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

Yep, Russia will always win. Russia has the fastest watches and the biggest midgets. And Soviet Union did a favor to the US by accepting Land and Lease program:

https://www.rferl.org/a/did-us-lend...viet-fight-against-nazi-germany/30599486.html

 

If you are unaware of something, that doesn't make it me who is ignorant.

Yes we did. Dr. Teller even worked on a 10 Gigaton device that he intended to be a planet killer weapon. Had it been built, it would have stayed right in the US and been set off here (something like the doomsday weapon in Dr. Strangelove).

Your lack of awareness does not mean that I am making things up.

"Only a few months later, in July 1954, Teller made it clear he thought 15 megatons was child’s play. At a secret meeting of the General Advisory Committee of the Atomic Energy Commission, Teller broached, as he put it, “the possibility of much bigger bangs.” At his Livermore laboratory, he reported, they were working on two new weapon designs, dubbed Gnomon and Sundial. Gnomon would be 1,000 megatons and would be used like a “primary” to set off Sundial, which would be 10,000 megatons. Most of Teller’s testimony remains classified to this day, but other scientists at the meeting recorded, after Teller had left, that they were “shocked” by his proposal. “It would contaminate the Earth,” one suggested. Physicist I. I. Rabi, by then an experienced Teller skeptic, suggested it was probably just an “advertising stunt.”[4] But he was wrong; Livermore would for several years continue working on Gnomon, at least, and had even planned to test a prototype for the device in Operation Redwing in 1956 (but the test never took place).[5]"

https://thebulletin.org/2021/11/the-untold-story-of-the-worlds-biggest-nuclear-bomb/

 

That depends. The test was not 25 megatons. That bastard Ike kept telling the world that we did not intend to test or build devices more powerful than the ones from Operation Castle. Then when the weapons laboratories tried to go forward with larger devices, he tell them that they couldn't do it because they'd be making a liar out of him if they did.

The MK41 only made it past Ike as a 10 megaton clean weapon. Then they made a handful of 25 megaton dirty versions later.

 

What does Putin have to do with it? It was Comrade Stalin who made sure to establish armed parity and thereby minimize the possibility of a world war.

 

Don't you like the word "peacemaker" when applied to Russia?
But we can always compare how many wars and military conflicts the USA and Russia (USSR) started. And if you compare the data, you will obviously agree that in comparison with the United States, Russia is a peacemaker.

 

In fairness though the U.S. never seriously considered the idea of a gigaton class weapon, the father of the fusion bomb Edward Teller actually did. It was a "back of the envelope" concept that Teller suggested that took advantage of the fact that there is no upper size limit to the yield you can build fusion weapons (unlike fission weapons which can only be constructed up to 500 kilotons). Teller suggested construction of massive (several thousand ton) fusion weapons and putting them aboard cargo ships and placed near the coasts of Russia and China.

 

Simply comparing the number of conflicts is not the most accurate way of determining if a nation is a "peacemaker" or the opposite.

 

Your claim is Edward Teller speaking out his ass about a 10gb bomb?

You know that was just one person spouting nonsense at what he thought, right? The US never looked into actually making this, you are taking the statement of a single person way out of context. Of course, he also was a huge advocate for using nukes to help build canals, roads, and harbors also. And that got a hell of a lot farther along than those 1GT and 10GT bombs ever did.

Holy cow, you can not even tell the difference between one person saying his opinion of what he thought the US should do, and what the US actually did. The US Air Force actually did conduct a study into his proposals, and outright rejected them.

 

That actually I was aware of. But Braniac there was just trying to convince us that the US was planning on making gigaton torpedoes.

He really has no grip on reality, that is obvious to me now. At least he finally gave at least a half-assed reference, which confirmed absolutely nothing of what he claimed, other than one person said we should make such bombs. Not that we planned on actually making them, or putting them into torpedoes.

 

~ All this posturing when the despots and dictators know the USA currently has no president. They may decide to strike while the opportunity exists . China already did ...

 

I have made several claims. One was about Dr. Teller's proposal for a ten gigaton planet killer weapon.

He was certainly not speaking out of his ass. He was serious about proposing this.

He was not spouting nonsense.

OK.

I am not taking his statements out of context.

That is incorrect. I can tell the difference.

Even a 100 megaton bomb would have had to hang mostly outside the bomb bay of a B-52.

Had he developed either the one gigaton tsunami weapon or the ten gigaton planet killer, the Air Force would not have been involved with either weapon.

 

Spending years working on the one gigaton design and even planning to test it would count as serious consideration I think.

Years of work on the one gigaton design is a bit more than back of the envelope.

 

What I said was: "The US was thinking about tsunami torpedoes with yields of 1000 megatons back in the 1950s."

How do you account for the fact that everything I've said is true?

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is half assed?

That is incorrect. It confirmed all of my claims.

Where did I say that we were planning on making them? That bastard Ike got in the way of building any US weapon larger than 15 megatons.

 

Everything is relative. Compared to the United States, Russia is a real peacemaker. Look at Syria for example - Russia is the only country that is in Syria at the invitation of a legally elected government. What is the US doing in Syria? ...
Therefore, you don't have to make an excuse.

 

Russia supporting a brutal dictator is not exactly a good example of "peacemaking".

 

I am always amazed at how Russia spends what little they have on weapons they can never use....at least not use and survive. The only thing they do with all this is piss other counties off or steal their land....can ANYONE here think of ANYTHING positive rom Russia or Putin?

 

If Russia introduces troops to Canada because, for example, the Russians will declare that there is a dictatorship in Canada. Will this option suit you? This is no different from the American invasion of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Grenada ... etc.
According to your logic, it is enough for the Russians to call the president of any country a dictator and introduce troops. Is not it?

 

Yes, you are right - it was Comrade Stalin who made sure to establish armed parity and thereby minimize the possibility of a world war and civil war in Soviet Union. Here is how he achieved it:

He starved to deaths millions of Kazaks and Ukrainians, this way preventing them from uprising against the government
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazakh_famine_of_1931–1933

He murdered over 100 thousand Poles who lived in the Soviet Union, preventing them from uprising against very humane leader:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Operation_of_the_NKVD

He attacked Finland - preventing Finland to start a war and occupying peace loving Soviet Union,

He prevented the war with Hitler's Germany signing Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, the pact which participated Poland between Germany and Soviet Union:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov–Ribbentrop_Pact

Another actions of comrade Stalin which prevented the war:
In years 1037-1939 he purged most experienced army officers, which preventing them to start a war:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge#Purge_of_the_army

 

Oh yes, that is why Russia vetoed the UN investigation into war crimes committed by Syria, and refuses to authorize UN Peacekeepers in the region.

Such peacemakers, they are doing all they can to keep the "warlike and barbaric" UN away.

 

Interesting. Do you deny there was a violent coup in Grenada in October of 1983, and that the military under orders of the coup leaders did not fire on a crowd of civilians marching in protest of the coup? Where once they promised the deposed President safety if he had his supporters surrender, he and eight of his supporters were summarily executed. Including three cabinet ministers, and three union leaders, after being lined up and shot in a courtyard, then their bodies set on fire. And hundreds of American and other foreign students had been locked down at St. George's Medical School were forbidden to leave the school, forbidden to leave the island, and forbidden to make any contact with those off the island. In other words, they were being held hostage.

That is just the lesser known case, but funny how in each and every one of those you are somehow trying to defend a nation or government that came under International Condemnation. Even by the Russian or Soviet governments. Seems to me you just seem to like brutal dictators.

 

Ahahaha ..... In Chile, there was a coup d'état when the military overthrew the legally elected president, and dissenting citizens were executed at the stadium in Santiago. Where were the American lovers of rule of law and democracy?
But can you tell us about the invasion of Panama? Could it be that the reason for the invasion of Panama was the protection of the legally elected president? Or were the reasons for the invasion of Panama related to the control of the Panama Canal and the American "lovers of democracy" did not give a damn about democracy?
And I wonder what the American democracy buffs in Afghanistan wanted to defend? In the same Afghanistan, where the US Air Force shot civilians in the markets, bombed hospitals and schools. Poppy plantations? Therefore, Afghanistan during the US occupation has become the world leader in the supply of heroin. And also tell us why the US armed the Afghan terrorists? How many weapons were left in Afghanistan?
And of course Syria. Russia is in Syria at the invitation of the legally elected government. (You love a legally elected government. Don't you?)
The United States is in Syria as an occupier and an accomplice of terrorists. Tell us about it.

 

Just because an election is held doesn't mean the government is a legitimate one. Almost all dictatorships hold "elections" at some point.

 

According to your logic, there is a dictatorship in the USA today. (Polls show that 30% of American citizens believe that Biden has usurped power. 30% are those who are sure that a coup d'etat took place in the United States and a dictator seized power.)
And according to your logic, the Russians are obliged to bombard US cities (just as the US Air Force is bombing Syrian cities today). Because, according to your logic, in the United States, power is in the hands of a dictator.
As you said?

Is not it?

 

Doesn't apply to the United States.

 

Why? Dissatisfied with the deception, US citizens stormed the White House. Obviously, there is a dictatorship in the USA. And according to your logic, it is simply necessary to bomb American cities. Is not it?
Or do you have double standards? Or do you understand the absurdity of your statements about elections and dictatorship? I will not assume that you have a split personality.