From Those Who Don't Have A Tact

Discussion in 'Warbirds International' started by laxtsc, May 8, 2005.

  1. Glas

    Glas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,928
    Location:
    Scotland
    Strangely enough, there was another leader in recent history who also felt the need to oppress certain peoples, in the name of the security of his own country....
     
    2 people like this.
  2. Uncles

    Uncles Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,787
    Location:
    Post-American USA
    Truth is that that we Americans had, and continue to have (I'm guessing from past experience) plans for attacks on Russia. These are "contingency plans," and they are in place for potential conflict scenarios. And BTW, constant flights of nuclear-laden B-52s did not stop until the late 1970s. And in the 1980s, until all was over with the ascent of the so-called Soviet reformists, I can tell you it continued.

    But certainly the Russian Federation continues to have such contingency plans? All nations possessing nuclear capability plan for this insane stuff.

    What we all need to ask is why.

    Why do we all plan for dying for our masters, when it would would be better to step back, and simply talk to each other as brothers.

    We need to prevent further problems!

    I understand that now, Russia feels "defensive," and we in the West must strive not to increase the trouble.

    Let's all try to leave the past in the past where it belongs, and look to a better future.
     
  3. squirl

    squirl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Messages:
    853
    Nuclear wars are not much different from conventional wars. Yes, the way in which they are fought are very different, but the spirit is the same:

    "Peace, or else..."

    Nuclear weapons actually are not tools of war. The mutually-assured destruction offered by nuclear weapons maintains peace and prevents world war.

    So, Uncles, the United States did not necessarily plan an attack on the USSR woth the intent to destroy the country. The US planned so that the Soviet Union would not attack the United States.

    If Greenpeace has its way and all nuclear weapons are dismantled, there would be little deterrence to prevent World War 3. If Greenpeace is against warfare they should support the existence of nuclear weapons!
     
  4. PressLuftHammer

    PressLuftHammer FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Messages:
    14,937
    Location:
    Ekaterinburg (Russia)
    I think now again we can see political game.
    Recently i know one area in Warsawa was named "Dudaev".
    It too most if they have named it "Bin Laden".

    Both sides again gave the friend to a slap in the face for propagande.

    Me don't like Nazi, Soviet and imperialistic politic other countres.
    Me don't nice any propoganda nazi,soviet and "freedom world" (is u know ;))
    I guess is history and is propaganda it very different thing.
    But this thread we see only propoganda with both side.
     
    1 person likes this.
  5. PressLuftHammer

    PressLuftHammer FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2003
    Messages:
    14,937
    Location:
    Ekaterinburg (Russia)
    USA has plans nuclear attack, befor make nuclear weapons in USSR.
    First nuclear attack USA was made in 6 august 1945 year on city Hiroshima.
    First USSR nuclear bomb test was make 29 august 1949 year.
    USA have bomber for nuclear Bomb B-29 Soviet copy its bomber Tu-4 made only 1947 year.
     
  6. manoce

    manoce Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    Rožnov pod Radhoštěm, Czech republic
    very correct
     
  7. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    So you're saying the fail-safe policy was actually harmless? It's been a while since I had to learn this, but the fail-safe policy, did it not involve shooting everything you've got at the country that launched a nuke at you? You can call that defense (such as in chess, one piece covering another), or offense (because eventually you want to check-mate the other guy). But saying it is necessary is a bit far-fetched. It's for a large part because of nuclear weapons and all that that there's now such a huge gap between East and West (the 'powerhouses' of the cold war were just institutions of: "If they hit me, can you hit them back for me?"). Then again, without nuclear weapons Russia might have invaded the rest of Europe right after WWII. We can only wonder.

    Ah well, what would the world be like without nuclear weapons?

    I don't think we need them though. Nuclear weapons - at this very moment - are used as a means of leverage to militarise space (Star Wars program). That's when things for the future start to go wrong if you ask me.

    <Z>
     
  8. Glas

    Glas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,928
    Location:
    Scotland

    This changed with the development of the defense systems by the US which could block an incoming nuclear attack. MAD was no longer a scenario. They could launch a nuclear attack, as well as defend against one, so this concept no longer exists.



    The US knew from very early on after the end of WWII that the USSR was not a threat to the West. But both the US and the USSR had to get in to a dick-measuring contest. Sad really when you think about it.



    I dont know that Greenpeace are against warfare as such, just the abolition of nuclear weapons I believe. Now that MAD is no longer a scenario, there is no reason for the existence of them anymore as a 'deterrent'.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. Boroda

    Boroda FH Community Officer

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2000
    Messages:
    6,422
    Location:
    Moscow
    Was it a plan from Tom Clancy's book?...

    Anyway, the goal was to win a war, by destroying enemy forces and occupying it's land. To win. Such plans always exist.

    The plan i quoted was declassified in the 60s and it's description appeared in Western sources. Try to find anything on the net about plans called "Charioter", "Fleetwood", "Drop Shot" etc.

    One of the most amazing things in "Drop Shot" were the estimations of bomber losses during nuclear attacks... It's total, absolute insanity, but it was signed and approved for implementation. Nuclear genocide for the millions of innocent people with no chance for "blue" side to win. By their estimation Soviet Army in the worst conditions, with all Soviet industry destroyed, controlled the whole Europe, Mediterranian and Middle East in no more then six months. They planned an attack on such conditions, and set up the date... To burn all the Europe only because someone have been told that "communism is evil". Simply burn millions including you, guys.

    Again: they declassified this plans. I wonder - what for?...

    USSR wasn't in a position for attack. It's pretty obvious. If USSR needed to "conquer" all the Europe - Soviet Army could easily do it in 1945.

    Yes I may live in "devastated" or "never truly formed up" society. But I live. If some looneys could have bases for B-29s in Eastern Europe - everything could end up in quite a different way. And your nation was (and still is) nothing but a disposable pawn on a "grand chessboard". Sorry :( If you thing that anything changed in minds - look at what happened to Yugoslavia.

    I hope that you understand - we have some reasons to be paranoid.

    Manoce, the Bomb costed us an effort almost as big as a War. And it was a matter of survival. Just as the resources USSR spent on Warsaw Treaty.
     
  10. Boroda

    Boroda FH Community Officer

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2000
    Messages:
    6,422
    Location:
    Moscow
    We have an operational anti-ballistic missile shield over Moscow, according to 1972 ABM treaty, that was inspired by Americans. The whole structure can be compared in scale with American NMD programm, and it can intercept no more then 5-10 warheads coming down on Moscow. It's only a measure against an accidental launch.

    It is impossible to defend agaist massive ICBM attack. American NMD programm plans the deployment of 110 ABMs. It means that in theory they are capable of intercepting 55 warheads. It's only half-dozen of modern ICBMs - and the capacity is simply exceeded. No smart tricks, only numbers. BTW, Americans still can's make a reliable missile to intercept a single warhead without any ECM jamming, while half of the payload of Soviet ICBMs is fake targets and active ECM stations. Needless to say that the whole ABM system will be totally blinded by the first blast even above atmosphere - one successfull penetration makes whe whole setup useless.

    It is impossible to make a missile shield on current level of technology, I mean without death-rays or blasters or lightsabres. Latest Russian mono-block warheads tested this spring are capable of maneuvering after the re-entry at hypersonic speeds to avoid interceptors and hit a target hundreeds kilometers from projected entry-point.

    Unfortunately it was not only a fallometric contest for us :( I wrote about it above...

    MAD is still a key factor. BTW, MAD was reached only in late-70s or early 80s. Before that the world was literally walking on a thin ice...

    It's interesting that now official Russian defence doctrine includes a full-scale pre-emptive nuclear strike against aggressor... We can't afford a decent conventional force, so we simply threaten a total destruction :( So nuclear weapons turned into a weapon of the weak ones. It's not a joke. Please notice a key difference from a planned attack like the above mentioned "Drop Shot" plan.

    Is it a world you want to live in?... :rolleyes:
     
  11. manoce

    manoce Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 9, 2002
    Messages:
    1,221
    Location:
    Rožnov pod Radhoštěm, Czech republic
    I don't think anything changed.
    And I think I understand what you are trying to say for some time now - about necessity of soviet attitude.

    Nevertheless, still I can't agree with the importance you ascribe to it; seems like it can justify just about anything in your view.
    The goals could be acceptable.. but the way SSSR was achieving them was so wrong sometimes.
    In the very case of Czechoslovakia SSSR absolutely failed to recognize what is going on... no threat of NATO bases being build here.. "we" were not quitting eastern block
    and.. c'mon.. wasn't there more advanced methods of dropping bombs on SSSR in 1968 than using B-29 bombers?

    Btw the plan I saw was in czech.. no idea where it came from; but anyway.. it's not worse or better than US plans... that was thing I was trying to say; and please don't argue with fact that US was ok with destroying whole europe.. it's a common knowledge what was the way of making a warfare during ww2 by red army.. not any better, not worse either.

    I don't get it why are you so fucking proud. You just fucked it up in my eyes - soviets killed the idea, they twisted communism idea into something so much absurd .
    I mean you are prolly right when you are saying.. this is how it goes and we can be lucky the world is not in ashes.. but hey, maximum I can feel about the thing is - "this is how it goes". I just can't identify myself with the proccess. The fact that it seems that you are emotionally positive about it is scary for me.
     
  12. grobar

    grobar Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2000
    Messages:
    3,497
    Location:
    Пловдив, Тракия, България
    Hey, guys, the poet has written it beautifully:

    Track No2 - Begin-ing, Boris Kovac & LaDaABa Orchestra - "The Last Balkan Tango"

    Just imagine
    there is only one starry night left till the end of this world
    what will we do...?

    some will be dispairing hopelessly
    some will gather their riches to take them with them, full of hope
    some will pray to God, in faith
    some will enter the vacchanalia to pleasure themselves
    some will spend last intimate moments with their nearest and dearest in love

    ...ladaaba orkest offers you the perfect tour for the very last night spent in this world
    ...the last dance party!

    forget about the dispair
    take your riches with you, just in case
    let God come with you, if he feels up to it
    vacchanalia implied
    take your nearest and dearest with you
    lets dance...
    lets dance...
    lets dance...
    lets dance...
    hope, faith, pleasure, love...

    let us be happy at least one more time in life
    la danza apocalypsa balcanica!


    written&composed during the bombardment of Novi Sad
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2005
  13. Uncles

    Uncles Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    Messages:
    3,787
    Location:
    Post-American USA
    Lol! I resist questioning your sanity. I understand what you're attempting to communicate, but it's, as we say, hog wash. My opinion is that, if the weapon exists, the weapon will be used. We're simply lucky -- so far -- that it hasn't been used in anger since '45.

    In the end, they (nukes) are most certainly tools of war. A thing built to kill others is a tool of war. And if a weapon is built, it will be used in combat, eventually. This is the nature of man, who controls the tools. And we have used nuclear weaponry.

    True, most likely. Even the most idiotic or deranged general never wished to kill innocent persons (children, non-combatants,etc.).

    But out of paranoia and stupidity we almost did it...

    The acronym MAD is a good one :) Sometimes I'm amazed that we all got through the First Cold War relatively unscathed, and I despair as I watch the Second unfold.

    If only Green Peace could have its way. Unfortunately, Green Peace cannot affect nations that have no sense (and here I refer to the so-called "rogue nations" that we hear about in our American news media, and some of those nations are indeed rogue).

    "The Genie is out of the bottle." Now that almost all have got it, let's see what happens. In the end, people will die.
     
    1 person likes this.
  14. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,946
    Location:
    Germany
    Three words: Gerenal Curtis Lemay. He thought that a nuclear war against the Soviet Union was "winnable at the cost of 25 million dead Americans" or something like that, and was actually advocating that the US strike while it still enjoyed a marked superiority. Total nutcase the man. In the same league as MacArthur, who wanted to drop nukes on China during the Korean War. Thank God calmer heads prevailed!
     
  15. Red Ant

    Red Ant Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2002
    Messages:
    4,946
    Location:
    Germany
    And there's not just the issue of nuclear proliferation either. Far more countries are in possession of biological weapons than have acquired nukes. Biological weapons are far easier to produce and cheaper than nukes, yet are (in my opinion) at least as lethal, if not more, than nuclear weapons.
     
  16. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    Operational, sure, but does it really work? As you say yourself, ABM's are pretty useless. It's a bit like the Americans deploying Patriot SAM units outside of Jerusalem and Tel Aviv etc during the Gulf War. People feel safe about an attack while when it really comes to it the missiles won't have much problem coming through.

    As for Star Wars etc, I read the US Air Force is asking Bush to give the final go. They want to push through legislature that allows the deployment of offensive and defensive weapons in space. So called to protect America's space assets.

    <Z>
     
  17. Zembla JG13

    Zembla JG13 FH Beta Tester

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Messages:
    4,791
    Location:
    .be
    True, Biological weapons are easily made, Chemical weapons are a bit harder to come around with. The thing with Biological weapons though is that the bacteria/viruses aren't immune to climatological conditions. Biological weapons need to be contained in hermetically sealed, cooled containers. For example, in the Gulf War the US Air Force was pretty concerned about bombing the Biological weapons storages of Iraq, they feared a breakout. In reality, the temperature and the direct exposition to sunlight ensured a quick death for the bacteria.

    All in all, nuclear weapons aren't much more difficult to produce than a biological weapon. It's not to hard to come up with a dirty bomb, the process in itself is fairly easy. If you look hard enough you'll see you can find elaborate plans for the constructions of an A-bomb on google, I think. Even if you don't want to build it yourself, there are ways to purchase 'm of corrupt military officials, some nations are known to not keep the lid on their nuclear arsenal shut all that tightly.

    The thing which really sets apart Biological weapons from Nuclear weapons is the lethality though. In my opinion Biological weapons are horrible things indeed, very lethal (if the correct virus is released), there is little to get it going if it contaminates well. On the other hand though, as soon as the weakness of the virus is found, as soon as a serum, and anti-biotic is found, you've got a chance to live. Biological weapons aren't really comparable to a bomb anyway, there is no blast radius etc etc. An A (or H if you're a bad boy) -bomb is raw power. It explodes, and radiates. People in close proximity of the bomb kind of vaporise, shadows are burnt into the ground, there is an electromagnetic side-kick to the shockwave, this knocks out all electronics. And in most cases, by the time the isotope in the bomb has decayed to a non-radioactive isotope several years have passed (I'm talking in the thousands in most cases). I don't have the exact numbers here with me, but I'm pretty sure that most isotopes used in A-bombs have a lengthy halflife. Sure, you can clean up the bomb and say "Good riddings", but you can only do that after cleaning up all the fall-out.

    <Z>