17-04-2002 03:06									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

THe B-52H and the nuklear bomb are both very good tools

may they never need to be used again

Jon Miller

	17-04-2002 03:33									#62
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Transcend Chegnitz, run out of arguments huh? It seems your only argument now is to resort to personal attacks.

I was eating and making a rather lengthy reply in another thread. I'll deal with you by and by.

	17-04-2002 06:16									#63
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Transcend 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.

I couldn't care less if China had them. After all, I'm Canadian.

As for the B-52 being a great tool. Forget it. The continued service of the B-52 merely reflects the lobbying power of the US Air Force and SAC.

As a platform to deliver nukes, the B-52 is not needed. Subs are the most effective nuke missile carriers. Almost impossible to stop, unlike the B-52.

The B-52 is not needed in its role of carrying cruise missiles. The B-2 is better. The USN can also deliver the same punch more effectively.

For general bombing, the B-2 is better, but this role is being phased out by the development of "smart" weapons. A couple of bombs dropped accurately from, say, an F-18 is more effective than carpet bombing a general area.

So what good is the B-52? It keeps a lot of air bases open and that keeps the politicans happy. It gives the USAF an excuse to have nukes. And it keeps a lot of people employed in the USAF.

The US would get more bangs for the buck and be far better off by retiring these old dogs of war.

	17-04-2002 06:22									#64
	Suffering from ads?

The USAF was going to retire the B-52 in the early '90's, and replace the fleet with some hundred B-2s.

As a B-2 costs on the order of $2 billion a pop, I think the USAF is making the right decision to just refurbish the old birds...

	17-04-2002 06:29									#65
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai I couldn't care less if China had them. After all, I'm Canadian. As for the B-52 being a great tool. Forget it. The continued service of the B-52 merely reflects the lobbying power of the US Air Force and SAC. As a platform to deliver nukes, the B-52 is not needed. Subs are the most effective nuke missile carriers. Almost impossible to stop, unlike the B-52. The B-52 is not needed in its role of carrying cruise missiles. The B-2 is better. The USN can also deliver the same punch more effectively. For general bombing, the B-2 is better, but this role is being phased out by the development of "smart" weapons. A couple of bombs dropped accurately from, say, an F-18 is more effective than carpet bombing a general area. So what good is the B-52? It keeps a lot of air bases open and that keeps the politicans happy. It gives the USAF an excuse to have nukes. And it keeps a lot of people employed in the USAF. The US would get more bangs for the buck and be far better off by retiring these old dogs of war.

Great, first you tell us what an evil beast this plane is, now you think others are even better in killing people....

	17-04-2002 07:17									#66
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by BeBro Great, first you tell us what an evil beast this plane is, now you think others are even better in killing people....

This is fairly simple. The B-52 is a weapon of mass destruction and should not be glorified and it is not an efficient or effective weapon. The US has more effective weapons that can do the jobs that needs to be done while causing fewer civilian deaths.

	17-04-2002 07:44									#67
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara 2002 - 1961 = 41, not 51.

You are correct. The B-52A is fifty not the H Model. The B-52 still did not fight in Korea. Until Vietnam the B-52 was a Nuc bomber only. They had to convert the D model to non-nuc status to use in Nam. The G and H model where still Nucs until much later (after Nam).

	17-04-2002 07:59									#68
	Suffering from ads?

Tools are to be used in moderation. They are neither bad nor good until someone picks them up, with a very few exceptions (like sawed-off shotguns; the good you could do with a sawed-off shot gun escapes me. Weapons of war can be used to protect your country, but not one of those).

	17-04-2002 08:07									#69
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Sawed off shotguns can be used to rob convenience stores. Which is "good" if you're the one doing the robbing.

	17-04-2002 08:18									#70
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Felch X Sawed off shotguns can be used to rob convenience stores. Which is "good" if you're the one doing the robbing.

Feh. Go rob something.

	17-04-2002 10:12									#71
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by Transcend How many wars did USSR fight from 1945 to 1990? Well, here is a partial list:

Let's deal with your list before I create a full accounting of both sides.

quote: 1946-1949: Sponsored Chinese Communists in their civil war

Okay, anyone who actually knows anything about the Chinese Revolution knows that continually advised the CCP to make peace with the KMT, to submit to KMT authority, and didn't give the CCP very much aid at all. Stalin spent his entire carreer as General Secretary of the CPSU throttling the life out of revolutions. There was a reason Mao broke with the Comintern in the mid '30s, and it was this break that allowed him to succeed, rather than wind up in a ditch with a KMT bullet in the back of his head.

quote: 1948-49: Sponsored communist uprisings in Malaysia, Greece, and Turkey

Yes, everyone knows that people living in dictatorial countries are perfectly content until some Soviet spy comes around and tricks them in to trying to overthrow their government. If it weren't for the Soviet Union, there'd never be any revolutions anywhere

As far as I'm aware, there weren't any Commie uprisings in either Turkey or Malaysia in the late 40s. I could be wrong, but I think I would have heard of them. Greece, however, is another story. Stalin ordered the Greek communists to submit to British and monarchal authority. This resulted in many thousands of them being tortured and murdered. Finally they rebelled, against orders, without Stalin;s help. They were aided by Tito, who had already broken with Stalin at this time.

quote: 1950: Forced Kim-IL-Sung into attacking South Korea

Right, he forced Kim to attack South Korea while the USSR was boycotting the UN Security Council because it was such a brilliant idea. After all, why sponsor a war and not allow the other side to fight. That's why the Soviets must not have allowed themselves to veto UN intervention.

Okay, history lesson (there's gonna be a lot of these), when the US and USSR rolled into Korea, there was a new government already set up, the People's Republic of Korea. It had fought the Japanese during the war, and following Japanese collapse, took power and organized the country. The US, in its zone, overthrew the new government, imported an American-Korean, called him president, and proceeded to help slaughter 100,000 members of the PRK. Border skirmishes between the North and the South were common place and fierce. The day that the North attacked, the South announced that it had captured a North Korean city. North and South Korea are artificial entities. The war was a civil war. No one had to be forced into starting it, and both sides were itching for it.

quote: 1951: Tricked Chinese into the Korean War

Right, the Chinese needed to be tricked into intervening in Korea, because having US war planese bombing their side of the border, having the US threaten North Korean dams which provided electricity for Manchuria, the massacres of North Koreans by the RoK army, and MacArthurs threats of invading China weren't enough of an inducement for the Chinese to enter the war on their own.

quote: 1953: Invaded East Germany to crush the Berlin Uprising

They didn't invade East Germany, but they did use troops to crush the East Berlin uprising. I'm glad you added this, because I would have left it out, and also all the times that the US used troops to suppress urban uprisings. Now I can tack Detroit, 1967 on.

quote: 1957: Invaded Hungaria to crush another uprising

True a dark day for socialism. The workers in Hungary were demanding true socialism. A democratic workers state would have shown the USSR for the farce it was. That's why they crushed it, and that's why NATO stood by and ignored its pleas for help.

quote: 1959: Sponsored Castro to overthrow existing Cuban government

You're one of those right-wing nuts who think that every revolt has a KGB agent behind it, aren't you? Do you think the Civil Rights movement was directed from Moscow? What about Rock and Roll? The American peace movement? You don't give people any redit for wanting to end their oppression on their own, do you?

The Communist Party of Cuba was opposed to Castro. The PCC and Castro were at odds until several years after the revolution. In fact, until the Bay of Pigs invasion by the US, Cuba was trying desperately to get along with the US and kept the USSR at bay.

quote: 1960s: Massive military aid to Arab countries to fight against Israelis

This is irrelevent and doesn't meet the criteria I set out.

quote: 1963-1973: Massive military aid, including thousands of advisors, to North Vietnam to fight against the US

This is irrelevent. In any event, the USSR didn't start the war, and wasnt able to provide that much assistance due to their ships being mined and bombed in Hanoi.

quote: 1968: Invaded Czechslovakia to crush the "Prag Spring"

True.

quote: 1969: Border clash with China almost lead to nuclear exchange

I'll need proof. AFAIK, all of the border clashes were in the early 60s. Furthermore, neither the USSR nor China have ever threatened to use nuclear weapons against another country. That honor, alone, is given to the US, who is also the only country every to use nuclear weapons on another country.

quote: 1979-1989: Invaded Afghansitan

It was not an invasion, since the Soviets were asked in by the Afgani government to help them deal with a CIA sponsored uprising. But it still counts under the criteria I gave.



Okay, let's start with the Soviets, every war, including wars started by their allies.

1917-1918, WWI. They inhereted this war from previous governments and got out of it as soon as th4ey could.

1918-1920, Russian Civil War, the Whites started it, not the Reds.

1918-1920, the Foreign Internvetion, the Allies invade Socialist Russia to strangle the Revolution.

1920-1921, Polish War, the Poles see Russia's weakness as a chance to seize land. They suceed due to Stalin's failure to follow orders.

1923, invasion of the Transcaucasian Republic, Lenin asks Stalin to settle the dispute with their fellow socialist republic (led by Mensheviks). Lenin is diabled due to strokes and Stalin takes an army down and invaded the Republic. Lenin wants Stalin expleed from the party and government, but is unable to do so due to his incapacity.

1930s, Tuva, Stalin seizes the territory of Tuva.

1936-1939, Spanish Civil War, Soviets give a little bit of aid to Spanish Republic and stab Spanish Revolution in back.

1939, Naza-Soviet Partition of Poland, Soviets take back the land they lost in 1921.

1939, Occupation of Baltics and Moldavia, Stalin begins securing his foreward areas in anticipation of a Nazi invasion. Moldavia is recovered from Romania who seized it during the Foreign intervention.

1939-1940, The Winter War, same as above.

1941-1945, The Great Patriotic War, aka WWII. Invaded by Nazis.

1951-1953, The Korean War, Soviets supply North Koreans with war matierals and fighter pilots. They also get bombed near Vladivostok by Allies.

1953, The Berlin Uprising, Soviets crush a woerks revolt in East Berlin.

1956, Hungarian Workers Uprising, Soviets crush uprising.

early 1960s, border clashes with Chinese, not much to be said.

1967, The Six Days War, Soviets send fleet to Eastern Mediterranian to save Arab allies who were attacked by Israel. Israel's finally agreeing to a truce averts nuclear war.

1973, Yom Kippur War, Soviets send fleet to Eastern Mediterranian to save Arab allies who attacked Israel. Israel's finally agreeing to a truce averts nuclear war.

1979-1988, Afganistan, local uprising against freeing women gets sponsorhsip by CIA and begins to threaten government. Government asks for Soviet help, which leads to ten years of brutal, nasty war.

1991, Invasion of Lithuania, USSR rolls in the tanks to stop Lithuanian cecession.

That's seventeen wars and interventions in 85 years. Looks bad for the Soviets, but wait, here comes the US. The list is so long, I'm just gonna put years and dates. Some of these begin before 1917, but they continue past it, so I'm including them


1912-25, Nicaragua

1912-41, China

1914-17, Mexico

1915-34, Haiti

1916-24, Dominican Republic

1917, China

1917-18, WWI

1917-22, Cuba

1918-19, Mexico

1918-20, Panama

1919-20, Soviet Russia

1919, Dalmatia

1919, Turkey

1919, Honduras

1920, China

1920-22, Russia

1921, Panama

1922, Turkey

1922-23, China

1924, Honduras

1924, China

1925, Honduras

1925, Panama

1926, China

1926-1933, Nicaragua

1927, China

That's twenty-eight, and I haven't even gotten out of the 1920s.

1932, China

1933, Cuba

1934, China

1941-45, WWII

1945-60s, China

1940s -50s, Phillipines

1945-53, Korea

1947 - 50s, Greece

1953, Iran

1953-54, Guatemala

1950-73, Vietnam

1955-1973, Cambodia

1957-1973, Laos

1958, Lebanon

1959-63, Haiti

1960, the Congo

1960, Guatelmala

1961-64, Brazil

1960-66, Dominican Republic

1959-present, Cuba

1965, Indonesia

1966, Ghana

1970-73, Uraguay

1964, Algeria

1964-1973, Chile

1964-74, Greece

1964 - 75, Bolivia

1962 - 90s, Guatemala

1966, Ghana

1973 - 75, Australia

1975 - 90s, Angola

1979-84, Grenada

1979 - 1992, Afganistan

1980 - 94, El Salvador

1981 - 89, Libya

1981 - 90, Nicaragua

1980s - present, Peru

1990, Panama

1990 - present, Iraq

1990s - present, Columbia

1994 - present, Haiti

1998 - Sudan

1998 - Afganistan

1999, Yugoslavia

2001 - 2, Afganistan

2002, Phillipines

Oh, I'm sure I forgot some, and I only included successful coup attempts. I count 74 military and CIA interventions abroad. Statisitically, the US is 4.35 times more warlike than the USSR. Now, I'm tossing defensive wars in there, like WWII, but a war's a war.

Now, go find a mirror. Laugh at your naivity.

	17-04-2002 10:57									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Can we limit this list to those actions with 1000+ battle deaths? Otherwise your Soviet list is heavily stilted to favor one side.

	17-04-2002 11:00									#73
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara Let's deal with your list before I create a full accounting of both sides. quote: 1946-1949: Sponsored Chinese Communists in their civil war Okay, anyone who actually knows anything about the Chinese Revolution knows that continually advised the CCP to make peace with the KMT, to submit to KMT authority, and didn't give the CCP very much aid at all. Stalin spent his entire carreer as General Secretary of the CPSU throttling the life out of revolutions. There was a reason Mao broke with the Comintern in the mid '30s, and it was this break that allowed him to succeed, rather than wind up in a ditch with a KMT bullet in the back of his head. quote: 1948-49: Sponsored communist uprisings in Malaysia, Greece, and Turkey Yes, everyone knows that people living in dictatorial countries are perfectly content until some Soviet spy comes around and tricks them in to trying to overthrow their government. If it weren't for the Soviet Union, there'd never be any revolutions anywhere As far as I'm aware, there weren't any Commie uprisings in either Turkey or Malaysia in the late 40s. I could be wrong, but I think I would have heard of them. Greece, however, is another story. Stalin ordered the Greek communists to submit to British and monarchal authority. This resulted in many thousands of them being tortured and murdered. Finally they rebelled, against orders, without Stalin;s help. They were aided by Tito, who had already broken with Stalin at this time. quote: 1950: Forced Kim-IL-Sung into attacking South Korea Right, he forced Kim to attack South Korea while the USSR was boycotting the UN Security Council because it was such a brilliant idea. After all, why sponsor a war and not allow the other side to fight. That's why the Soviets must not have allowed themselves to veto UN intervention. Okay, history lesson (there's gonna be a lot of these), when the US and USSR rolled into Korea, there was a new government already set up, the People's Republic of Korea. It had fought the Japanese during the war, and following Japanese collapse, took power and organized the country. The US, in its zone, overthrew the new government, imported an American-Korean, called him president, and proceeded to help slaughter 100,000 members of the PRK. Border skirmishes between the North and the South were common place and fierce. The day that the North attacked, the South announced that it had captured a North Korean city. North and South Korea are artificial entities. The war was a civil war. No one had to be forced into starting it, and both sides were itching for it. quote: 1951: Tricked Chinese into the Korean War Right, the Chinese needed to be tricked into intervening in Korea, because having US war planese bombing their side of the border, having the US threaten North Korean dams which provided electricity for Manchuria, the massacres of North Koreans by the RoK army, and MacArthurs threats of invading China weren't enough of an inducement for the Chinese to enter the war on their own. quote: 1953: Invaded East Germany to crush the Berlin Uprising They didn't invade East Germany, but they did use troops to crush the East Berlin uprising. I'm glad you added this, because I would have left it out, and also all the times that the US used troops to suppress urban uprisings. Now I can tack Detroit, 1967 on. quote: 1957: Invaded Hungaria to crush another uprising True a dark day for socialism. The workers in Hungary were demanding true socialism. A democratic workers state would have shown the USSR for the farce it was. That's why they crushed it, and that's why NATO stood by and ignored its pleas for help. quote: 1959: Sponsored Castro to overthrow existing Cuban government You're one of those right-wing nuts who think that every revolt has a KGB agent behind it, aren't you? Do you think the Civil Rights movement was directed from Moscow? What about Rock and Roll? The American peace movement? You don't give people any redit for wanting to end their oppression on their own, do you? The Communist Party of Cuba was opposed to Castro. The PCC and Castro were at odds until several years after the revolution. In fact, until the Bay of Pigs invasion by the US, Cuba was trying desperately to get along with the US and kept the USSR at bay. quote: 1960s: Massive military aid to Arab countries to fight against Israelis This is irrelevent and doesn't meet the criteria I set out. quote: 1963-1973: Massive military aid, including thousands of advisors, to North Vietnam to fight against the US This is irrelevent. In any event, the USSR didn't start the war, and wasnt able to provide that much assistance due to their ships being mined and bombed in Hanoi. quote: 1968: Invaded Czechslovakia to crush the "Prag Spring" True. quote: 1969: Border clash with China almost lead to nuclear exchange I'll need proof. AFAIK, all of the border clashes were in the early 60s. Furthermore, neither the USSR nor China have ever threatened to use nuclear weapons against another country. That honor, alone, is given to the US, who is also the only country every to use nuclear weapons on another country. quote: 1979-1989: Invaded Afghansitan It was not an invasion, since the Soviets were asked in by the Afgani government to help them deal with a CIA sponsored uprising. But it still counts under the criteria I gave. Okay, let's start with the Soviets, every war, including wars started by their allies. 1917-1918, WWI. They inhereted this war from previous governments and got out of it as soon as th4ey could. 1918-1920, Russian Civil War, the Whites started it, not the Reds. 1918-1920, the Foreign Internvetion, the Allies invade Socialist Russia to strangle the Revolution. 1920-1921, Polish War, the Poles see Russia's weakness as a chance to seize land. They suceed due to Stalin's failure to follow orders. 1923, invasion of the Transcaucasian Republic, Lenin asks Stalin to settle the dispute with their fellow socialist republic (led by Mensheviks). Lenin is diabled due to strokes and Stalin takes an army down and invaded the Republic. Lenin wants Stalin expleed from the party and government, but is unable to do so due to his incapacity. 1930s, Tuva, Stalin seizes the territory of Tuva. 1936-1939, Spanish Civil War, Soviets give a little bit of aid to Spanish Republic and stab Spanish Revolution in back. 1939, Naza-Soviet Partition of Poland, Soviets take back the land they lost in 1921. 1939, Occupation of Baltics and Moldavia, Stalin begins securing his foreward areas in anticipation of a Nazi invasion. Moldavia is recovered from Romania who seized it during the Foreign intervention. 1939-1940, The Winter War, same as above. 1941-1945, The Great Patriotic War, aka WWII. Invaded by Nazis. 1951-1953, The Korean War, Soviets supply North Koreans with war matierals and fighter pilots. They also get bombed near Vladivostok by Allies. 1953, The Berlin Uprising, Soviets crush a woerks revolt in East Berlin. 1956, Hungarian Workers Uprising, Soviets crush uprising. early 1960s, border clashes with Chinese, not much to be said. 1967, The Six Days War, Soviets send fleet to Eastern Mediterranian to save Arab allies who were attacked by Israel. Israel's finally agreeing to a truce averts nuclear war. 1973, Yom Kippur War, Soviets send fleet to Eastern Mediterranian to save Arab allies who attacked Israel. Israel's finally agreeing to a truce averts nuclear war. 1979-1988, Afganistan, local uprising against freeing women gets sponsorhsip by CIA and begins to threaten government. Government asks for Soviet help, which leads to ten years of brutal, nasty war. 1991, Invasion of Lithuania, USSR rolls in the tanks to stop Lithuanian cecession. That's seventeen wars and interventions in 85 years. Looks bad for the Soviets, but wait, here comes the US. The list is so long, I'm just gonna put years and dates. Some of these begin before 1917, but they continue past it, so I'm including them 1912-25, Nicaragua 1912-41, China 1914-17, Mexico 1915-34, Haiti 1916-24, Dominican Republic 1917, China 1917-18, WWI 1917-22, Cuba 1918-19, Mexico 1918-20, Panama 1919-20, Soviet Russia 1919, Dalmatia 1919, Turkey 1919, Honduras 1920, China 1920-22, Russia 1921, Panama 1922, Turkey 1922-23, China 1924, Honduras 1924, China 1925, Honduras 1925, Panama 1926, China 1926-1933, Nicaragua 1927, China That's twenty-eight, and I haven't even gotten out of the 1920s. 1932, China 1933, Cuba 1934, China 1941-45, WWII 1945-60s, China 1940s -50s, Phillipines 1945-53, Korea 1947 - 50s, Greece 1953, Iran 1953-54, Guatemala 1950-73, Vietnam 1955-1973, Cambodia 1957-1973, Laos 1958, Lebanon 1959-63, Haiti 1960, the Congo 1960, Guatelmala 1961-64, Brazil 1960-66, Dominican Republic 1959-present, Cuba 1965, Indonesia 1966, Ghana 1970-73, Uraguay 1964, Algeria 1964-1973, Chile 1964-74, Greece 1964 - 75, Bolivia 1962 - 90s, Guatemala 1966, Ghana 1973 - 75, Australia 1975 - 90s, Angola 1979-84, Grenada 1979 - 1992, Afganistan 1980 - 94, El Salvador 1981 - 89, Libya 1981 - 90, Nicaragua 1980s - present, Peru 1990, Panama 1990 - present, Iraq 1990s - present, Columbia 1994 - present, Haiti 1998 - Sudan 1998 - Afganistan 1999, Yugoslavia 2001 - 2, Afganistan 2002, Phillipines Oh, I'm sure I forgot some, and I only included successful coup attempts. I count 74 military and CIA interventions abroad. Statisitically, the US is 4.35 times more warlike than the USSR. Now, I'm tossing defensive wars in there, like WWII, but a war's a war. Now, go find a mirror. Laugh at your naivity.

the list of a healthy state

now if only it was more communistic

Jon Miller

	17-04-2002 11:14									#74
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Can we limit this list to those actions with 1000+ battle deaths? Otherwise your Soviet list is heavily stilted to favor one side.

For the most part, I don't know know numbers of dead. I'd have to limit it to post WWII, and that would heavily tilt it in favor of the USSR as well, since most of it's killing was in the 30s.

I think sending your troops into a foreign country and changing the government or forcing them to do something, regardless of whether or not you kill 1000+ humans is still the hallmark of a war-like government. The USSR certainly had the capacity to project military power abroad, but rarely did. They didn't go around overthrowing governments willy nilly. Historically, they are the far less agressive power. Of course, this is only evidence of communist deviousness.

I should note for completeness sake that I left out the Soviet intervention in Mongolia in the early 20s. I just don't know anything about it, except that it happened.

	17-04-2002 11:24									#75
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara I should note for completeness sake that I left out the Soviet intervention in Mongolia in the early 20s. I just don't know anything about it, except that it happened.

It also looks like you forgot to mention the 48-49 blockade of Berlin along with a few other adventures I'm sure. If we are going to be throwing interventions around willy nilly, we should at least try to be complete about our lists.

	17-04-2002 11:28									#76
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

I also left out stuff by the US. Maybe the list isn't complete on eitherside, and the ratio might be slightly off, but let's face it, there is a clear winner in the agressiveness catagory. Heck, there is just no way I was gonna copy down everything the US did. I'd aggravate my carpal tunnel syndrome.

It's true, the world did need protection, but not from the USSR.

	17-04-2002 11:51									#77
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai As for the B-52 being a great tool. Forget it. The continued service of the B-52 merely reflects the lobbying power of the US Air Force and SAC. As a platform to deliver nukes, the B-52 is not needed. Subs are the most effective nuke missile carriers. Almost impossible to stop, unlike the B-52.

I'm confused. You start by criticising the B-52 as a WoMD (which it isn't) and then suggest they be phased out in their nuclear role in favour of SSBN's/SLBM's !!!!

SLBM's, unlike gravity bombs, are not counterforce weapons - designed and tasked to eliminating enemy delivery systems before they can be used against you.
SLBM's are dedicated weapons of last resort which aren't accurate enough for the counterforce role and whose only purpose is the destruction of cities and other very large military/economic targets.

That sort of thinking would bring about civilian casualties on an unheard of level and makes no sense whatsoever.

	17-04-2002 12:03									#78
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

What's so difficult to understand. The B-52s, AFAIK, are still equipped to carry nukes as are subs. Eliminating the B-52s doesn't change anything, other than saving the US taxpayer some money.

If, by gravity bombs, you're referring to nuke gravity bombs then these are not a counterforce weapon. All nukes are weapons of last resort.

If you are referring to conventional bombs then these can be dropped by other aircraft.

	17-04-2002 12:39									#79
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

B-52's carry predominantly tactical nuclear weapons. SSBN's carry much less accurate strategic weapons.
If you can't understand the difference between tactical weapons, used against an enemy's launching systems in some isolated region or a formation on the front line, and utterly wiping out a nations cities then I guess I should be glad you never have your finger on the button.
Wrt relative yields there is a pretty big difference between the two and advocating the use of utterly devastating weapons against cities when you could instead have used smaller more-accurate weapons against specific targets ... ???
Nato made the mistake of thinking this way in the 50's and 60's. Thankfully they were rethinking this policy in the 70's and fixing it thereafter. Otherwise ...
You might classify all nuclear weapons as being weapons of last resort but, to paraphrase, some are much more of a last resort than others...

	17-04-2002 13:00									#80
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai As for the B-52 being a great tool. Forget it. The continued service of the B-52 merely reflects the lobbying power of the US Air Force and SAC.

If SAC had their way the B-52 would have already been replaced twice over. In fact they have had their way up to a point, since the B-1 and B-2 have each in their turn replaced the B-52 as nuclear delivery systems. The only thing that hasn't gone their (SAC's) way is the de-emphasis of nuclear bombing itself.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai As a platform to deliver nukes, the B-52 is not needed. Subs are the most effective nuke missile carriers. Almost impossible to stop, unlike the B-52.

Which is why the B-52 was transformed completely into a heavy conventional bomber years ago.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai The B-52 is not needed in its role of carrying cruise missiles. The B-2 is better. The USN can also deliver the same punch more effectively.

Sort of. As I stated above, the B-52 is mainly used as a heavy bomber, not as a cruise missle platform. The SLCM's that the Navy uses are half as expensive as the ALCM's that the B-52 carries. The advantage of the ALCM's is that they can be carried thousands of miles in a few hours and launched from over land or sea. This gives them a great deal more fexibility and the capability of reaching almost anywhere.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai For general bombing, the B-2 is better, but this role is being phased out by the development of "smart" weapons. A couple of bombs dropped accurately from, say, an F-18 is more effective than carpet bombing a general area.

Well the B-2 would be better except that it's too expensive to risk in sustained operations. It's a first day of the war weapon. As for the F-18, it's a joke compared to the B-52 for bombing. It doesn't have anywhere near the range, payload or loiter time of the B-52. Perhaps you weren't aware of how the B-52 was used in Afghanistan recently. They loaded it up with smart bombs and let it circle the battle area at high altitude all day. Whenever a call for air support comes in, the B-52 let loose one of it's bombs and it falls to it's target. The F-18 would require endless refueling to accomplish the same mission, and because it's a one-seater (no co-pilot) even if it could be constantly refueled, it would have to return to base to give it's pilot a rest. And once it dropped it's one bomb, he has to return anyway.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai So what good is the B-52? It keeps a lot of air bases open and that keeps the politicans happy. It gives the USAF an excuse to have nukes. And it keeps a lot of people employed in the USAF. The US would get more bangs for the buck and be far better off by retiring these old dogs of war.

You have it exactly backwards. There is nothing the techno geeks in the Airforce want more than to retire old airframes and build new ones. And they have a lot of support from the politicians whose districts stand to gain from military procurement. The only thing holding them back is the faithful and thrifty few in the military who rightfully point out that old systems can be updated at a fraction of the cost of a new program and with a much greater chance that they will work as advertised, and be completed on time. Their great allies are force commanders who want weapons that work right now rather than dreams that might work someday, and those politicians who are either fiscally conservative or see a chance to shift some pentagon pork in another district into some other sort of pork in their own district.

The B-52 is incredibly cost effective, unlike the B-1 and B-2 which were overly ambitious and expensive, difficult to get into service and keep in service, and too expensive to have been built in anything like the numbers necessary to benefit from an economy of scale, a problem that will continue to dog them until they are retired.

	17-04-2002 14:11									#81
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by ravagon B-52's carry predominantly tactical nuclear weapons. SSBN's carry much less accurate strategic weapons. If you can't understand the difference between tactical weapons, used against an enemy's launching systems in some isolated region or a formation on the front line, and utterly wiping out a nations cities then I guess I should be glad you never have your finger on the button.

You actually think there is a difference in the use of tactical nuclear weapons and ICBMs. You do realize that both lead to all-out nuclear war if the opponent has nukes. If the opponent doesn't have nukes then it does not pose a big enough threat to the United States to justify the use of tactical nukes. Any use of nukes will result in nuke retaliation. That's the whole concept behind MAD. Or put another way, would you use tac. nukes knowing that this would significantly increase the likelihood of a retalitory nuke strike?

Tac nukes are another weapon that serve no purpose.

It's a good thing you don't have a finger on the trigger if you actually would consider using tac nukes. This ain't no Civ game. This is real life.

	17-04-2002 14:27									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Sikander If SAC had their way the B-52 would have already been replaced twice over. In fact they have had their way up to a point, since the B-1 and B-2 have each in their turn replaced the B-52 as nuclear delivery systems. The only thing that hasn't gone their (SAC's) way is the de-emphasis of nuclear bombing itself. Which is why the B-52 was transformed completely into a heavy conventional bomber years ago.

You're right about the air force wanting better aircraft, but it is also part of a gigantic political game that in the end leaves the USAF with a strategic bombing force that is not required.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander The advantage of the ALCM's is that they can be carried thousands of miles in a few hours and launched from over land or sea. This gives them a great deal more fexibility and the capability of reaching almost anywhere.

The existing deployment of the USN gives the US the ability to launch cruise missiles in almost any trouble spot in the world within a few hours.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander Well the B-2 would be better except that it's too expensive to risk in sustained operations. {/QUOTE] And you think this logic makes sense. We'll build a weapon that we will never use cause it is too expensive to use, except in the event of an all-out war, a battle which no other nation is capable of fighting for the next 50 years. [QUOTE] Originally posted by Sikander As for the F-18, it's a joke compared to the B-52 for bombing.

You make the mistake of comparing a single F-18 to a single B-52. You can use cycles of F-18s to achieve the same effect of the B-52s. The F-18s on a carrier can provide extensive support that matches the B-52, and that is particularly true if the USAF provides support as well. The B-52 job is simply duplicated by other aircraft.

AKAIK, the F-18s were delivering the "smart" weapons in Afghanistan while the B-52s were simply dropping conventional bombs.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander There is nothing the techno geeks in the Airforce want more than to retire old airframes and build new ones. And they have a lot of support from the politicians whose districts stand to gain from military procurement.

I agree completely, but this has nothing to do with the question of whether any type of strategic bombing force is required.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander The only thing holding them back is the faithful and thrifty few in the military who rightfully point out that old systems can be updated at a fraction of the cost of a new program

You have fallen into the trap. There is nothing faithful or thrifty about maintaining a bombing force that is not required.

The Air Force line is: "Isn't it great that we're maintaining the B-52s cause they're a lot cheaper than replacing them."

That BS hides the fact that the B-52s should not be replaced. The US military needs money for other items that are more cost-effective and more useful into today's world. Maintaining the bombing force is simply a failure to recognize that the way war is waged today has changed from the days of WWII.

	17-04-2002 15:39									#83
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai You're right about the air force wanting better aircraft, but it is also part of a gigantic political game that in the end leaves the USAF with a strategic bombing force that is not required.

Where you are wrong is that you condider the B-52 to be a strategic bomber. It was designed as a strategic bomber, and for most of its life was a strategic bomber. But AFAIK every single combat mission ever flown by a B-52 was a tactical mission. This started in Vietnam, where the B-52s were assigned huge military area targets while the fighter-bombers were assigned the pin-point strategic targets where there was a large civilian population nearby or the target required extreme accuracy to hit. This has continued in every conflict since. In the Gulf War the B-52s hammered the Iraqi front lines while the F-119 etc. carried out the strategic bombing campaign.

Finally doctrine has been modified to meet reality. The B-52 is a tactical bomber, with long range and a large payload. It is the B-1 and B-2 which have hewn closer to the strategic nuclear bomber line, and you can tell that the Air Force is getting worried that they will be cut, as evidenced by the phone in performances both of these airframes have given in the Balkans and now Afghanistan. The Air Force is trying to justify these planes by trying to prove their worth as tactical aircraft. The B-52 doesn't have to play these games because it has proven itself a very useful weapon for attacking enemy troops on the ground in Vietnam, The Gulf, Kosovo (where it literally won the war), and now Afghanistan.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai The existing deployment of the USN gives the US the ability to launch cruise missiles in almost any trouble spot in the world within a few hours.

A lot of that coverage is very light, with just a submarine to do the heavy lifting. The Navy cannot bring any augmenting firepower to bear very quickly. The Air Force can. Whether this is a critical need or not is certainly a matter open to question, but there is no doubt that this capability is useful where we are caught flat-footed. The U.S. is seriously stretched militarily, not just be current operations vs force levels, but by commitments to numerous allies. This weapon can provide a decent amount of fire power and show the flag in the event of hostilities erupting while our carriers are busy thousands of miles away.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai You make the mistake of comparing a single F-18 to a single B-52. You can use cycles of F-18s to achieve the same effect of the B-52s. The F-18s on a carrier can provide extensive support that matches the B-52, and that is particularly true if the USAF provides support as well. The B-52 job is simply duplicated by other aircraft. AKAIK, the F-18s were delivering the "smart" weapons in Afghanistan while the B-52s were simply dropping conventional bombs.

The B-52s drop both. They carpet bombed the Taliban in the North to help the Northern Alliance break out early in the war. In the war in the East of the country they have been used much like the AC-130's, as firepower on call. I don't care how many F-18s you have, you can't add their range to one another. Thus the F-18s can spread out and attack many targets at once better than a single B-52, but they cannot wait around until something happens like the B-52. Another thing they cannot do is operate from a base thousands of miles away. They need a local base or a carrier, which can present problems when the area of operation is a land-locked country like Afghanistan, or adjacent to a claustraphobic stretch of brown water like the Gulf.

quote: Originally posted by Tingkai I agree completely, but this has nothing to do with the question of whether any type of strategic bombing force is required. You have fallen into the trap. There is nothing faithful or thrifty about maintaining a bombing force that is not required. The Air Force line is: "Isn't it great that we're maintaining the B-52s cause they're a lot cheaper than replacing them." That BS hides the fact that the B-52s should not be replaced. The US military needs money for other items that are more cost-effective and more useful into today's world. Maintaining the bombing force is simply a failure to recognize that the way war is waged today has changed from the days of WWII.

If what you say is true then why are we using the B-52 so often? Are we fighting in an out-moded fashion, and if so then why aren't we losing? We have always been about firepower and the B-52 provides that in spades. Whether we have a target which has been pinpointed by Intelligence or an area that needs to be supressed by heavy area fire the B-52 can deliver. We haven't pounded cities in WWII style since at least the Korean War, and our nuclear doctrine has been moving away from the bomber since at least the 1960s. I agree that the B-1 and B-2 are relics of Cold War nuclear war mentality and they need to adapt or be scrapped. The B-52 has so far been able to adapt to the new realities. When it comes time to finally retire the old bird I am certain that it will be replaced with weapons which match or exceed it's ability to provide heavy firepower quickly anywhere on the planet. What sort of weapons would suggest to replace our long range bombers?

	17-04-2002 19:02									#84
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Sikander The Air Force is trying to justify these planes by trying to prove their worth as tactical aircraft. The B-52 doesn't have to play these games because it has proven itself a very useful weapon for attacking enemy troops on the ground in Vietnam, The Gulf, Kosovo (where it literally won the war), and now Afghanistan.

That's exactly the air force line. They used the B-52 to justify its existence and then they turn around and say we don't have to justify the B-52's existence because look, we used it. Typical bureaucratic justification.

Other aircraft can perform its role and other roles.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander The U.S. is seriously stretched militarily, not just be current operations vs force levels, but by commitments to numerous allies.

If you accept this premise then it is all the more reason to get rid of weapons that are not really needed, for example the B-52s, tactical nukes, land based ICBMs, etc.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander They need a local base or a carrier, which can present problems when the area of operation is a land-locked country like Afghanistan, or adjacent to a claustraphobic stretch of brown water like the Gulf.

I thought most of the air missions were by the carrier a/c. Guess I'm wrong.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander If what you say is true then why are we using the B-52 so often?

So the air force guys can justify the B-52s existence.

quote: Originally posted by Sikander When it comes time to finally retire the old bird I am certain that it will be replaced

I absolutely agree, but that says more about politics in the military and Washington then it does about military need.

And don't get me wrong. I'm not bashing just the American military. The same problem exists in other countries. We have armoured brigades in Canada that are totally useless now that the Cold War is over, but we'll never get rid of them, even if they are completely out-dated. The Canadians have fighters which are not much use. But the military says we have to have fighters and tanks cause everyone else has them.

	17-04-2002 20:29									#85
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Dalgetti remember: Guns don't kill people. people kill people . *runs*

guns don't kill people, bullets kill people. Bullets don't kill people, holes kill people. Holes don't kill people...oh sh*t, yes they do.

	17-04-2002 20:42									#86
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Sikander A lot of that coverage is very light, with just a submarine to do the heavy lifting. The Navy cannot bring any augmenting firepower to bear very quickly. The Air Force can. Whether this is a critical need or not is certainly a matter open to question, but there is no doubt that this capability is useful where we are caught flat-footed. The U.S. is seriously stretched militarily, not just be current operations vs force levels, but by commitments to numerous allies. This weapon can provide a decent amount of fire power and show the flag in the event of hostilities erupting while our carriers are busy thousands of miles away.

This is actually an interesting area. I attended an Air Force run 5 day class on Joint Air Operations (basically how the AOC operates and how the ATO is promulgated.) The AF has much more of a campaign mindset than the Navy does. Basically they actually think about how to redo WW2 or a reasonably decent sized war (1.5 times Gulf War size). To fight this way requires a lot of planning and a lot of forces in theatre. (months and months). This is a very different mindset from the way Navy guys at least up to O-6 think. We are much more expiditionary in mindset. (Grenada was planned over a weekend with aCVBG basically doing a wheelie in the Atl. In contrast Panama was an op with months and months of staff weenie planning. NOt saying one is better than the other...it's just different.)

One of the advaantages of the CVBG is that it does not need basing rights and that it can move "medium forces" into play in a relatively short amount of time. 1000's of miles means days of travel. So, it is not a "time-now" asset unless on station. In that case, Buffs might be quicker especially if sent out of CONUS. (no basing needed.) Obviously a few buffs can drop a lot more ordnance than a sub or a destroyer with a few TLAMs. Buffs are not perfect either (no fighter cover, etc.)

	17-04-2002 20:48									#87
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara 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.

Quit making things up.

	17-04-2002 21:44									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by GP Quit making things up.

That's a mighty charge there. You got evidence to back that up?

	17-04-2002 22:38									#89
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Happy birthday to the B-52. A great bomber, and a great weapon against evil.

"1973 - 75, Australia"

>Groan< Not the hackneyed paranoid story about American CIA attempts to get rid of the Whitlam government.

	17-04-2002 22:45									#90
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by chegitz guevara That's a mighty charge there. You got evidence to back that up?

FAS.org says the B-52 entered service in February 1955.


http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-52.htm