last 60 years or so?
There is still a difference between the two Russian governments and I still prefer the Russian federation to the Soviet Union.
EDIT: Oh, and they hit a third bird, but it didn't die. ;P The atomic bomb was used to scare the Soviets, because the Soviets had already control over half of Europe, and none of the Red Army conscripts were going anywhere, while the Western Allies' troops were all eagerly anticipating their journey home.
@Zarax: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuclear fission bombs. Nowadays we have nuclear fusion missiles. They work differently. And bigger cities. Those require different kind of explosions. The Soviets, in the 1960s, made the world's largest H-bomb, with more explosive force than all the explosives used in World War II combined, but it was just a propaganda show, and was obsolete, because it would only make a big hole in the ground (basically, it will start working vertically as well as horizontally). Also, if you look at both cities, neither were completely destroyed. A lot of people died, but the cities themselves survived.
-
Originally posted by Stunaep
We are talking about the country whose president is former head of the KGB, where all liberal media has effectively been destroyed and whose foreign policies are still hampered by the fact that they refuses to admit that they perhaps had done something wrong in the last 60 years or so?
...not too much different than:
"We are talking about the country whose president's father is the former head of the CIA, where all liberal media has effectively been destroyed and whose foreign policies are still hampered by the fact that they refuses to admit that they perhaps had done something wrong in the last 60 years or so?"
Guess which country I'm refering to? ;)
-
Originally posted by Ace
...not too much different than:
"We are talking about the country whose president's father is the former head of the CIA, where all liberal media has effectively been destroyed and whose foreign policies are still hampered by the fact that they refuses to admit that they perhaps had done something wrong in the last 60 years or so?"
Guess which country I'm refering to? ;)
That's a tad too harsh imho, watch out for flames...
-
Harsh is a matter of opinion and perspective, though. It's all to easy to judge elsewhere and ignore your own countries failing; I think we've all been guilty of it (including myself).
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Harsh is a matter of opinion and perspective, though. It's all to easy to judge elsewhere and ignore your own countries failing; I think we've all been guilty of it (including myself).
Ahem...
I'm european like you Aldo, do not misread what I wrote please...
And about criticizing one's own country...
Just read what I posted about Italy and you'll see it's something I'm used to.
There are many ways to express criticism, some are costructive and some aren't.
The one exposed before wasn't imho, that's all.
-
Originally posted by Zarax
Ahem...
I'm european like you Aldo, do not misread what I wrote please...
And about criticizing one's own country...
Just read what I posted about Italy and you'll see it's something I'm used to.
There are many ways to express criticism, some are costructive and some aren't.
The one exposed before wasn't imho, that's all.
Point being, the issue of what is harsh critcism or not is a matter of perspective.
(the big about it looking different from your own country, etc, is just to pre-empt anyone who'd call me hypocritical for criticising the US more than my own - deeply ****ed up - country). Truth is that the UK isn't of as much interest on a global scale.
-
I don´t know about their army, but the russians currently possess the most destructive weapon on earth, and that´s scary enough.
And no, it´s not fiction. They have a bomb that makes the H-Bomb look like a firecracker.
-
'On the planet destroying nukes one was designed for the US Army. Basically it takes up a huge room, like a hanger, with multiple large yield warheads focussed in a shaped charge to blow as deep a hole as possible. It is theorised that the resulting explosion would be sufficient to knock the earth out of its current orbit, much like what would happen if we were struck by a large meteor or comet.
Of course, there's no guarantee it would work, but hopefully noone's going to be stupid enough to test it.'
'The soviets also designed a nuke that would be stuck inside the hull of a massive ship which would meander around the coast of the USSR, unmanned, and if it sensed a rapid enough rise in radiation to indicate a nuclear attack on the Soviet Union it would unleash a weapon that would blacken the skies and end all life on earth. Sounds like science fiction, but they even went so far as to make out the blueprints, but in the final analysis they realized that it was too much power to put under anything but direct control, and even with direct control it was too big of a risk. Thank God for that decision, because had it been made, it would have been set off by the destruction of Chernobyl. Just another cool idea.'
Anything said about those bombs still existing after the Cold War IS fiction. Also, er, I think you're just talking about a really, really large H-bomb. There is no energy source known to mankind that is more powerful than nuclear fusion. Except perhaps the strength of Heracles.
-
antimatter is.
-
Originally posted by Carl
antimatter is.
Only you can't mass produce it unless you turn the moon into a massive particle accelerator...
-
Originally posted by Carl
antimatter is.
i have this antimatter powerplant
too bad i'm too poor to pay my electricity bills
OH ****
-
The Russians are not going to attack China. China is not going to attack Russia. Do you want to know why? The US is why.
The Chinese posses more than enough nuclear warheads to flatten the west coast of the US. And they have the capability to launch them from mobile vehicles.
-
Really, in the nuclear age, no one can really attack and take over an entire (nuclear) country anymore, because if that country is about to be destroyed, it'll take as many of them as it can along with it, and launch it's nukes. Attacking any nuclear power directly is a death wish, because if you don't beat them, then you get blown up with bombs. If you do beat them, then you get blown up with nukes. Simple as that.
-
Originally posted by Carl
antimatter is.
Ok...you're saying that Swamp_thing thinks the Russian have an anti-matter bomb...? :wtf:
-
Somehow the topic derailed after about 10 posts. Oh well, no matter.
By the way, all this China-Russia talk is pure fantasy. No nuclear power is going to fight any other nuclear power. Ever. And even non-nuclear countries, like Egypt, Germany, Turkey etc are too well armed to be attacked. If you haven't noticed, warfare since WW2 has always been one great power against some ****ty little guerilla force. No one wants to fight anyone who can effectively push back. If the US/Russia is having a hard time in Iraq/Chechnya, imagine how they would fare against a modern military power.
Ace: comparing the US and Russia is absurd. I'm no fan of Bush or American policy, but c'mon, it's Putin for God's sake. In the States, you have at least 1/2 the country hating Bush, but the opposition in Russia is very limited.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
Somehow the topic derailed after about 10 posts. Oh well, no matter.
By the way, all this China-Russia talk is pure fantasy. No nuclear power is going to fight any other nuclear power. Ever. And even non-nuclear countries, like Egypt, Germany, Turkey etc are too well armed to be attacked. If you haven't noticed, warfare since WW2 has always been one great power against some ****ty little guerilla force. No one wants to fight anyone who can effectively push back. If the US/Russia is having a hard time in Iraq/Chechnya, imagine how they would fare against a modern military power.
Ace: comparing the US and Russia is absurd. I'm no fan of Bush or American policy, but c'mon, it's Putin for God's sake. In the States, you have at least 1/2 the country hating Bush, but the opposition in Russia is very limited.
The Umpteenth law of Political Debate in the INTERWEBS: Derails happen.
Quite a few military geeks (officers, contractors and so on) have been ranting lately that US strategies and tactics, and Russian for that matter, are much more suitable for large-scale warfare where the command network and firepower could be concentrated and used pretty liberally. US strategy puts heavy emphasis on AWACS systems, flexible leading and aerial force to pave way for mechanized infantry. Russian strategy is more heavy-handed, using significatn artillery and CAS power to devastate enemy manpower and push through with armoured battaillions. Both sides complain that unorthodox and asymmetrical guerilla warfare is the worst possible war since the enemy is not clearly defined, and that it's unfair (well tough luck, haha).
Any clash between major military powers, like Pakistan and India, could be pretty short one. Also, even if the starting phase is purely conventional, the pressures to use tactical nukes rises with time - and it's not a long step to switch from tactical battlefield nuking to strategical bombardment, in which case, if evenly armoured, both sides are ****ed.
-
It's thinking about things like this that really fills me with suicidal despair.
-
Do it man, atleast you get to avoid the nuclear holocaust. Me, I'm in it for the long haul, that why I always keep a cache of weapons and Ramen, just in case.
-
Ramen?
-
Dehydrated Chinese noodles, usually in some sort of stew-like substance, just add water. They're like 50 cents a bowl, and can stay good for a long time.
-
Ramen=pwnage.
As to the topic, so this isn't complete spam:
Wow, that sucks. I thought Russia's military was...um...well, better than that, at least
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
It's thinking about things like this that really fills me with suicidal despair.
wuss! :D
the only reason i havent killed myself is because i have the sick desperation to see all things end at once. so i keep a really good pair of shades handy as well as some spf 150^100 sunblock. now start launching nukes people!
realisticly nuclear war is more likely between smaller countries that are new to nuclear weapons. the cold war taught the great powers a very valuble lesson about nuclear warfare. these new nuclear powers didnt take the same class so to speak.
-
I always wear shades, but it's primarily to obscure my expressions and make my face unreadable.
I'm a poet; I'm allowed.
-
and they wonder why 3 million or more young men and women died in world war 2.......
-
Because poets wore sunglasses? :wtf:
-
No, he's being on topic and referring to conscription :p
-
yea, how many million died in stalingrad alone, that city was a meat grinder bor both sides involved.
-
~850,000 German troops died in Stalingrad
est. 750,000 - 1.5m Russian troops and 40,000-150,000+ civvies died.
I think the highest estimate for total (military & civvie) deaths for WW2 is 80 million.
Just FYI.