News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Obama considering steep nuclear arms cuts

Started by Kleves, February 15, 2012, 11:15:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Faeelin

Quote from: grumbler on February 16, 2012, 01:08:39 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on February 16, 2012, 08:41:40 AM
Are we expecting imminent nuclear war to break out with anyone? Worrying if we'd be capable of decapitating China and the Russians in a first strike seems a bit silly.

Agree.  A competent leader plans to allow potential enemies to annihilate the leader's nation rather than bother with silly things like winning the war per-emptively.

I mean, if I thought Beijing was going to threaten a nuclear war tomorrow it'd be one thing. But we can always build more of them if international relations change. Would it cost more to do so? Or is there something you know about Red Peking that I don't?

Siege

Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 16, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
The late B-17G.

The initial models were nowhere near that.
The model 299 flew at 2100m or 7000 feet.
I'm sure it did, but it also flew higher and lower than that.  That's how airplanes work.

Says the guy that listens to Hawthorne Heights.

I got you by the balls, faggot!


"All men are created equal, then some become infantry."

"Those who beat their swords into plowshares will plow for those who don't."

"Laissez faire et laissez passer, le monde va de lui même!"


Eddie Teach

To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

fhdz

Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
I'm sure it did, but it also flew higher and lower than that.  That's how airplanes work.

:D
and the horse you rode in on

grumbler

Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:37:00 PM
Of course we're capable of genocide, or at least mass killing based solely on origin.  We've commited at least three (Native Americans, Germans, and Japanese) and spent billions preparing to commit a fourth (Soviet/Warsaw Pact) and have contemplated a fifth (PRChina).

Well, now that you have confessed, do you feel better?

I am concerned that you still consider yourself capable of mass killing based on peoples' origin.  Have you thought of seeking psychiatric help?
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

grumbler

Quote from: fahdiz on February 16, 2012, 09:54:39 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:37:00 PM
Of course we're capable of genocide

Welcome to the human condition.
Ah, the old "everyone does it" defense of genocide.  Haven't heard that one in days.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

CountDeMoney

Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2012, 07:29:53 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on February 16, 2012, 09:37:00 PM
Of course we're capable of genocide, or at least mass killing based solely on origin.  We've commited at least three (Native Americans, Germans, and Japanese) and spent billions preparing to commit a fourth (Soviet/Warsaw Pact) and have contemplated a fifth (PRChina).

Well, now that you have confessed, do you feel better?

I am concerned that you still consider yourself capable of mass killing based on peoples' origin.  Have you thought of seeking psychiatric help?

There's nothing wrong with glassing the length of the Chinese coast.  Mother Earth would be thankful.

Razgovory

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on February 16, 2012, 09:57:17 PM
You bring the asteroids from the belt and put them in orbit around Earth.
:rolleyes:

Someone might notice.  I don't think anyone would be keen on letting you do that.
I've given it serious thought. I must scorn the ways of my family, and seek a Japanese woman to yield me my progeny. He shall live in the lands of the east, and be well tutored in his sacred trust to weave the best traditions of Japan and the Sacred South together, until such time as he (or, indeed his house, which will periodically require infusion of both Southern and Japanese bloodlines of note) can deliver to the South it's independence, either in this world or in space.  -Lettow April of 2011

Raz is right. -MadImmortalMan March of 2017

grumbler

Quote from: Siege on February 16, 2012, 10:04:48 PM
Why did the early bombers and fighters fly so low?
The B10 Martin flew at 2000m high, the B17 at 7000m.

Early bombers flew at different altitudes, depending on the mission and where they were in the mission profile.  In general, planes flew as high as they could during transits, to save fuel.  They then bombed from a level chosen to balance the need for higher altitude to avoid enemy fire, and lower altitude to improve bombing accuracy.

So, the Martin B-10 may have bombed from 2000m (or less), but it probably cruised at 4000m or more.  One couldn't operate at aircraft ceilings because one couldn't keep the crew warm enough.
The future is all around us, waiting, in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation. No one knows the shape of that future or where it will take us. We know only that it is always born in pain.   -G'Kar

Bayraktar!

Neil

Quote from: Siege on February 17, 2012, 12:40:43 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 16, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
The late B-17G.

The initial models were nowhere near that.
The model 299 flew at 2100m or 7000 feet.
I'm sure it did, but it also flew higher and lower than that.  That's how airplanes work.
Says the guy that listens to Hawthorne Heights.

I got you by the balls, faggot!
Is Hawthorne Heights similar to Wuthering Heights?
I do not hate you, nor do I love you, but you are made out of atoms which I can use for something else.

Sheilbh

Quote from: Neil on February 17, 2012, 08:43:10 AM
Quote from: Siege on February 17, 2012, 12:40:43 AM
Quote from: Neil on February 16, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
Quote from: Siege on February 16, 2012, 10:53:14 PM
The late B-17G.

The initial models were nowhere near that.
The model 299 flew at 2100m or 7000 feet.
I'm sure it did, but it also flew higher and lower than that.  That's how airplanes work.
Says the guy that listens to Hawthorne Heights.

I got you by the balls, faggot!
Is Hawthorne Heights similar to Wuthering Heights?

?
Let's bomb Russia!

HisMajestyBOB

Quote from: Tonitrus on February 16, 2012, 11:17:07 PM
I thought they also were not as well pressurized/climate-controlled as they are today...being why the aircrew wore lots of heavy clothing to stay warm.

That's true, but at least with B-17s in 1942/43, they had O2 and heated suits or compartments for each crewman. Of course, if they lost either due to battle damage, the B-17 may be forced lower.
Three lovely Prada points for HoI2 help

fhdz

#87
Quote from: grumbler on February 17, 2012, 07:31:21 AM
Ah, the old "everyone does it" defense of genocide.  Haven't heard that one in days.

I think you misunderstand my intent. "Capable of" most certainly does not indicate "should perform".

I would have wagered strongly that if you remembered anything about me, it would not be that I am an advocate of extreme positions.
and the horse you rode in on

Eddie Teach

I would remember that you're a recovering Chick-fil-A addict. :)
To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

fhdz

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on February 17, 2012, 01:43:55 PM
I would remember that you're a recovering Chick-fil-A addict. :)

All right. Perhaps Chik-Fil-A is an extreme position.
and the horse you rode in on