16-04-2002 07:32									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Plus, birds the size of Pelicans have a habit of getting sucked into it's engines. (it's a ground-skiming bomber)

	16-04-2002 07:54									#32
	Put an end to popups!

Since B-52 is so effective, why can't we build 500 more of them? They should be really cheap nowadays.

	16-04-2002 08:05									#33
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Koreans, Vietnamese, Laotians, Cambodians, Iraqis . . . not so many Koreans and Iraqis. 2.5 million Koreans died in the war, mostly from allied air raids.

The B-52H model was not built until 1960 and enter service May of 1961. Next month it will be 51 year old. Sorry, the last B-52H was completed in 62. Oh, no B-52 flew in Korea. The first B-52 Squadron was located with the 93 BW at Castle AFB, Atwater Calif. in 1954. The Korea war was over in July 1953. The summer of 58 I lived w/ my Aunt next to Castle and the B-52 flew over our place at about 500 to a 1000 ft. up and one day I saw the first B-52G fly because it was missing part of it tail. It must have been the Prototype.

quote: 2 million Vietanames died in the war, mostly from American air raids. 1 million Laotians died during their civil war, mostly from American air raids. 2 million Cambodians died in the war, mostly from American air raids. etc. If not killed directly by the air raids themsevles, then by the economic disruption (and in Cambodia, the inability of the government to cope with the disaster of US bombing led to the Khmer Rouge taking power). It's an indiscriminate monster. It doesn't just kill people, it kills nations. Yes, I realize the numbers don't add up. That's because lots of people were killed by other methods and other planes, but the Stratofortress was the important one.

	16-04-2002 08:14									#34
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Transcend Since B-52 is so effective, why can't we build 500 more of them? They should be really cheap nowadays.

We have enough of them, so many that we have scrapped a bunch of them already. I bet it would cost a pretty penny to build one from scratch today though. As the number that can be cheaply kept flying dwindles I'm sure that we will look for a way to replace them. The fact that they are still useful says a lot about the design and workmanship of the B-52, but I am also sure that we could design a much better plane with many of the same characteristics (range / bomb load / durability) now. We will do so when we cannot rely on the 'free' B-52s we already have in our inventory.

	16-04-2002 08:15									#35
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ecthelion 1 plane can cover an area that is 1 km wide?

Actually a cell of B-52s (3 Planes) can cover 1 mi. (1.6km) wide by 3 miles long (4.8km). A hole 15 feet deep and 25 feet across with 750 lbs bombs about 5 feet apart. Lots of new swimming pool.

	16-04-2002 08:18									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Kyle Saw an interview with an Air Force general; he said the current goal is to keep them in service until 2040. Quite amazing.

If it does stay in service that long, I will be 96 year old and the B-52 will have span my intire life. They started to design it in 1948, I was 4 year old.
Some of the pilot today are the Grandson of the first pilots.

	16-04-2002 08:39									#37
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber The B-52 is a tool. Nothing more. A remarkable tool without a doubt, but in the end just a piece of equipment used by men in response to other men.

That's like saying a nuclear weapon is just a tool, or the gas chambers are just tools.

We're not talking about a weapon designed for use against other combatants. The B-52 was designed to be an indiscriminate killer on a mass scale. Civilians, military personal, it didn't matter.

It is impressive that the US has the technological ability and money to keep these aircraft flying after 50 years, but lets hide the fact that the B-52 sole purpose was to provide the US with a blunt instrument to kill civilians and military personal alike.

Five million or a million? It's all about the same.

	16-04-2002 09:08									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Tingkai, if they run, they're Viet Cong. If they stand still, they're well disciplined Viet Cong. No civilians.

	16-04-2002 09:24									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai That's like saying a nuclear weapon is just a tool, or the gas chambers are just tools. We're not talking about a weapon designed for use against other combatants. The B-52 was designed to be an indiscriminate killer on a mass scale. Civilians, military personal, it didn't matter. It is impressive that the US has the technological ability and money to keep these aircraft flying after 50 years, but lets hide the fact that the B-52 sole purpose was to provide the US with a blunt instrument to kill civilians and military personal alike. Five million or a million? It's all about the same.

As any bomber of the day would've been. Not targetting civilians is a very recent concept in warfare. Today, the bomber is hardly a "blunt instrument to kill civilians..."

	16-04-2002 09:30									#40
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Kyle Today, the bomber is hardly a "blunt instrument to kill civilians..."

Really? And why do you say that?

	16-04-2002 09:39									#41
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Can we have a total for the number of deaths China's gunpowder invention caused?

Thanks.

	16-04-2002 09:40									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai Really? And why do you say that?

Maybe because they're mostly used to launch cruise missiles now? Cruise missiles are precision weapons, and are usually aimed only at military installations (hardly a "blunt" instrument).

	16-04-2002 09:44									#43
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai That's like saying a nuclear weapon is just a tool, or the gas chambers are just tools. We're not talking about a weapon designed for use against other combatants. The B-52 was designed to be an indiscriminate killer on a mass scale. Civilians, military personal, it didn't matter.

Nuclear weapons are just another tool in the arsenal. As was the gas chambers. Why anyone would celebrate or vilify tools is beyond me. Talk about policy to your hearts content. But in the end they are all just tools. The problems lies in the people up at the top on both sides of a conflict. If they had to, they would order the use of sticks and stones to carry out their orders.

quote: It is impressive that the US has the technological ability and money to keep these aircraft flying after 50 years, but lets hide the fact that the B-52 sole purpose was to provide the US with a blunt instrument to kill civilians and military personal alike. Five million or a million? It's all about the same.

I don't think anyone hides the fact that the B52 is a weapon of war. Where did you get that from? Just because the US has found a machine that does its job reliably doesn't make them any different from those countries that find less efficent means.

	16-04-2002 09:46									#44
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Asher Can we have a total for the number of deaths China's gunpowder invention caused? Thanks.

But Asher, how could one possibly use that to PREACH about the evil United States. One would have to wait up until the late 1700's to even get to the US. That's just not good for the congregation to hear.

	16-04-2002 09:47									#45
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Asher Maybe because they're mostly used to launch cruise missiles now? Cruise missiles are precision weapons, and are usually aimed only at military installations (hardly a "blunt" instrument).

While they are used to launch cruise missiles, the B-52 is still used in a traditional carpet bombing role.

	16-04-2002 09:52									#46
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai While they are used to launch cruise missiles, the B-52 is still used in a traditional carpet bombing role.

I was under the impression almost all bombing today was precision bombing.

When was the last time carpet bombing was used? Was it used in Afghanistan?

	16-04-2002 09:55									#47
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Sprayber I don't think anyone hides the fact that the B52 is a weapon of war. Where did you get that from? Just because the US has found a machine that does its job reliably doesn't make them any different from those countries that find less efficent means.

Where do you get the idea that we're talking about the morality of the United States vs that of other nations? No one said the US is different from other nations in this context.

By writing that the B-52 is just a tool, you minimalize its purpose. A hammer is a tool. A gun can be used in self-defence agaisnt a specific target. The B-52 was designed soley to destroy large areas and the people within these areas.

	16-04-2002 10:05									#48
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai While they are used to launch cruise missiles, the B-52 is still used in a traditional carpet bombing role.

Yes, of military targets. Not cities, but troop formations or cave fortreses.

	16-04-2002 10:16									#49
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai By writing that the B-52 is just a tool, you minimalize its purpose. A hammer is a tool. A gun can be used in self-defence agaisnt a specific target. The B-52 was designed soley to destroy large areas and the people within these areas.

I in no way minimalize it's purpose. It is designed to attack large areas of land with maximum amout of damage possible and do so from a long range. But it's nothing especially evil. Not more than a gun that you use to kill someone within sight. Given enough guns and enough people they too can kill just as many. I stand by my statement. It's a tool. an extreamly deadly and effective tool. But a tool none the less. You may have me confused with those that celebrate the plane. I don't. It's nothing without the people who get in it and fly or the people that direct where it should be used. I guess one of the reasons I can be so bland about it, is that I have never been on the recieving end of its payload. But if I was, I think I would feel far more animosity towards those people inside and those leaders that felt that my city or troop concentration needed to be bombed rather then the plane itself.

Someone close to me was killed by a log truck. I don't hate all log trucks. I hate the stupid and incompetant drivers that populate the freeways.

	16-04-2002 10:30									#50
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

We'll go around in circles on this one so I'll just say that I disagree for the reasons previously stated.

	16-04-2002 19:56									#51
	Tired of ads?

Disagree all you want. You're still wrong.

	16-04-2002 23:06									#52
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 The B-52H model was not built until 1960 and enter service May of 1961. Next month it will be 51 year old.

2002 - 1961 = 41, not 51.

As for the dates, I was remarking on the B-52 in general, not specifically the B-52H. In order for the plane to be 51 years old, it would have had to have entered service in 1951, which leaves it plenty of time to be landscaping the Korean pennensula.

Sprayber, as I said, most of the deaths occured not by ground combat, but by direct bombing as well as economic disruption. When you bomb the dikes in North Vietnam (a war crime, btw), and a famine results because of the destruction of the crop land, then those who die were just as surely killed by the bombing as those who were blasted into chunks.

And, yes, the B-52s did target civilians. Ever hear of the Hanoi bombings? Hanoi is a city. Cities have cilians in them. B-52s cannot "surgically" strike cities (well, today they can, when firing cruise missiles). They can only level them.

US SOP, among other things, is aimed at destroying the enemy population's will to fight. For some reason, despite the fact that every study of the effects of bombing on populations, the US still seems to cling to the belief that eventually the will to fight back will crumble under the weight of endless bombing.

Asher, gunpowder was not invented as a weapon, but as a food additive. It amazes me what the Chinese will eat sometimes, given that one of the ingrediants in original gunpowder is pig dung. Even when it's explosive capabilities were discovred, it was used for amusement long before someone discovered it could be made into a rocket, let alone for projecting small pieces of metal.

I would say it's similar to Nobel's invention of dynamite, which he thought would save lives, since most blasting required nito glycerin, which is highly unstable. Instead, it lead to the development of explosieves for use in war. He was so horrified by the results of his invention that he created the Nobel Peace Prize.

Sprayber is correct, the B-52 is just a tool. However, unlike most tools, this one was designed to be a weapon of mass destruction. It has no creative purpose. It's only role is to kill lots of people. Even guns have other uses than just killing people.

	16-04-2002 23:12									#53
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

yeah ! like ......... hunting!


*imagines going after a bunny with an AK *

	16-04-2002 23:54									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Tingkai, I think you are just jealous that China doesn't have the same stuff.

B-52 is a great tool to keep our country secure and democracy free from the Soviet threat. The hawks in Kremlin would laugh their butt in face of your naive pacifism, Chegnitz. Unfortunately, there were not enough Americans like you so they were unable to gain too many advantages.

	17-04-2002 00:14									#55
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Trancend, exactly how many wars did the "hawks" in Kremlin fight?

How many did the "doves" in Washington fight?

Start in 1917, with the assention of the Bolsheviks and end in 1991, with the disolution of the USSR. Add in colonial wars and foreign occupations. You may consider wars started by Soviet allies or in which the US paid the principal share of costs, but didn't actually use soldiers (as far as we know).

After completing your list, again laugh at my "naive pacifism."




BTW, I'm not a pacifist. I don't believe in imperialist wars, which are the only kind the US fights.

	17-04-2002 00:42									#56
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

How many wars did USSR fight from 1945 to 1990? Well, here is a partial list:

1946-1949: Sponsored Chinese Communists in their civil war
1948-49: Sponsored communist uprisings in Malaysia, Greece, and Turkey
1950: Forced Kim-IL-Sung into attacking South Korea
1951: Tricked Chinese into the Korean War
1953: Invaded East Germany to crush the Berlin Uprising
1957: Invaded Hungaria to crush another uprising
1959: Sponsored Castro to overthrow existing Cuban government
1960s: Massive military aid to Arab countries to fight against Israelis
1963-1973: Massive military aid, including thousands of advisors, to North Vietnam to fight against the US
1968: Invaded Czechslovakia to crush the "Prag Spring"
1969: Border clash with China almost lead to nuclear exchange
1979-1989: Invaded Afghansitan

Chegnitz, your beloved USSR has initiated or fought wars almost on a yearly basis from 1945 to 1989, and there are countless more covert activities and sponsored uprisings that escaped my knowledge. Also, the 2 biggest wars the US fought during the Cold War were defensive wars in which America merely wanted to preserve the existence of its allies. In both Korean and Vietnam wars, the Soviets(and Chinese to a lesser degree) were the true mastermind and aggressor.

	17-04-2002 00:48									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

He paints half a picture, some of it completely false, and thinks he created a masterpiece.

	17-04-2002 01:10									#58
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Another thing the Soviet Union made itself collapse with all of those wars... the whole system was a failure because it was fighting everywhere. The Soviets made Afghanistan collapse, and the Soviets were responsible for starting Civil Wars in South/Central America.

Maybe Chegitz, it is time you look at who you are supporting. Che, the US is fighting for the capitalistic cause, the only just and working system.

	17-04-2002 02:53									#59
	Support Apolyton

Chegnitz, run out of arguments huh? It seems your only argument now is to resort to personal attacks.

	17-04-2002 03:05									#60
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Trancend, exactly how many wars did the "hawks" in Kremlin fight? How many did the "doves" in Washington fight? Start in 1917, with the assention of the Bolsheviks and end in 1991, with the disolution of the USSR. Add in colonial wars and foreign occupations. You may consider wars started by Soviet allies or in which the US paid the principal share of costs, but didn't actually use soldiers (as far as we know). After completing your list, again laugh at my "naive pacifism." BTW, I'm not a pacifist. I don't believe in imperialist wars, which are the only kind the US fights.

I dislike to disagree with you comrade

but the US has (prior to the last 50 years) engaged in very few major imperial wars (which I am not neccesarily against either)

neither WW1 nor WW2 nor 1812 nor Independence nor Civil War were imperialistic wars

Jon Miller