This comparison shows how Russia’s latest nuclear weapons dwarf America’s (and everyone else’s)

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by Destroyer of illusions, Jul 21, 2018.

  1. Destroyer of illusions

    Destroyer of illusions Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    16,104
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again you write nonsense. Again. You could not deliver atomic bombs to Russia. There is a difference between the mythical possibility and the real possibility.
    Americans killed thousands of civilians in Japan. The United States is the only country in the world in the history of mankind who has used nuclear weapons against civilians. Also, the Americans did a massive genocide in Vietnam. With the use of chemical agents. You are certainly not the only ones who used chemical weapons against the peaceful population of a sovereign country, but you did it in massively. And now you are telling me about what kind of caring you will protect peaceful population . This is ridiculous.
     
  2. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Soviet Union had no integrated air defense network in 1945-49. They had huge gaps in their radar network. B-29’s and B-35’s easily could have delivered atomic bombs to Russia.
     
  3. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    They are included. They were members of the German Army, to be specifically the Waffen-SS.

    So I am not sure what kind of game you are trying to play here. Apparently you seem to think every nation in Europe had millions of soldiers who fought the Soviets, not just the Germans. The Germans had handfuls from many nations, and they were all integrated into their own military.

    And yea, there you go with the numbers again. The Soviets took significantly more casualties than the Germans. Why? Because they largely sucked, and were not invincible. They simply had more bodies to use to swamp the enemy by throwing themselves against machine guns and artillery. The Germans used their men much more smartly, and had significantly lower casualties to show for it.

    Want to see another example? The Korean War. The North Korean and Chinese Army, using largely WWII Soviet tactics. A 1.5 to 1 advantage in personnel over those of their UN counterparts, (1.6 million opposed to 900k), and an over 2 to 1 rate of dead bodies (398k to 178k). That is not victory, that is slaughtering your people because you suck at anything beyond throwing bodies at a problem.

    Remember, in war the idea is not to give your life for your country, it is to get the other poor SOB to give their life for their country. Strutting around bragging about your own side having greater casualties shoes that you do not seem to grasp this very simple fact at all.
     
  4. Destroyer of illusions

    Destroyer of illusions Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    16,104
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You write nonsense. The Russians took Berlin. It is a fact. Vietnamese defeated the United States. This is also a fact. Your comment looks like a pathetic attempt to find an excuse. You will always lose in the war with Russia. The United States did not independently win a single war. (I don’t say Panama and Grenada. Because it’s more of a shame than a victory) Even the savages in Somalia, with sticks and spears, drove out the American fur seals. But you talk nonsense about military tactics and strategy. This can only cause laughter.
     
  5. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Nobody is saying the Russians did not. I just state the truth that they took far more casualties than they needed to do in order to take it.

    And North Vietnam lost the war. That is why they sued for peace and got the Paris Peace Accords in 1973. Which they then broke in 1975, 2 years after the US left.

    So the lesson from Vietnam is that you can never trust Communists to keep their word.
     
  6. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Wrong. Both A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

    We did nothing of the sort.
     
  7. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Our nukes could easily wipe Leningrad and Moscow off the face of the earth.
     
  8. Destroyer of illusions

    Destroyer of illusions Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    16,104
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not trust the Communists? :roflol::roflol::roflol:You tell better about the Tonkin incident. Or about "Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons".

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Destroyer of illusions

    Destroyer of illusions Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    16,104
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You can say anything, but it will not change the reality. The United States is the only country in the history of mankind who dropped an atomic bombs on civilians. And the United States massively used chemical weapons in Vietnam, Korea, Cambodia, Laos and other regions. This is an indisputable fact, the same as - the United States deliberately infected the citizens of Peru with syphilis and gonorrhea.
     
  10. Destroyer of illusions

    Destroyer of illusions Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    16,104
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Only in your dreams.
     
  11. Toggle Almendro

    Toggle Almendro Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2016
    Messages:
    2,928
    Likes Received:
    721
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The reality is, both A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

    Wrong. Both A-bombs were dropped on military targets.

    No we didn't.

    I'm not familiar with this accusation, but I would not be surprised if it as well was untrue.

    No. Our nukes would have no trouble at all turning Moscow and Leningrad into radioactive dust.

    Moscow would be hit with hundreds of nukes to overwhelm their missile defenses. There would be a huge blackened scar on the planet where Moscow used to be thousands of years into the future.

    Leningrad is much easier to destroy. A single 455 kiloton warhead or 1.2 megaton bomb would smash all those old buildings into kindling and set off a nice hot firestorm.
     
  12. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, you mean the chemical weapons that Iraq claimed it destroyed after 1991?

    Like the 2 bunkers filled with them that Iraq turned over to International Inspectors in 2009 in order to come into compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention?

    https://www.nti.org/gsn/article/india-completes-chemical-weapons-disposal-iraq-declares-stockpile/

    You mean, like those chemical weapons? Or all of the others found between 2003-2009? And the manufacturing facilities that did not exist?

    Funny, for a country that you seem to claim had no chemical weapons, they found a lot of them after 2003.

    See, this is the difference between propaganda, and reality. Even though Iraq itself turned over all the remaining weapons and destroyed the last facilities in 2009, some still try to claim there were no such weapons.

    BTW, are you even aware that the last of the chemical weapons recovered form Iraq after 2003 were not completed until earlier this year? Seems like a lot of time and effort has been expended on weapons that you seem to claim never existed.

    https://www.opcw.org/media-centre/n...gratulates-iraq-complete-destruction-chemical

    Are you still hungry, or do you want to eat your other foot?
     
    ArmySoldier likes this.
  13. Destroyer of illusions

    Destroyer of illusions Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    16,104
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Even Tony Blair admitted that the reason for the start of military aggression against Iraq was fake. But you certainly know better than what, one of those who directly organized the war in Iraq. :roflol::roflol::roflol:
    And by the way, what about the Tonkin incident?

    Maybe you will also talk in detail about how the US government kills its citizens for political gain? For example, how 266 American sailors were killed on the Maine Bronin carrier. Just to start a war with Spain.
    Or, as Lusitania was sunk, killing 128 American citizens. Only in order to have a reason to start a war with Germany.
    President F. Roosevelt did not receive congressional approval for the start of the war with Japan. And suddenly such luck. Pearl Harbor was attacked.
    According to a number of modern historians, the US government themselves have specifically created such a situation. Having the necessary information about the possible strike of Japanese aircraft, they not only did not alert the fleet, but also weakened the Hawaiian grouping, withdrawing all aircraft carriers and the most modern battleships.
    About 9-11, I won't even speak. Trump as a professional in the construction of skyscrapers. He said that the blows of the planes could not bring down these buildings.
     
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2018
  14. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    OK, now I know that you have absolutely no grasp of history.

    The Lusitania had absolutely nothing to do with the US entering the war. Nothing.

    The sinking of the RMS Lusitania was in 1915. The US entered the war in 1917. What the sinking was used for was in getting most of the British Isles behind Britain behind the war. It had no impact on the US entering the war.

    What got the US into the war was the Zimmermann Telegram. That was in January 1917, after a telegram from the German Foreign Office was intercepted to Mexico. The telegram proposed a German-Mexican alliance, and Germany would give them support if they invaded the US.

    If you really think that the RMS Lusitania is why the US entered the war, then I can understand how horrible your history so far has been almost every time you try to talk about history. I thought maybe you were some kind of twisted Patriot, but now I understand that you really do not know history. You either make stuff up as you go along, or you are not bothering to even bother doing the most basic research, and just believe anything that somebody had told you in the past.

    Tell you what, go out and learn some history. Then come back and we can try again. Because it is annoying to try to have a debate with somebody who makes a complete and utter fallacy every time they make a post.
     
    APACHERAT likes this.
  15. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    During Saddam Hussein's debriefing by the FBI Saddam didn't blame President G.W. Bush for invading Iraq but blamed British intelligence for feeding President Bush and the American intelligence agencies with fake intelligence.

    It's all here -> https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB279/

    British Intelligence has a long history of feeding fake intelligence to American administrations be it with Omar Kadafi and Obama's/Hillary's regime change in Libya where as some ask was the Zimmerman telegram fake to get America to declare war on Germany in 1917 ?

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
  16. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I just have to comment again on how poorly some people understand history. This is the kind of thing I hear fairly often, and it always makes my head spin when I do hear it. And it shows how people also just makes comments without doing even the smallest bit of research before they speak out.

    The sinking of the RMS Lusitania in no way impacted the US entering the war. For the US, it was a non-issue, as a UK flagged ship was sunk in a war zone, by a nation it was at war with. Over here it got very little attention, even though there were Americans killed when it sank. The nation that used it in propaganda was not the US, but the UK.

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    Now above I have shown some of the most famous propaganda posters of that incident. But not a single one is American, they were all made in England. And targeted English citizens, most specifically the Irish. At that time Ireland was fractured, and there was a strong Anti-English sentiment among many of them, and a desire to stay completely out of the war.

    But the ship was sunk in Irish waters. It was the Irish who first responded to the tragedy, and the government wanted to use that to fire outrage so that the Irish would also take part in the war. Hence, the iconic imagery used to try and spur enlistment. And not only in Ireland, but in Scotland, Canada, and the rest of the British Empire.

    The images used in the posters was striking, as it was intended to be. And because they were also posted all around Canada, many of them made their way into the US. But it had absolutely nothing to do with the US ultimately entering the war 2 years later.

    This is why I encourage people to learn and understand history. Not to just take a superficial look at it like they might have in Junior High, but to actually read and try to understand things. School history is superficial at best, and only gives a person the highlights of history. That is why people will mostly know about say Pearl Harbor, but would never have heard of the USS Panay. They will talk about Reconstruction, yet have a completely backwards idea of what it actually was and how it ended. They will talk about the "Great Depression" and how it was "caused by the stock market crash", and not really understand how not a single dollar was lost that day, or afterwards. Or that in fact no money is ever lost in any market crash, ever. What was lost was the confidence in the system, not money. And it was worsened Internationally because of the gold standard (which is why every nation has since left it).

    I think a lot of the problem people have when talking about history is that they really never bothered to research it. They remember bits and pieces of what they were taught 10-30 years ago, which was ultimately a "Cliff's Notes" version, catered to children. When trying to discuss such things at an adult level with other adults, they really need to take or give themselves an adult education in the subject.
     
  17. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    A lot of the problem with the intelligence is that it was so highly placed that nobody questioned it. It is known now that much of the information was coming from the highest levels of the Iraqi government. They were reports intended for Saddam himself.

    Nobody ever thought that it was flawed because the reports to Saddam were largely fiction, intended to mollify the leader. Who had a habit of killing anybody who displeased him.

    One of the reports was discussing stores of chemical agents, and production facilities. Much of that was placed directly into Mr. Powell's report to the UN. And it did indeed come from Iraqi sources. But the sources were telling the same thing to Saddam, because he had ordered the weapons to be made and facilities to be re-opened. So of course they said "Yes Sir, we have opened them, and they are making X amount of material."

    Because to tell him that you were not following his orders all to often meant a short stay in a prison before getting a bullet in the back of the head. And it is not unlike some of the orders Hitler was giving at the end of WWII. Where he was ordering around units that no longer existed, because nobody dared to tell Der Paper Hanger that they had already been destroyed. Or ordering air fleets to intercept bombers, nobody daring to tell him that the aircraft no longer existed.

    That is the danger when you rely entirely upon 2nd and 3rd hand sources, and have no HumInt on the ground yourself. You are relying on the accuracy of those reports without any actual first hand knowledge. Many of the documents the US and UK presented to the UN were after the war found among Iraqi archives. They were mostly reports directed to Saddam himself, by some of the highest members of his council. But nobody suspected at that time that they were lying to their own leader.

    And it must also be remembered that the reason was not as simple as "Chemical Weapons", but "Weapons of Mass Destruction", which Iraq had been prohibited from having after the 1991 Gulf War. This included not only chemical weapons, but also their delivery systems.

    Systems like the SCUD missile, and others like the Al-Samoud 2 and Abibil-100 missiles. These was specifically prohibited by the UN, and they were ordered to destroy all missiles and their assembly and launching equipment. Something that Iraq had claimed that they had done. But in reality, they ignored this order and kept building new ones. Then later used them.

    And this is easily seen by the launching of multiple Al-Samoud 2 and Abibil-100 missiles at coalition forces in the 2003 attack. Over 2 dozen weapons that Iraq had claimed it did not possess were launched in 2003, all of which had been prohibited and ordered destroyed by the UN as "Weapons of Mass Destruction".
     
    APACHERAT likes this.
  18. Destroyer of illusions

    Destroyer of illusions Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    16,104
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But about the Tonkin incident, you are stubbornly silent.:roflol::roflol::roflol:
    And about 266 American sailors were killed on the Maine Bronin career you are silent. 9-11?
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2018
  19. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What part of the historical facts he provided you are you claiming are false?
     
    Mushroom likes this.
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Oh, I have no problem responding, I was simply showing how horrible his history was. If I tried to burst his bubble on everything he says I would be here all day correcting every other statement he makes. But fine, he wants this discussed, I will discuss it.

    The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a real event. North Vietnamese torpedo boats did make a high speed run at the US Sumner class destroyer USS Maddox. The Maddox did respond with warning shots and the NV torpedo boats did launch torpedoes at the ship.

    This is not in question, even North Vietnamese records show this event happened. The US did inflate the claims as a justification to expand the US presence in South Vietnam. This also is not in question.

    But there really was an attack, of that there is no doubt. What many people do is combine the First and Second Battles (the first was on 2 August 1964, the second on 4 August 1964) into a single engagement. The second was indeed not a true battle, the US Navy was attacking false ghost RADAR images. There were no NV patrol boats in the vicinity during the second battle. But there were indeed boats in the first. This is proven because the US destroyer had moderate damage, 1 NV PT boat was heavily damaged and 2 NV PT boats had moderate damage (with 4 dead and 6 wounded).

    And it is easy to see this in the statement of North Vietnam Defense Minister Giap. In the 1990s he had a meeting with Robert MacNamera, and one of the things they discussed was the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. And it is very revealing in what is said.

    https://web.archive.org/web/20150306124920/http://vi.uh.edu/pages/buzzmat/world198_4.html

    Notice, he does not even talk about the incident on 2 August, but denies anything on 4 August. But the absence of denial of the attack on 2 August reveals a lot. If there was no attack, then why specify only the attack on 4 August?

    This is what is known as a "non-denial denial".

    Once again, this belief that there was no attack is from bad history, but I have no problem with pointing this incident out as well. It simply shows how the individual does not give a damn about actual history, and only goes on propaganda which is easily disproven.

    And notice, as usual I have no problem giving sources to validate my statements. I am not afraid of the truth, and do not parse words or try to hide things. 2 August, real attack, real deaths, real incident. 4 August, the Navy chasing ghosts. So trying to say the entire thing is made-up is asinine in the extreme.

    OK Illusion, I have now discussed the Gulf of Tonkin Incident. Now what? Are you going to try and claim it never happened? That PT boats did not attack a US destroyer, and that nobody was killed and no NV boats were damaged? Kind of hard to have a fantasy where people actually died and ships and aircraft were actually damaged.
     
    APACHERAT and ArmySoldier like this.
  21. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    But...Putin said it never happened...!
     
  22. Destroyer of illusions

    Destroyer of illusions Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    16,104
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He offers no part. I asked him about the Tonkin incident,, he began to talk about other events. But about the Tonkin Incedent - he is silent.
     
  23. ArmySoldier

    ArmySoldier Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2014
    Messages:
    32,222
    Likes Received:
    12,253
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You must have accidentally skipped over post 170.
     
  24. Destroyer of illusions

    Destroyer of illusions Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    16,104
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Naturally was not. Just like Saddam Hussein had no chemical weapons.
     
  25. Destroyer of illusions

    Destroyer of illusions Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2014
    Messages:
    16,104
    Likes Received:
    2,371
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. I did not read this post. Thanks for pointing.
     

Share This Page