[MP-Ryan]

Not ragging on you Ryan, but you do have a tendancy to bury opposition under text walls rather than be accessible for debate and hence education...

I know; it's because I'm usually so frustrated after reading the 2-10 pages before I get around to posting that I don't want to leave any wiggle room.  I guess that can be a little off-putting for the people who could actually benefit from reading it 

[Kosh]

Not to side track the discussion, but even larger is the amount that disappeared in peace time. For a reason or the other, I tend to be suspicious of any statistics coming from Soviet Union.

The time surrounding WWI and WWII are unfathomable for me at least. Human kind should really learn from those mistakes, something what I think has not happened.

Didn't the Nazis also keep statistics?

As bad as that time was, unfortunately it was the latest in a long line of vicious, brutal wars that had plagued Europe throughout its history. The 30 years war for example resulted in massive population losses, not as high in number terms, but in terms of percentages it was much worse. But, with the exception of the Yugoslav balkanization wars, that period is behind them. European military numbers are at an all time low (down from the typical million+ man armies of 1915) and defence spending is only a small percentage of their GDP. Hard to imagine how different our grandparents world was.

[General Battuta]

What MP-Ryan said.

So basically what I said put in a more eloquent but slightly less accessible manner.

Not ragging on you Ryan, but you do have a tendancy to bury opposition under text walls rather than be accessible for debate and hence education...

No way, man. MP-Ryan's got clearer prose delivery than just about anybody else on the forum. His posts are lovingly constructed and a pleasure to read, utterly transparent.

I prostrate myself.

[Dilmah G]

Yeah, I do enjoy lurking in the longer/more serious threads and reading what he and a few other people have to say.

He did also bring some previously unmentioned **** to the table, such as the lack of knowledge on the long-term effects of radiation, etc. But yeah, he did summarise what NGTM-1R, myself, and a few other people (you know who you are) said, in one post.

[Kosh]

What MP-Ryan said.

So basically what I said put in a more eloquent but slightly less accessible manner.

Not ragging on you Ryan, but you do have a tendancy to bury opposition under text walls rather than be accessible for debate and hence education...

No way, man. MP-Ryan's got clearer prose delivery than just about anybody else on the forum. His posts are lovingly constructed and a pleasure to read, utterly transparent.

I prostrate myself.

Yeah if you have enough patience to go all the way through it. Seriously, I did find it highly informative and well spoken. Good to read.

[Aardwolf]

I said "no [...] death of the planet" (or whatever it said), but really I would've preferred some other 'no' option. If we hadn't invented nukes we wouldn't have gotten into the damn Cold War. Assuming of course that by "we" I mean everybody, not just the United States... And not just the cold war, but the whole arms race, the prolonged fear of "the reds", communism, and socialism. Not to mention how big all that stuff has led the military-industrial complex to become... Eisenhower warned us!

[General Battuta]

I said "no [...] death of the planet" (or whatever it said), but really I would've preferred some other 'no' option. If we hadn't invented nukes we wouldn't have gotten into the damn Cold War. Assuming of course that by "we" I mean everybody, not just the United States... And not just the cold war, but the whole arms race, the prolonged fear of "the reds", communism, and socialism. Not to mention how big all that stuff has led the military-industrial complex to become... Eisenhower warned us!

Yes but the alternative to getting into the Cold War may have been getting into the Hot War, World War III.

The argument that has been made again and again is that nuclear weapons prevented major states from getting into large-scale armed conflict, saving millions of lives.

[StarSlayer]

A conventional war between Warsaw and NATO, especially in the 40s-50s would have made the first and second world wars look like a skirmish with an eventual victory by the Soviets quite possible.   MAD kept the war cold and eventually allowed NATO to economically defeat the USSR.  Granted today the United States has to live with the repercussions of the Cold War but thats a reflection on the containment policy rather then nuclear weapons.

[Aardwolf]

Hm... true, that.

Although it looks like Russia isn't quite over it's itch for global domination... *cough*Putin*cough*

[Mars]

and people voted for the bogus answers    I thought that maybe people would take a topic like this a little more seriously. 

The fact is, many fewer people died of atom bombs than fire bombs or gunshots during the war.

[Nuke]

Aww but nukes are sexy and I want to hump them!

* Nuke whacks snail with a louisville slugger.

[Kosh]

and people voted for the bogus answers    I thought that maybe people would take a topic like this a little more seriously. 

The fact is, many fewer people died of atom bombs than fire bombs or gunshots during the war.

Those firebombing raids used many tons of bombs with dozens of heavy bombers on each raid. The atomic bomb did even more destruction with just one plane and one bomb. That's what makes them so scary.

[Dilmah G]

I think I once read somewhere that a B-52 carries more ordnance than an entire squadron of B-17s. Even conventional weapons are quite devastating these days.

[NGTM-1R]

I think I once read somewhere that a B-52 carries more ordnance than an entire squadron of B-17s. Even conventional weapons are quite devastating these days.

A B-52G can carry in the range of about 70 750lb bombs. (The H could actually carry more for some reason.) That works out to about 52,500lbs.

A B-17 could carry, at maximum, 17,600lbs but it wasn't going to fly very far with that. A "Germany and back" load was more in the range of 4,500lbs. A B-17 squadron consisted of between 12 and 20 aircraft so...

That actually doesn't appear to work out. 54,000lbs for a squadron.

[Dilmah G]

Oh, righto then.

[Klaustrophobia]

A-10's can carry more ordinance than WWII bombers.

[Scotty]

They're also VERY large.

A-10:
Length: 53 ft 4 in (16.26 m)
Wingspan: 57 ft 6 in (17.53 m)
Height: 14 ft 8 in (4.47 m)

B-17:Length: 74 ft 4 in (22.66 m)
Wingspan: 103 ft 9 in (31.62 m)
Height: 19 ft 1 in (5.82 m)

The A-10 is fully 70% as long as the B-17.  While, granted, the wingspan is only a bit bigger than half as big, nearly all of the A-10's ordinance is carried on wing mounts, while the B-17 didn't use any wing-mounts, instead carrying all ordinance internally.

Actually, B-17s just plain aren't as big as most people think they are.  Yeah, they look gigantic next to the tiny fighters of WWII, but modern fighters are nearly as long, if without the huge wingspans.  For example, an F-14 is only 3 meters shorter than a B-17.  That's only an advantage of 15% in the B-17's favor.  Not all that much.