09-03-2004 03:08									#31
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Sava you're a lying commie traitor liberal pinko lefty!#$^@#$&^@#$

Thankyou! Acknowledgement at last

	09-03-2004 03:14									#32
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sava are you forgetting sputnik? the Soviet's rocket technology was better than America's up until the late 60's.

Not really. The missile gap was a pipe dream. The fact was that in the early 60's the US was FAR ahead in number of warheads and our ability to deliver them, since Strategic Air Command was in business BEFORE the soviets got ICBM's;

http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/n...02nukenote.html

note, in 1960 the US had 20,000 nuclear warheads, the Soviets 1,600. In 1968 it was the US 28,880 to USSR 9,399. IN fact, the Soviets did not surpass the US in actual warheads until 1978. By which time both side had more than dequate delivery systems.

quote: there's always books you could read.

Given what you said, I am sure I have read far mnore book on the subject that you. Heck, it took a simple google search to prove you wrong.

	09-03-2004 03:15									#33
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison Thankyou! Acknowledgement at last

It's that glow of contentment that only Strontium 90 can provide.


Or a post phaal dump.

	09-03-2004 03:17									#34
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Gepap: all right, whatever you say... I better go throw out my cold-war era history books that lied to me...

I'm not talking about a numerical missile gap... but more of a capability gap. Plus, Soviet jet technology was much more advanced up until Korea. Oh wait, that must be another lie.

edit: damn X-posting

	09-03-2004 03:19									#35
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Sava Gepap: all right, whatever you say... I better go throw out my cold-war era history books that lied to me...

Actually, yes you should, as they would be inherently one sided and alarmist-but a brilliant histiographer like you would know, right?

quote: I'm not talking about a numerical missile gap... but more of a capability gap. Plus, Soviet jet technology was much more advanced up until Korea. Oh wait, that must be another lie.

Actually, yes. The saber was just as good as mig-15, and after that, the US was ahead all the time.

God, too easy.

	09-03-2004 03:23									#36
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sava ... but more of a capability gap.

Unfortunately your credibility gap has infilled your capability gap via Pine Gap.

Beware the Gepap Gap, everyone's favourite historical outfitters.

	09-03-2004 03:24									#37
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by molly bloom Or a post phaal dump.

Ooooh, now there's an agony that takes me back to my uni days

	09-03-2004 03:27									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison Ooooh, now there's an agony that takes me back to my uni days

Mmmm.....


"Rosebud."

	09-03-2004 03:28									#39
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by GePap Actually, yes. The saber was just as good as mig-15, and after that, the US was ahead all the time.

unfortunately for you, the Saber came out after the US was getting pwned in the air war early on.

quote: God, too easy.

yup, ignorance is easy...

you see folks, I don't start with the personal crap... I just respond to it.

	09-03-2004 03:29									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

che,

quote: The first time was immediately after WWII, when the U.S. ambassador told the USSR it must end its occupation of Northern Persia or the U.S. would let the USSR have it "with both barrels." IIRC, the US threatened the USSR with nuclear war directly on five seperate occassions.

Well, I don't know about "five separate occasions". I DO know that the US threatened the PRC with nuclear weapons in order to get China to the negotiating table in Korea, to stop China from shelling Quemoy and Matsu, and to keep China out of Vietnam.

I also don't really see the problem with the US threatening the Soviets over the Soviet occupation of Persia. The US would have been in the wrong to attack, but the Soviets were CERTAINLY in the wrong to continue their occupation.

	09-03-2004 03:37									#41
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Sava are you forgetting sputnik? the Soviet's rocket technology was better than America's up until the late 60's. there's always books you could read.

Not really. Or rather, the alleged missile gap was exaggerated.

It is true that Korolev's R-7 was the first ICBM. In many ways, it was an excellent rocket ... for satellite launches. R-7 was reliable and reasonably powerful; its derivatives are still used to launch satellites.

It completely sucked as an ICBM, though. R-7 used non-storable liquid fuel and it took ~24 hours to prepare it for launch. If the launch did not take place, the fuel had to be dumped within the next 24 hours to prevent corrosion and then the whole refueling/launch preparation thingy had to start all over again. In other words, it could never be put on full-time alert. Military actually hated Korolev (Soviet leading rocket designer)because they thought that he takes money away from them with his expensive space toys.

American rockets took longer to develop but (iirc) it was planned from the beginning to use storable fuel. When Atlas bugs were ironed out, it could serve both as a satellite launcher and as ICBM. Meanwhile, USSR did not really have a practical ICBM until the mid-60s.

	09-03-2004 03:40									#42
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Sava unfortunately for you, the Saber came out after the US was getting pwned in the air war early on. yup, ignorance is easy...

Unless you think the Saber went from design to full scale production in under a year (answer:no it didn;t), all you can claim for your entire point is that the Soviets got online a swept back wing fighter a couple of years before the US. The fact the US was curshing all NK infrastructure through most of the war with its airfoce belies your notion of the uS getting 'pwned' in the air.

quote: you see folks, I don't start with the personal crap... I just respond to it.

And your book comment was, what?

So again, your entire arguement for some soviet superiority is based on? That the soviets came out with the Mig-15 before the Us came out with the Saber..which of course has NOTHING to do with your original strategic abiltiies post, which you had to abandon after it was shown to be totally wrong.

But a master troll all the way Sava, a master troll.

	09-03-2004 03:50									#43
	Support Apolyton

quote: And your book comment was, what?

a legitimate suggestion because your opinions of cold-war era technology are different from what I have read...



It's nice to know you are on the same level as me when it comes to trolling and insults. Although you really shouldn't pretend to not be a troll.

	09-03-2004 03:53									#44
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Sigh... enough with the personal stuff...

	09-03-2004 03:55									#45
	Inflate your Upload Space

The cold hard fact is that there was no weapon systems in which the soviets ever held a significant lead for more than say 3 years, and even then, it was only becuase they were more willing to take huge risks with tech while the US was more than willing to take it stime developing this thoroughly.

Not in the air, not at sea, and not on land.

	09-03-2004 03:55									#46
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sava It's nice to know you are on the same level as me when it comes to trolling and insults.

Cat fight!


Jelly wrestling!


Oops, wrong thread, thought you were Oncle Boris and Imran.


Enter the chill out zone chaps and have an iced coffee, avoid the nuclear fallout.

	09-03-2004 03:58									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Provost Harrison And the most willing to use them? You may have wanted to demonstrate the new weapon...but the words of threat to 'totally and utterly devastate your country'. Couldn't you have dropped them on a non-urban area? Was it necessary to drop two? And since then your country seems to have been relatively trigger happy with the things. What was McArthur's proposal in 1948? To nuke every major Soviet city preemptively - at the loss of million and millions of life...

What's your point? Of course we threatened to use them the most - the others didn't have them. By the time everyone had them, the rhetoric was at the same level on both sides, roughly.

	09-03-2004 03:58									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Ming Sigh... enough with the personal stuff...

I am sorry, but this "personal stuff" is so inocous, I don;t see why this even warrants a warning. I called him a troll, he called me a troll..wow.Earthshatering.

	09-03-2004 03:59									#49
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by GePap The cold hard fact is that there was no weapon systems in which the soviets ever held a significant lead for more than say 3 years, and even then, it was only becuase they were more willing to take huge risks with tech while the US was more than willing to take it stime developing this thoroughly. Not in the air, not at sea, and not on land.

Soviet submarine technology was also more advanced at some stages early in the Cold War...

if you want to support your assertions with something, be my guest... I'm just telling you what I have learned. If I am wrong, direct me to information so I can correct myself.

	09-03-2004 04:00									#50
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap I am sorry, but this "personal stuff" is so inocous, I don;t see why this even warrants a warning. I called him a troll, he called me a troll..wow.Earthshatering.

heh... I Gepap... it's just normal 'Poly banter... but 'nuff said Ming.

	09-03-2004 04:01									#51
	Put an end to popups!

God, Sava, this is absolutely pathetic.

	09-03-2004 04:03									#52
	Increase Your PM Length

sigh, does anyone have any information to contribute? I'm not getting into a flame war with you skywalker

	09-03-2004 04:04									#53
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Sava Soviet submarine technology was also more advanced at some stages early in the Cold War...

Any evidence of this whatsoever? Remeber early cold war would be 1946-1958 for by then the US develops nuclear subs, well ahead of the soviets.

quote: if you want to support your assertions with something, be my guest... I'm just telling you what I have learned. If I am wrong, direct me to information so I can correct myself.

Last time I looked, I have been the only one to give any evidence of my claims yet.

number of links for evidence Sava has had? 0.

	09-03-2004 04:08									#54
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

In terms of conventional weapons the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies held a vast commanding lead in Europe from the end of WW2 until the end of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. In terms of quality Russian tanks were better than Allied tanks at the end of WW2. The US did not have superior armored forces until the latest generation of tanks and AFVs came along in the late 1970s. In terms of quantity the Warsaw boys held the lead until the end. From 1945 to 1975 the two sides competed closely in terms of the quality of their fighter aircraft, with sometimes Russian craft being better, and sometimes western planes being better. After 1975 Western fighters were technologically superior, but in some regions the copmmunists held sufficient numerical superiority to give the free world a run or their money.
Western bombers were superior throughout the era. At the time of the first Berlin crisis the communists were willing to bet that the US wouldn't risk destroying precious western European territory in order to engage the Russian armies. The US managed to convince Stalin that American bombers did indeed have the capability of reaching deep into Russian territory, a capability which the Russians could not reciprocate. As long as the US was the primary adversary during this conflict the Soviets were forced to contemplate the very distasteful prospect of coming against a foe whom they could not touch, but whom could hurt them dearly.
Without nukes the Warsaw Pact forces could very likely have taken the rest of continental Europe any time they had pleased, but the US held an overwhelming nuclear trump card right up to the mid-1970s. There were points during the cold war when the US and its NAYO allies didn't know with certainty how much a lead in nuclear forces they had. The days of the Cuban missle crisis were one of them. The US sincerely did not know what a hollow threat the Soviet ICBMS were. After the fall of the Soviet Union Yeltsin admitted that they had only a paltry dozen operational missles in 1962. The US OTOH had hundreds of srtrategic bombers capable of reaching the USSR and had even equipped their bombers with nuclear anti-aircraft missles to clear a path to their targets.
Had nuclear weapons not been available after WW2 I think that WW3 might have broken out in 1948, 1950, or 1962.

	09-03-2004 04:11									#55
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by GePap number of links for evidence Sava has had? 0.

I'm just telling you AFAIK... if you don't have any information to contribute to this discussion, I ask you to not respond. I'm not going to waste my time with some pathetic pissing contest. I want to learn! I'm not making a case, I'm not debating... I'm TELLING YOU WHAT I HAVE COME TO UNDERSTAND. IF I AM WRONG EDUCATE ME.

jesus ****ing christ

	09-03-2004 04:11									#56
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by David Floyd I also don't really see the problem with the US threatening the Soviets over the Soviet occupation of Persia.

I wasn't making a moral judgement, just stating a fact. The U.S. threatens other countries with nukes explicitly. If the government doesn't, the media will do so implicitly, asking the military during briefings if "the nuclear option will be excercized" during military operations. The message is to the other side that nukes are always on the table as an option. From a power politics stand point, it's perfectly legit. From the stand point of these weapons being the most horrible thing we've ever invented, with the possible exception of the Spice Girls, it's a really awful thing to do.

	09-03-2004 04:18									#57
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: with the possible exception of the Spice Girls

POSSIBLE?!

	09-03-2004 04:27									#59
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Dr Strangelove In terms of conventional weapons the USSR and its Warsaw Pact allies held a vast commanding lead in Europe from the end of WW2 until the end of the USSR and the Warsaw Pact. In terms of quality Russian tanks were better than Allied tanks at the end of WW2. The US did not have superior armored forces until the latest generation of tanks and AFVs came along in the late 1970s. In terms of quantity the Warsaw boys held the lead until the end. From 1945 to 1975 the two sides competed closely in terms of the quality of their fighter aircraft, with sometimes Russian craft being better, and sometimes western planes being better. After 1975 Western fighters were technologically superior, but in some regions the copmmunists held sufficient numerical superiority to give the free world a run or their money. Western bombers were superior throughout the era. At the time of the first Berlin crisis the communists were willing to bet that the US wouldn't risk destroying precious western European territory in order to engage the Russian armies. The US managed to convince Stalin that American bombers did indeed have the capability of reaching deep into Russian territory, a capability which the Russians could not reciprocate. As long as the US was the primary adversary during this conflict the Soviets were forced to contemplate the very distasteful prospect of coming against a foe whom they could not touch, but whom could hurt them dearly. Without nukes the Warsaw Pact forces could very likely have taken the rest of continental Europe any time they had pleased, but the US held an overwhelming nuclear trump card right up to the mid-1970s. There were points during the cold war when the US and its NAYO allies didn't know with certainty how much a lead in nuclear forces they had. The days of the Cuban missle crisis were one of them. The US sincerely did not know what a hollow threat the Soviet ICBMS were. After the fall of the Soviet Union Yeltsin admitted that they had only a paltry dozen operational missles in 1962. The US OTOH had hundreds of srtrategic bombers capable of reaching the USSR and had even equipped their bombers with nuclear anti-aircraft missles to clear a path to their targets. Had nuclear weapons not been available after WW2 I think that WW3 might have broken out in 1948, 1950, or 1962.

Interesting assertion. Can you point out some source material to substantiate that the Soviets would have seriouslyembraced such a conflict? What would the motivation have been?

	09-03-2004 04:35									#60
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara From the stand point of these weapons being the most horrible thing we've ever invented, with the possible exception of the Spice Girls,

You've skipped over M.C. Hammer, Vanilla Ice and the Smurfs.

Although that may be because of the hasty revisions to the Geneva Convention, banning their use in heavily populated areas.