[Janos]

Originally posted by Carl
antimatter is.

i have this antimatter powerplant
too bad i'm too poor to pay my electricity bills
OH ****

[Kosh]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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.

[General Freak]

Originally posted by Carl
antimatter is.

Ok...you're saying that Swamp_thing thinks the Russian have an anti-matter bomb...?

[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.

[Janos]

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.

[Ford Prefect]

It's thinking about things like this that really fills me with suicidal despair.

[Rictor]

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.

[kasperl]

Ramen?

[Rictor]

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.

[Jetmech Jr.]

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

[Nuke]

Originally posted by Ford Prefect
It's thinking about things like this that really fills me with suicidal despair.

wuss!

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.

[Ford Prefect]

I always wear shades, but it's primarily to obscure my expressions and make my face unreadable.

I'm a poet; I'm allowed.

[deep_eyes]

and they wonder why 3 million or more young men and women died in world war 2.......

[vyper]

Because poets wore sunglasses?

[Unknown Target]

No, he's being on topic and referring to conscription

[Nuke]

yea, how many million died in stalingrad alone, that city was a meat grinder bor both sides involved.

[aldo_14]

~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.