U.S. Military Taught Officers ‘Hiroshima’ Tactics for ‘Total War’ on Islam

[Juice]

They are thinking more longterm than you.

My kids do it all the time with anything tasty (icecream, thum up, lays, kurkure, chocolate, etc.).

All three get exactly the same portions.

The fun (its down to a science/art form now) is in going slow initially waiting for the other to finish his or her faster and only then digging in and finishing your own with great relish and pleasure - while the others look on.

The bigger guy thinks nothing of bullying his little sister/s into getting a share of theirs - when he feels either of us are not around.

In the case of world oil - the US is me - the big boss - father of the house.

Russia is at best the mother - outclassed mainly at sea.

China is increasingly trying to become my son.

Lol, wanted to point this out earlier....why does the US buy oil, iron, goods from other nations while leaving much of our own un-tapped? You would think the answer would be obvious.

 

[Juice]

double post....though this site was down for maintenance, still buggy if not worse for me.

 

[LeGenD]

Most of the volcanic explosions carry a force of more than 3000 nukes.World would require hundreds of thousands of megaton nukes to be destroyed.

This is BS. You cannot compare the effectiveness of natural events of limited scale with the effectiveness of major nuclear war. Physics based arguments are useless in this case.

Global nuclear war (with just 3000 nukes) can inflict tremendous environmental damage and make planet Earth unsuitable for life for a long time. Explosions do not matter.

Now check this excellent source: Nuclear Darkness | The Deadly Consequences Of Nuclear War

And Wright (or S-19?) is completely correct - you would need a minimum of 6-8 nukes (of the type and yield Pakistan has) to "flatten" a city of Tel Aviv's size.

Their is no need to flatten Tel Aviv.

Even if a single nuke manages to detonate over Tel Aviv. It is game over for the whole city.

 

[Juice]

This is BS. You cannot compare the effectiveness of natural events of limited scale with the destructive power of nukes in this context.

Global nuclear war (with just 3000 nukes) can inflict tremendous environmental damage and make planet Earth unsuitable for life for a long time. Explosions do not matter.

Now check this excellent source: Nuclear Darkness | The Deadly Consequences Of Nuclear War



Their is no need to flatten Tel Aviv.

Even if a single nuke manages to detonate over Tel Aviv. It is game over for the whole city.

You do understand the difference between fission and fussion weapons, right?

 

[King Solomon]

Their is no need to flatten Tel Aviv.

Even if a single nuke manages to detonate over Tel Aviv. It is game over for the whole city.

You clearly do not have any knowledge about nuclear weapons. Now go try out the FAS estimates of nuclear destruction.

 

[vsdoc]

This is BS. You cannot compare the effectiveness of natural events of limited scale with the effectiveness of major nuclear war. Physics based arguments are useless in this case.

Global nuclear war (with just 3000 nukes) can inflict tremendous environmental damage and make planet Earth unsuitable for life for a long time. Explosions do not matter.

Now check this excellent source: Nuclear Darkness | The Deadly Consequences Of Nuclear War

I cannot argue with ignorance. You need to read up more on this.

Their is no need to flatten Tel Aviv.

Even if a single nuke manages to detonate over Tel Aviv. It is game over for the whole city.

Do you know that nuclear targetteers factor in a minimum of three nukes to reliably take out hardened military targets during war gaming?

These are classically less than a tenth in size of a medium sized world city.

 

[LeGenD]

You do understand the difference between fission and fussion weapons, right?

Yes, I do. Difference is between yields. Fusion paves way for thermonuclear weapons.

Regardless of this, thermonuclear weapons may be useful at wiping out gigantic cities. However, even a 'Little Boy' equivalent nuclear weapon will be sufficient to render a gigantic city useless due to its psychological implications and after-effects.

I cannot argue with ignorance. You need to read up more on this.

Ignorance? You surely are ignorant.

Do some reading on the devastating consequences of global nuclear war. The source which I cited offers ample studies in this regard.

Do you know that nuclear targetteers factor in a minimum of three nukes to reliably take out hardened military targets during war gaming?

These are classically less than a tenth in size of a medium sized world city.

Genius! Hardened military targets are a different subject. However, even hardened military targets can be destroyed by nuclear weapons. Some nuclear weapons have been specially designed for this purpose. This is where SLBM comes in to the picture.

And hardened military targets are mostly underground complexes. Cities are not hardened military targets.

 

[vsdoc]

Regardless of this, thermonuclear weapons may be useful at wiping out gigantic cities. However, even a 'Little Boy' equivalent nuclear weapon will be sufficient to render a gigantic city useless due to its psychological implications and after-effects.

No one is arguing that IF you do manage to detonate a nuke over Tel Aviv (very big IF) you will kill a whole bunch of people.

But that is not what the discussion was about.

Psychological implications wil pale in front of what will follow very shortly after that.

To be blunt - Pakistan would already be dead.

 

[lem34]

Everyone including me is going somewhat off topic. I think that any country's military running scenarios which result in the destruction of a religion and or race is disgusting and inhumane. Replace Muslims with Jews, Hindus or your own race or religion and see outrageous genocide sounds.

Even Americans themselves realise that they have erred and have suspended the course which speaks volumes

 

[Juice]

While Hiroshima suffered greatly, it was susceptible to fire-bombing (military planning no longer considers fire-bombing effective, not only for moral reasons, modern construction makes it less effective). Fission weapons ARE terrible, but not as much as is in the popular imagination. It is a large amount of fussion weapons that can have the effect you see in the anti-nuke web-sites. To help you understand, imagine if the megabytes of RAM you have were reduced to kilobytes, does that help?

(you are right about the disruption tho, city life would come to an end for a while, but most would live, and be helped by civil defense, and be VERY mad)

 

[lem34]

While Hiroshima suffered greatly, it was susceptible to fire-bombing (military planning no longer considers fire-bombing effective, not only for moral reasons, modern construction makes it less effective). Fission weapons ARE terrible, but not as much as is in the popular imagination. It is a large amount of fussion weapons that can have the effect you see in the anti-nuke web-sites. To help you understand, imagine if the megabytes of RAM you have were reduced to kilobytes, does that help?

Guys would we even want to find out what would happen in these scenarios. I would be mortified if 1 nuke went off anywhere

 

[Juice]

Me too, good morning Aryan_B

 

[anonymus]

This is BS. You cannot compare the effectiveness of natural events of limited scale with the effectiveness of major nuclear war. Physics based arguments are useless in this case.

Global nuclear war (with just 3000 nukes) can inflict tremendous environmental damage and make planet Earth unsuitable for life for a long time. Explosions do not matter.

Now check this excellent source: Nuclear Darkness | The Deadly Consequences Of Nuclear War

Nuclear darkness is nothing but 20% fact with 80% fearmongering.

1883 explosion of Krakatoa was equivalent of 200MT ie nearly 100 thermonuclear or 5000 fission bombs going off simultaneously going off.

The world did not ended that day and it probably would not end in case of an all out nuclear war.

Krakatoa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Regardless of this, thermonuclear weapons may be useful at wiping out gigantic cities. However, even a 'Little Boy' equivalent nuclear weapon will be sufficient to render a gigantic city useless due to its psychological implications and after-effects.

Probably Israel is best placed to deal with Psychological effects.Their compulsory military conscription,regular bombing by Hamas and tales of genocide must have resulted in systematic desensitisation.

This is where SLBM comes in to the picture.

How come.....

 

[vsdoc]

Ignorance? You surely are ignorant.

Do some reading on the devastating consequences of global nuclear war. The source which I cited offers ample studies in this regard.

S19 suggested a source. I could help you out with more. Strategic and military. Read up please. You sound like an amateur with a nuclear hardon (something I myself have been accused of elsewhere some time ago).

Genius! Hardened military targets are a different subject. However, even hardened military targets can be destroyed by nuclear weapons. Some nuclear weapons have been specially designed for this purpose. This is where SLBM comes in to the picture.

And hardened military targets are mostly underground complexes. Cities are not hardened military targets.

Cities are a whole lot bigger. And the population spread out comparative to military hardware.

To be really miltarily objective, any nuclear targetteer will go after first the enemies miltary capabilities and gardware than waste nukes on a few million civilians.

Not to mention that such targetteers can only realistically (something you need an introduction to) afford to be from two nuclear warfighting nations.

Anywhere else, and they risk instant retaliatory nukes killing their own nation.

Think logically. Mecca and Medina are nuked.

What do you do?

Nuke Tel Aviv.

Say you manage to do that.

Then what?

Islam has played its hand.

And now 200 million muslims more are radioactive dust.

How brilliant is that GENIUS?

 

[lem34]

Me too good morning Aryan_B

Morning mate. The suns out but still too cold here in the UK. I think I need to have a holiday in warmer climes.

S19 suggested a source. I could help you out with more. Strategic and military. Read up please. You sound like an amateur with a nuclear hardon (something I myself have been accused of elsewhere some time ago).



Cities are a whole lot bigger. And the population spread out comparative to military hardware.

To be really miltarily objective, any nuclear targetteer will go after first the enemies miltary capabilities and gardware than waste nukes on a few million civilians.

Not to mention that such targetteers can only realistically (something you need an introduction to) afford to be from two nuclear warfighting nations.

Anywhere else, and they risk instant retaliatory nukes killing their own nation.

Think logically. Mecca and Medina are nuked.

What do you do?

Nuke Tel Aviv.

Say you manage to do that.

Then what?

Islam has played its hand.

And now 200 million muslims more are radioactive dust.

How brilliant is that GENIUS?

Mate there are two many variables to predict anything with any certainty. In a war with nukes I would not even want to be on the winning side is all I can say.

What are you suggesting here that because in your opinion Muslims are defenseless that its ok to run these scenarios committing genocide??