Ehhh, I'm not sure if you read my whole post. I said that the US is the most recent superpower. I did not list all superpowers ever, but I did list others, like the UK and its previous status. It's not a clearly defined word, but I was making an attempt. Look again - see?
I have actually chosen a very broad definition, I thought. Besides social, military, and economics, what else is there? Your definition seems to be 'able to support rebels outside your borders', which is certainly possible for any country on earth to do. Being able to place 50,000 marines and paratroops in a country's capital within the period of a couple hours with nuclear aircraft carriers floating off your shore, while simultaneously sending a country 15 billion dollars in humanitarian aid, while having a GDP more than all combined countries in another continent? That's what superpowers can do. For the times they were in, that's what the british government could do (with wooden ships and iron men, natch), or in Roman times, with their legions of centurions and first ever sewer systems.
USSR - not a true superpower. Re-read my original post and see my points why. But honestly, I was making my points more about Vim's thing with the red chinese...
China... Super power? Haha. China has 1 Nuclear sub, dating back from the Soviet 60s, which is currently being repaired. Other than nuclear weapons, China can't match the US.
I wouldn't be so quick to discount the Chinese economically. Sure, right now Communism has everything in a shambles, but they have the largest market for consumer goods in the entire world, and US corporations are more than willing to play ball. Any US legislature designed to cut trade with China would have to run the corporate gauntlet first, and without some sort of Tiananmen Square style PR disaster for the Chinese government (which could happen, yes) I really don't see it being able to get past that. I don't think they'll be a <i>super</i>power anytime soon (according to MonsE's description, which is right on the money IMO), but they can certainly exert some influence even now. Nukes aren't the only measure of strength.
I think the simplest way to define a super power country in the world is its people's willingness to go whatever direction their leaders decide to take them in. Hitler would seem like a whiny guy in his 40s if no one followed him and wanted to do it way back when. Even Americans with all their freedoms still give them up to follow their leaders by joining the military. My point being, China could be a world super power simply by being able to draw on a resource they have in spades, people. And they are doing it too. If you look on the bottom of almost anything you buy these days a good majority of it says "made in china" because of their incredible population size (being one factor, but a major one) is able to offer incredible cheap labour. How many distinct chinese communities in other countries are there from imigrants? Then there is a good amount of ties between chinese "mafia" aka triads and chinese governments (as far back as the numerous dynasties). China could be one hell of a force if it wanted to be.
But the topic was a bomb that seemed hypocritical, right? Well, I hardly see how a conventional concusion/fragmentary device comes anywhere close to being what a WoMD (N/B/C) can be, and many of the points have already been highlighted quite well by others in this thread already, so I won't type them all out again, as much as I want to give you more eye strain than I already do.
<!--QuoteBegin--CanadianWolverine+Mar 13 2003, 04:18 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CanadianWolverine @ Mar 13 2003, 04:18 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But the topic was a bomb that seemed hypocritical, right? Well, I hardly see how a conventional concusion/fragmentary device comes anywhere close to being what a WoMD (N/B/C) can be <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So we don't need to worry about the US having the big red bomb, but we have to worry about Iraqi Scuds, or that pitiful little drone that was recently uncovered? Come on, people, don't you get tired of the american "do as I say, not as I do" attitude in this case? The Iraqis are the bad guys because they invaded Kuwait over a decade ago. The US has already invaded Afganistan, is poised to invade Iraq (in the face of almost the whole world against them) and now they are making noises about Iran and North Korea. If invading other countries makes you the bad guy, then the US is starting to look kinda bad.
Me, being from Alabama, and seeing the bomb drop, can tell you, its not loud at all. It sounded like a regular m-28 iron bomb hitting ground. I live (sorta) by the weapons test facitlity.
<!--QuoteBegin--Vimstl+Mar 14 2003, 12:33 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Vimstl @ Mar 14 2003, 12:33 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> So we don't need to worry about the US having the big red bomb, but we have to worry about Iraqi Scuds, or that pitiful little drone that was recently uncovered? Come on, people, don't you get tired of the american "do as I say, not as I do" attitude in this case? The Iraqis are the bad guys because they invaded Kuwait over a decade ago. The US has already invaded Afganistan, is poised to invade Iraq (in the face of almost the whole world against them) and now they are making noises about Iran and North Korea. If invading other countries makes you the bad guy, then the US is starting to look kinda bad. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is pretty oversimplified don't you think Vim? Maybe, just maybe? We invaded Germany and Japan too you know - was that unacceptable? Did people supported by the government of afghanistan not attack us and our allies? Did people supported by the government of Iraq not attack us and our allies?
Thank you Zergling, my general point in starting all of this was to show how hypocritical and utterly stupid the United States is. And yes, that is something new I've heard, quite disgusting.
<!--QuoteBegin--Gazaar+Mar 14 2003, 09:28 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gazaar @ Mar 14 2003, 09:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Thank you Zergling, my general point in starting all of this was to show how hypocritical and utterly stupid the United States is. And yes, that is something new I've heard, quite disgusting. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeesh, take a step back. The United States has many flaws, and many merits, for after all it is a very large entity. Taken together, the advantages and drawbacks form a shade of gray. Whether that shade of gray is closer to white or closer to black is open to debate, but giving an imperial "thumbs-down" to the whole thing isn't very credible. I live in America, and trust me, it does not resemble Coruscant. Lots of old people walking dogs, and kids bouncing balls. By all means critique specific policies and military actions, but there's no need (or justification) for dismissing American society in general as stupid. If the real aim of the United States was total world domination, they'd have already struck a deal with the other nuclear superpowers, and declared the rest of the world to be outright slaves or face annihilation. The reality is just that you have some people that are greedy and callous, others that are generous and intelligent, and a temporary administration that happens to be extremely abrasive, but is probably doing the exact same thing any other administration would have done, only with some poorly thought-out shortcuts.
Hmm... if I look at Afganistan I cant see any demokratic Country... I hope you re right about Iraq and it will become democratic...
oh I forgot to say the MOAB isnt scaring me, what scares me are those nukes. Any Country with nukes scares me. And mini-nukes scare me also, and depleted uranium shells also... the military suxx
<!--QuoteBegin--redeemed darkness+Mar 12 2003, 03:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (redeemed darkness @ Mar 12 2003, 03:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wouldn't say it is the most destructive weapon Japan is still feeling the effects of the 2 nukes over 50 years ago <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Japan had two <b>Atomic Bombs</b> dropped on them in 1945. Had they suffered two Nuclear bombs, the death toll would have been 10 fold and the after effects equally bad. But the way I see it (for that particular time anyway), the Japanese were good soldiers and they usually fought to the death. We would've suffered millions more in casualties had we not hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as would the Japanese. At the time, the consequences of dropping Atomic weaponry did not outweigh the consequences of dragging the war out for another year or two.
[edit]
The US had a very similar bomb in the 1960's-1970's that they used during the Vietnam days. It was a single piece of 16,000 lbs. ordnance that was used to clear dense forests and create LZs for their Helicopters. I forget the name of it - someone help me out here <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Add 2 1/2 more tons of explosive and you have the MOAB. The problem with using multiple lighter pieces of ordnance comes in destroying large structures. A single large explosion will force all of the rubble outward, creating a "flatter" area...while a multitude of smaller explosions will force significantly less of the rubble outward, making nice piles for the Iraqi (or whomever we decide to use these weapons against) Machinegunners to set up and take partial cover with. We learned this lesson in WW2 when we thought some 1000 year old monastery was housing Nazi's, blasted it to rubble with 500 lb. iron bombs, and payed the price when there was a company of germans setting up shop in the nicely pre-trenched rubble. The theory of "shell shock" really doesn't work - we would have won the Vietnam war if it did. That's why one massive bomb would have a greater psychological effect than many smaller bombs.
<!--QuoteBegin--Onuma+Mar 15 2003, 09:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Onuma @ Mar 15 2003, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--redeemed darkness+Mar 12 2003, 03:24 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (redeemed darkness @ Mar 12 2003, 03:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I wouldn't say it is the most destructive weapon Japan is still feeling the effects of the 2 nukes over 50 years ago <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Japan had two <b>Atomic Bombs</b> dropped on them in 1945. Had they suffered two Nuclear bombs, the death toll would have been 10 fold and the after effects equally bad. But the way I see it (for that particular time anyway), the Japanese were good soldiers and they usually fought to the death. We would've suffered millions more in casualties had we not hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as would the Japanese. At the time, the consequences of dropping Atomic weaponry did not outweigh the consequences of dragging the war out for another year or two. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Japan was ready to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.
US dictated the terms of surrender but Japanese misunderstood them. They thought americans required the emperor to step down and face trial in the court of law. Americands didn't require this as they knew it would be something japanese wouldn't be ready to bargain.
Personally I believe Truman ordered the bombs to be dropped because he a) wanted to stop the war once and for all b) didn't realize the full effect of them and c) wanted to demonstrate the strength of US to the USSR. In my opinion, it's safe to say the decision was too rushed.
US has always been willing to use new technology in the field of war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in part examples of just that.
Edit: Naturally, this is just one interpretation of what happened. So please, don't take this like I'm stating historical facts. It's just the theory I personally believe in.
<!--QuoteBegin--Gargamel+Mar 14 2003, 10:16 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Gargamel @ Mar 14 2003, 10:16 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Hmm... if I look at Afganistan I cant see any demokratic Country... I hope you re right about Iraq and it will become democratic...
oh I forgot to say the MOAB isnt scaring me, what scares me are those nukes. Any Country with nukes scares me. And mini-nukes scare me also, and depleted uranium shells also... the military suxx <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Ugh, why does anyone expect Afghanistan to have become self-sufficiently democratic already? It's neither pratical or reasonable, since democracies take time and effort on the part of people willing to participate. Let's face it, the only reason a good number of democracies today still exist is because democracies have banded together in the past against Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and various other threats. If Afghanistan does not continue to get the support of other "democratic" countries, it could easily become a failed democracy.
Oh, and I'm sure all the men and women who have given their life in service of the military would be so glad to have made that ultimate sacrafice so you could type "the military suxx" today. Ingrate.
Canadian, you got me wrong on the military suxx issue. I dont mean the soldiers. They have my sympathy. I mean the military machines. Its another thing to defend and another to assault. And in my opinion militaries should not exist at all. But without them you cant make wars, can you? Soldiers are us, and those who get killed, not Bush or Saddam. And what outrages me is that all those human lives got lost. And I was a Soldier myself. I know what Soldiers are and their sacrifices. They sacrifice their Life because a moron sucking Bush tells them to for example.
About Afganistan, it will never be a democratic place because US bombed the hell out of the Taliban. Right now only Kabul is secured and the rest belongs to Warlords like in the times before the Taliban. Afganistan is in chaos. And Iraq will be in chaos 2 after the US / British invasion.
And the Soviet UNion I ve always seen as NO THREAT, the US is for me the real threat right now. Ingrate <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
About Afganistan, it will never be a democratic place because US bombed the hell out of the Taliban.
And the Soviet UNion I ve always seen as NO THREAT, the US is for me the real threat right now. Ingrate <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So Germany can't be a democracy because America and the Allies bombed Germany and overthrew the Nazis?
America is not a threat to the free world, although they do 'force' their views on others; but it is usually in good spirits, that also benefit the U.S. as well. America could be the largest threat if it wanted to dominate the world or certain countries. Say if the U.S. wanted to annex Canada, all they would have to do is: Hey Canada you now belong to us (at the same time armored and infantry division, aircraft, and navy forces are moved to the border). But that will never happen, probably. The Soviet Union was a great threat, especially in the 50's-60's. If you ever read some of the plans of their domination and that they were seeking for total control/infulence of the world by spreading 'communism' across the globe.
Why do people think a moab is controversial? Wow its a really big bomb woopty do? Its not that high tech to go lets make a bomb just really big!
You think the U.S. should get rid of its weapons? Do you think the free world would last a secound if the tables were turned and Saddam Hussien had our armed forces? Well maybe a couple minutes
NarfwakJoin Date: 2002-11-02Member: 5258Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, NS1 Playtester, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Diamond, Reinforced - Shadow, Subnautica PT Lead, NS2 Community Developer
I thought I'd make a note about this current weapon's predecessor, the daisy cutter. The DC was never originally intended to be used as an offensive weapon - why would they give the name of a lawnmower if that were the case? No, the DC was designed to do exactly what the name implies - cut daisies. Basically, one drops a DC in an area of foliage that one wants to become their new LZ. The DC then goes *BOOM* and blows the **** out of the daises. Lastly, one drops/picks up troops with helicopters and does whatever.
As a real weapon, the thing is pretty much pointless. It's simply easier and more effective to drop assloads of 500 pounders or use precision laser- or GPU-guided weapon systems. DC's were dropped on Afghan trenches though. Why? Imagine hearing three 15-thousand pound explosives going off even far away. Imagine seeing the entire sky light up were your friends and comrades were. Now imagine shitting your pants and assuming the fetal position.
You think the U.S. should get rid of its weapons? Do you think the free world would last a secound if the tables were turned and Saddam Hussien had our armed forces? Well maybe a couple minutes <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> At the moment, it is the USA that uses weapons of Mass Destruction against other countries and thus slaughtering thousands of innocent people. You can't legitimate it by saying "the others would do this as well, if they could"
<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Mar 18 2003, 01:42 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Mar 18 2003, 01:42 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> At the moment, it is the USA that uses weapons of Mass Destruction against other countries and thus slaughtering thousands of innocent people. You can't legitimate it by saying "the others would do this as well, if they could" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if the America uses any chemical biological or nuclear weapons in a first strike attack, then something must be done; even though that most likely will never happen. If Iraq, or another nation, uses chem/bio/nuke weapons first, then it is legal for America to respond in kind, though they shouldn't unless absoultly necessary.
You think the U.S. should get rid of its weapons? Do you think the free world would last a secound if the tables were turned and Saddam Hussien had our armed forces? Well maybe a couple minutes <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> At the moment, it is the USA that uses weapons of Mass Destruction against other countries and thus slaughtering thousands of innocent people. You can't legitimate it by saying "the others would do this as well, if they could" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> United states "USES" meaning recently? when did the U.S. recently use any WoMD on a nation? Maybe 40+ years ago on Hiroshimo and Nagasaki they werent even called WoMD then. U.S. did alot more damage with coventional bombs anyways.
The USA hasent used any recently. We aren't nieve though so we are prepared for not if it happens but when it happens.
Well, I consider bombs having the capacity of a small nuclear bomb as weapons of mass destruction. I consider splitter bombs which injure thousands of people as weapons of mass destruction. I consider bombardments of whole towns as using weapons of mass destruction. No biological or chemical weapon can produce that much havoc.
its actually only 18,000lb of explosive, the rest is hausing and wiring and guidance and crud
and its only to scare the iraqies
"Look at our giant jevos, we got jevos so big we needed a bigger bomb to drop on you."
As if daisy cutters couldnt do the job, besides there isnt anything you can kill with a 21,000lb bomb that you cant kill with a 12,000lb bomb, or 2 5,000lb bombs.
<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Mar 18 2003, 03:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Mar 18 2003, 03:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, I consider bombs having the capacity of a small nuclear bomb as weapons of mass destruction. I consider splitter bombs which injure thousands of people as weapons of mass destruction. I consider bombardments of whole towns as using weapons of mass destruction. No biological or chemical weapon can produce that much havoc. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That is utterly and completely false. There are reams and reams of historical accounts of the effects of chemical and biological weapons, and they are just as capable of killing everyone in an area as the practice of "bombarding a whole town." Additionally, they are much more difficult to control, unlike conventional weapons, which are expended once and then cease to exist. Say what you will in terms of which weapons should be called what, or who should have them, but it is important to become educated on the basic characteristics of these weapons, since the data is easily available and critical to having an informed opinion.
<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Mar 18 2003, 03:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Mar 18 2003, 03:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Well, I consider bombs having the capacity of a small nuclear bomb as weapons of mass destruction. I consider splitter bombs which injure thousands of people as weapons of mass destruction. I consider bombardments of whole towns as using weapons of mass destruction. No biological or chemical weapon can produce that much havoc. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> So your nation doesn't have any of the forementioned weapons?
Comments
I have actually chosen a very broad definition, I thought. Besides social, military, and economics, what else is there? Your definition seems to be 'able to support rebels outside your borders', which is certainly possible for any country on earth to do. Being able to place 50,000 marines and paratroops in a country's capital within the period of a couple hours with nuclear aircraft carriers floating off your shore, while simultaneously sending a country 15 billion dollars in humanitarian aid, while having a GDP more than all combined countries in another continent? That's what superpowers can do. For the times they were in, that's what the british government could do (with wooden ships and iron men, natch), or in Roman times, with their legions of centurions and first ever sewer systems.
USSR - not a true superpower. Re-read my original post and see my points why. But honestly, I was making my points more about Vim's thing with the red chinese...
But the topic was a bomb that seemed hypocritical, right? Well, I hardly see how a conventional concusion/fragmentary device comes anywhere close to being what a WoMD (N/B/C) can be, and many of the points have already been highlighted quite well by others in this thread already, so I won't type them all out again, as much as I want to give you more eye strain than I already do.
But the topic was a bomb that seemed hypocritical, right? Well, I hardly see how a conventional concusion/fragmentary device comes anywhere close to being what a WoMD (N/B/C) can be <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So we don't need to worry about the US having the big red bomb, but we have to worry about Iraqi Scuds, or that pitiful little drone that was recently uncovered? Come on, people, don't you get tired of the american "do as I say, not as I do" attitude in this case? The Iraqis are the bad guys because they invaded Kuwait over a decade ago. The US has already invaded Afganistan, is poised to invade Iraq (in the face of almost the whole world against them) and now they are making noises about Iran and North Korea. If invading other countries makes you the bad guy, then the US is starting to look kinda bad.
This is pretty oversimplified don't you think Vim? Maybe, just maybe? We invaded Germany and Japan too you know - was that unacceptable? Did people supported by the government of afghanistan not attack us and our allies? Did people supported by the government of Iraq not attack us and our allies?
As a veteran, you should know better.
Yeesh, take a step back. The United States has many flaws, and many merits, for after all it is a very large entity. Taken together, the advantages and drawbacks form a shade of gray. Whether that shade of gray is closer to white or closer to black is open to debate, but giving an imperial "thumbs-down" to the whole thing isn't very credible. I live in America, and trust me, it does not resemble Coruscant. Lots of old people walking dogs, and kids bouncing balls. By all means critique specific policies and military actions, but there's no need (or justification) for dismissing American society in general as stupid. If the real aim of the United States was total world domination, they'd have already struck a deal with the other nuclear superpowers, and declared the rest of the world to be outright slaves or face annihilation. The reality is just that you have some people that are greedy and callous, others that are generous and intelligent, and a temporary administration that happens to be extremely abrasive, but is probably doing the exact same thing any other administration would have done, only with some poorly thought-out shortcuts.
I hope you re right about Iraq and it will become democratic...
oh I forgot to say the MOAB isnt scaring me, what scares me are those nukes. Any Country with nukes scares me. And mini-nukes scare me also, and depleted uranium shells also... the military suxx
Click the link marked 'Listen to All Things Considered audio'.
This is the US National Public Radio, which is a pretty liberal news organization not funded by advertising (that's the public part).
Japan is still feeling the effects of the 2 nukes over 50 years ago <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Japan had two <b>Atomic Bombs</b> dropped on them in 1945. Had they suffered two Nuclear bombs, the death toll would have been 10 fold and the after effects equally bad.
But the way I see it (for that particular time anyway), the Japanese were good soldiers and they usually fought to the death. We would've suffered millions more in casualties had we not hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as would the Japanese. At the time, the consequences of dropping Atomic weaponry did not outweigh the consequences of dragging the war out for another year or two.
[edit]
The US had a very similar bomb in the 1960's-1970's that they used during the Vietnam days. It was a single piece of 16,000 lbs. ordnance that was used to clear dense forests and create LZs for their Helicopters. I forget the name of it - someone help me out here <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo--> Add 2 1/2 more tons of explosive and you have the MOAB. The problem with using multiple lighter pieces of ordnance comes in destroying large structures. A single large explosion will force all of the rubble outward, creating a "flatter" area...while a multitude of smaller explosions will force significantly less of the rubble outward, making nice piles for the Iraqi (or whomever we decide to use these weapons against) Machinegunners to set up and take partial cover with.
We learned this lesson in WW2 when we thought some 1000 year old monastery was housing Nazi's, blasted it to rubble with 500 lb. iron bombs, and payed the price when there was a company of germans setting up shop in the nicely pre-trenched rubble. The theory of "shell shock" really doesn't work - we would have won the Vietnam war if it did. That's why one massive bomb would have a greater psychological effect than many smaller bombs.
Japan is still feeling the effects of the 2 nukes over 50 years ago <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Japan had two <b>Atomic Bombs</b> dropped on them in 1945. Had they suffered two Nuclear bombs, the death toll would have been 10 fold and the after effects equally bad.
But the way I see it (for that particular time anyway), the Japanese were good soldiers and they usually fought to the death. We would've suffered millions more in casualties had we not hit Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as would the Japanese. At the time, the consequences of dropping Atomic weaponry did not outweigh the consequences of dragging the war out for another year or two. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Japan was ready to surrender before the atomic bombs were dropped.
US dictated the terms of surrender but Japanese misunderstood them. They thought americans required the emperor to step down and face trial in the court of law. Americands didn't require this as they knew it would be something japanese wouldn't be ready to bargain.
Personally I believe Truman ordered the bombs to be dropped because he a) wanted to stop the war once and for all b) didn't realize the full effect of them and c) wanted to demonstrate the strength of US to the USSR. In my opinion, it's safe to say the decision was too rushed.
US has always been willing to use new technology in the field of war. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in part examples of just that.
Edit: Naturally, this is just one interpretation of what happened. So please, don't take this like I'm stating historical facts. It's just the theory I personally believe in.
I hope you re right about Iraq and it will become democratic...
oh I forgot to say the MOAB isnt scaring me, what scares me are those nukes. Any Country with nukes scares me. And mini-nukes scare me also, and depleted uranium shells also... the military suxx <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ugh, why does anyone expect Afghanistan to have become self-sufficiently democratic already? It's neither pratical or reasonable, since democracies take time and effort on the part of people willing to participate. Let's face it, the only reason a good number of democracies today still exist is because democracies have banded together in the past against Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, and various other threats. If Afghanistan does not continue to get the support of other "democratic" countries, it could easily become a failed democracy.
Oh, and I'm sure all the men and women who have given their life in service of the military would be so glad to have made that ultimate sacrafice so you could type "the military suxx" today. Ingrate.
I mean the military machines. Its another thing to defend and another to assault. And in my opinion militaries should not exist at all. But without them you cant make wars, can you? Soldiers are us, and those who get killed, not Bush or Saddam. And what outrages me is that all those human lives got lost.
And I was a Soldier myself. I know what Soldiers are and their sacrifices.
They sacrifice their Life because a moron sucking Bush tells them to for example.
About Afganistan, it will never be a democratic place because US bombed the hell out of the Taliban.
Right now only Kabul is secured and the rest belongs to Warlords like in the times before the Taliban.
Afganistan is in chaos. And Iraq will be in chaos 2 after the US / British invasion.
And the Soviet UNion I ve always seen as NO THREAT, the US is for me the real threat right now.
Ingrate <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
About Afganistan, it will never be a democratic place because US bombed the hell out of the Taliban.
And the Soviet UNion I ve always seen as NO THREAT, the US is for me the real threat right now.
Ingrate <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
So Germany can't be a democracy because America and the Allies bombed Germany and overthrew the Nazis?
America is not a threat to the free world, although they do 'force' their views on others; but it is usually in good spirits, that also benefit the U.S. as well. America could be the largest threat if it wanted to dominate the world or certain countries. Say if the U.S. wanted to annex Canada, all they would have to do is: Hey Canada you now belong to us (at the same time armored and infantry division, aircraft, and navy forces are moved to the border). But that will never happen, probably. The Soviet Union was a great threat, especially in the 50's-60's. If you ever read some of the plans of their domination and that they were seeking for total control/infulence of the world by spreading 'communism' across the globe.
You think the U.S. should get rid of its weapons? Do you think the free world would last a secound if the tables were turned and Saddam Hussien had our armed forces? Well maybe a couple minutes
As a real weapon, the thing is pretty much pointless. It's simply easier and more effective to drop assloads of 500 pounders or use precision laser- or GPU-guided weapon systems. DC's were dropped on Afghan trenches though. Why? Imagine hearing three 15-thousand pound explosives going off even far away. Imagine seeing the entire sky light up were your friends and comrades were. Now imagine shitting your pants and assuming the fetal position.
You think the U.S. should get rid of its weapons? Do you think the free world would last a secound if the tables were turned and Saddam Hussien had our armed forces? Well maybe a couple minutes <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the moment, it is the USA that uses weapons of Mass Destruction against other countries and thus slaughtering thousands of innocent people. You can't legitimate it by saying "the others would do this as well, if they could"
At the moment, it is the USA that uses weapons of Mass Destruction against other countries and thus slaughtering thousands of innocent people. You can't legitimate it by saying "the others would do this as well, if they could" <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if the America uses any chemical biological or nuclear weapons in a first strike attack, then something must be done; even though that most likely will never happen. If Iraq, or another nation, uses chem/bio/nuke weapons first, then it is legal for America to respond in kind, though they shouldn't unless absoultly necessary.
You think the U.S. should get rid of its weapons? Do you think the free world would last a secound if the tables were turned and Saddam Hussien had our armed forces? Well maybe a couple minutes <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
At the moment, it is the USA that uses weapons of Mass Destruction against other countries and thus slaughtering thousands of innocent people. You can't legitimate it by saying "the others would do this as well, if they could" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
United states "USES" meaning recently? when did the U.S. recently use any WoMD on a nation? Maybe 40+ years ago on Hiroshimo and Nagasaki they werent even called WoMD then. U.S. did alot more damage with coventional bombs anyways.
The USA hasent used any recently. We aren't nieve though so we are prepared for not if it happens but when it happens.
and its only to scare the iraqies
"Look at our giant jevos, we got jevos so big we needed a bigger bomb to drop on you."
As if daisy cutters couldnt do the job, besides there isnt anything you can kill with a 21,000lb bomb that you cant kill with a 12,000lb bomb, or 2 5,000lb bombs.
That is utterly and completely false. There are reams and reams of historical accounts of the effects of chemical and biological weapons, and they are just as capable of killing everyone in an area as the practice of "bombarding a whole town." Additionally, they are much more difficult to control, unlike conventional weapons, which are expended once and then cease to exist. Say what you will in terms of which weapons should be called what, or who should have them, but it is important to become educated on the basic characteristics of these weapons, since the data is easily available and critical to having an informed opinion.
So your nation doesn't have any of the forementioned weapons?