1121 replies to this topic

[Pendaelose]

It's a LVTP5 an amphibeious Tracktor out of the vietnam era! It hasn't been a good designe so soldiers prefered to stay outside of the thing cause the fuletanks where under the troop comparement

ooooo that looks and sounds sooo GLA!

"I will ride the fuel tank!"


If I can I'll see about making or digging up a model for this.

[Pendaelose]

there are 2 topics discused here that have been brewing in my mind, and, atleast for me, were never realy resolved... But, I'd like to start with a short story that helps make my point.

When I was a boy, I remember my uncle telling me about the army and combats the had been in. (He had served as both a Ranger and a Tanker in combat.) And we got on the topic of certain weapons and how they should/shouldn't be used in combat. Such as a 30mm gun or a M2-50Cal. Both are classed as anti-material weapons. And it is frowned upon to use them in infantry. It's "inhumane" and we should shoot them with lower calabuer weapons like the M249-Saw. (btw, this practice is enforced by the US.... sorta) BUT, you CAN use the weapon on enemy equipment... So, they simple NEVER targeted enemy troops. Ever... They ONLY targeted equipment. They targeted his weapon, his helmet, the uniform he is wearing... or even the glasses on his face... thats equipment too... So, after a tank rolls through and kills 100 men with its 30mm, 105mm, 50cal etc, the driver can stand in a field of dead bodies and honestly say he NEVER used excessive force on enemy troops. He ONLY targeted equipment.

Creator, the description of targeting only military assests with 500Kiloton nukes made me remember this story. If a 500 kiloton, very acuratly, targets a military base, such as Ft. Brag NC, what do you think will happen to Feyetville NC, Rockymount NC, and Raleigh NC? I'm sure the few million dead civilians will be very greatfull they were not the target. No other base is different... the Shipyards and navel base at Charlston SC, or Ft Drum NY... you can't target military assets with a 500Kiloton bomb without killing all the surounding civilian towns and cities. 500KT is almost 10 times the bombs used on Japan.. and they were quite thorough. What the blast didn't kill the radiation killed for miles. With a 500KT warhead towns 30-40 miles away would easily be in the fall out zone of a single bomb, even if the blast didn't reach them.

I'm not saying the targeting was vilinous... but rather that it was not so innocent as "Military only"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second issue stirring in my brain is the US's national debt, and conversations about who has a strong enconomy... So I went researching the national debt of nations around the world. Almost every site preferes to look at the debt by comparing it to the GDP (Gross Domestic Product). Also, every single site agreed that while the US debt is the largets and climbed sharply durring the Regan/Bush years, its is not disproportionate to our GDP. The US has the worlds largest GDP, but also the worlds largets debt. But by percentage the US is average for an undustrial nation.

Measuring this way actualy makes alot of sense... a poor man owns a small house with a small mortage payment. on average between 70-130K in debt. This is normal. A wealthier man, such as a doctor usualy has between 300-700K in debt... but he makes enough money to pay his debt, and it is considered normal. The income and the debt are in-line with each other. For the extreamly rich, it is not uncommon to be several million dollars in debt. They are still considered rich. If a poor man owes 300+K in debt, he is in a world of trouble.

Nations are no different. To say "We have a lower national debt" is alot like saying "I owe less on my home loans!". Unless you have the actual income to compare it too the debt numbers mean little or nothing.

Net Debt % 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Canada 65.30 59.50 56.50 51.90 47.60 43.90 40.00
France 47.50 48.20 49.10 53.90 55.40 56.10 56.00
Germany 52.80 53.50 55.50 58.70 61.10 63.60 65.00
Italy 105.60 105.50 103.10 103.10 102.60 102.20 102.00
Japan 59.30 64.60 71.60 76.00 82.00 88.90 94.00
UK 34.30 32.80 32.80 34.60 35.20 36.90 38.00
USA 39.30 38.30 40.90 43.60 45.20 47.00 48.00



Gross Debt % 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Canada 101.50 99.10 95.40 90.90 84.30 78.70 73.00
France 57.10 56.80 58.70 63.60 65.00 65.70 66.00
Germany 60.20 59.40 60.90 63.80 66.10 68.60 69.00
Italy 111.20 110.70 108.00 106.30 105.80 105.40 105.00
Japan 139.20 148.90 158.50 164.70 169.40 176.00 180.00
UK 41.70 38.50 38.10 39.50 40.40 42.00 43.00
USA 57.10 56.60 58.60 60.50 61.00 61.90 62.00

numbers are pulled from: http://www.econstats.com/weo/V006.htm and are acurate until 2004.
nations not listed simply don't advertise thier debt, but every nation listed will show info such as GDP if clicked on.

By percentage, Japan has the worst national debt problem in the world. Every site I found agreed with this, including japanese news. Ironicly, they were repeatedely described on revora as having the strongest economy. Thier actual total debt is almost as large as the US debt, but thier total GDP doesn't come close the the US GDP... Its like a middle class man trying to buy a doctors house. But still, Japan is a very prosperous nation... so national debt is not everything about a nations economy.

%of world total PPP is one of my favorite boxes. http://www.econstats.com/weo/V012.htm. It has 180 nations broken down by % of the worlds total buying power.

EDIT: the spacing isn't showing on revora, and using the spacebar doesn't fix it :( I can't make my charts look pretty... They look fine in the edit window, but they collapse down to single and double space when posted.

Edited by Pendaelose, 29 September 2006 - 04:52 PM.

[Creator]

Creator, the description of targeting only military assests with 500Kiloton nukes made me remember this story. If a 500 kiloton, very acuratly, targets a military base, such as Ft. Brag NC, what do you think will happen to Feyetville NC, Rockymount NC, and Raleigh NC? I'm sure the few million dead civilians will be very greatfull they were not the target.

Yes, of course. The only thing you did not notice is that one can LOWER number of killed civilians by targeting military bases because some towns and cities have no military bases around and some military bases have no towns and cities around. Nobody says that it can be no civilian deaths. The only thing strategists take into account is number of civilian deaths. The number can be higher or lower.

With a 500KT warhead towns 30-40 miles away would easily be in the fall out zone of a single bomb, even if the blast didn't reach them.

It depend of many factors. For example, if nuke is detonated in air then there is shockwave but no fallout.

[Capt.Drake]

A full scale nuclear war would have been the end of anything we can think of, cause most of our technologie would be destroyed, hundreds of million would die, and you have to think about this, ok, there is a massive first strike and then? Not all missiles and other nukes are destroyed, so what do you do with them, you start replacing the fired ones and throw the remaining ones at your enemy, that can go on for months!
And Creator, there always is fallout, but airbrust reduces the mass of it off course.
I have a book I like really much, maybe it's a bit unbalanched but basiclly it shows what you can expect from a nuclear war, for example most of the food would be uneatable

[Phoenix911]

Lets put it liek this if a nuclear war started uman kind would be back in the stoneage almost. Food and water would only last a short while because any unprotected would be contaminated with raitation and fallout and such.
So meny peaple would die and think of how meny of them are peaple that would be needed to help rebuild citys and such.
And what about infertilaty?
alot of women would not be able to bear children and thos that could would find it hard to find a guy that is capable still producing working sperm.

Also the fall out would block sunlight making the world drop in tempretature massivly making a nuclear winter, basicly we would all be fucked.

[Creator]

A full scale nuclear war would have been the end of anything we can think of, cause most of our technologie would be destroyed, hundreds of million would die, and you have to think about this

The most of our technologie would be destroyed, but also other technologies will remain. Hundreds of millions will die, but also hundreds of millions will live.

ok, there is a massive first strike and then?

Air strike and ground assault with remaining forces. Use of smaller nuclear munitions. Victory of one of the sides. Rebuilding. Full scale researches in medicine in anti-radiation branch.

And Creator, there always is fallout, but airbrust reduces the mass of it off course.

Well, what can I say? Sit down, you've got bad mark today. You must study physics better. If shining cloud of fission products does not touch ground then there is no fallout.

I have a book I like really much, maybe it's a bit unbalanched but basiclly it shows what you can expect from a nuclear war, for example most of the food would be uneatable

Throw out your book. All food grown in safe territories will remain eatable. Also some plants such as potatoes will remain eatable even if grown in fallout zone.

Also the fall out would block sunlight making the world drop in tempretature massivly making a nuclear winter, basicly we would all be fucked.

Yeah, right. And it will open the gates to hell and demons will roam the land

Edited by Creator, 30 September 2006 - 08:46 PM.

[Pendaelose]

I think it also depends on how severe a nuke conflict. The nukes could intentionaly be used to destroy farmlands or even divert river flows... and don't undercredit what divertinga river can do. All of southern Iraq is a desert because of 2 diverted rivers. nothing grows therer now, and only 10 years ago it was a fertile cropland.

while some crops would be reletivly unharmed, many others would be completely destroyed.

[Guy980]

a full scale nuclear war is the last thing we need

[Phoenix911]

Also the fall out would block sunlight making the world drop in tempretature massivly making a nuclear winter, basicly we would all be fucked.

Yeah, right. And it will open the gates to hell and demons will roam the land

OMG how did u know..... *hides from the demons*

[Creator]

The nukes could intentionaly be used to destroy farmlands...

By whoom? Did you ever hear about tanks shooting at mills or knights trampling down fields? The aim of each war is to destroy enemy defenses, capture enemy land and then use enemy land for your purpose. Now imagine you destroyed all enemy farmlands. Then you won. Then you come to enemy land and say "Oh my! What a fool I am! I can't grow plants on the land I've just captured!".

Yeah, right. And it will open the gates to hell and demons will roam the land

OMG how did u know..... *hides from the demons*

I'm just prophet

But let's stop joking. Honestly, since 1945 humanity exploded 128 thousands of nuclear charges. The most powerfull charge was soviet Tsar Bomb (51 megatons). Shockwave from its explosion circled around Earth 3 times. And so what? Where is uneatable food? Where is nuclear winter? Where are people dying from radiation?

Edited by Creator, 02 October 2006 - 09:50 AM.

[Pendaelose]

Then you come to enemy land and say "Oh my! What a fool I am! I can't grow plants on the land I've just captured!".

The US and Russia wouldn't choose to use them that way... and I think China and Europe and most other current nuclear powers would use them "responsably" to destroy enemy defenses... But I am less keen to suggest that all wars are about conquest, or are even faught responsably. If you consider why a nation might do such a thing, there are reasons do make sense... from a psychological point of view. In a hypothetical US-Russia exchange of nukes... the loosing sidemight resort to such an attack once they realize there is now way to win. "We can't win, but we can make sure you don't!" sounds like something I've heard plenty of people say before. Regardless of nationality, desperate people do not follow the same constraints as those with control of thier situation. There are chess players who throw the chess board if you tell them "Checkmate in 3". Likewise, there are politicians and generals who would do the same.

OR in the near future (5-20 years) a middle-eastern war might come down to exactly that. consider the motivations of a nation such as Iran. They've sworn to remove Isreal from the face of the earth. I don't doubt they would intentionaly destroy the food and water supplies after they've hit the majoy population areas. Conquest be damned, its not about taking control of industry, its about vindicating the will of God! Instead of an ocupation force they would send hunting parties... to leave one jew alive is a blasphemy agaisnt God. Let God cleanse the radiation... because nothing living there is better than jews living there.

btw, thats the official Iranian foreign policy regarding Isreal, and not my fealings.



Or lets look at the reverse position... Isreal KNOWS this is the official Iranian policy, and while Iran's uranium enrechment is "For energy only" I think the Isreali leadership has good reason to atleast be suspicious of any such claims. I don't think it would be unbelievable if Isreal made the first strike (asuming politics and conventional military efforts had failed to derail the nuclear train). And because Isreal is entirely lacking the means to conquer Iran it might be more fitting to thier needs to just remove the threat for a few generations instead of a few years.

Even rational people can become murderers when they feel they are out of options.

[Creator]

Yes, you're right, but such nuclear wars as Iran vs Israel and Pakistan vs India are local and does not lead to total annihilation of Earth. Destroying farmlands can be very harmful for single country, but it does not mean that survivors will not able to buy food from other states. As for global nuclear war, I don't think that Russia or USA will destroy farmlands in Southern America, China and India.

[Phoenix911]

North korea planing to test a nuke underground maybe as early as this weekend... whats everyones thoughs on this?

[Havok4]

That this is not a good thing for the world.

[Phoenix911]

well te 1 thing good is north korea has not manage to master rockets yet but i really thing something needs to be done north korea is not coperating with anything the UN asks them so they can't be trusted.

[Pendaelose]

from the looks of it, Japan is ready to re-militerize in response, and South Korea has requested a freeze on the planned 2009 transition of military control back to thier own forces (from the US). Both countries are ready to commit to war if needed, and both are deeply rooted allies of the US.

Most sources agreed that China (NK's primary trade partner) could possible force a peaceful resolution, but they've not made any public moves in that direction.

One odd thing that did come up (reading a translated Japanese newspaper on the topic) was that China ussualy refrains from publicizing NK's more outragous actions and policies and seldom releases much of it to the local media. The goal being to prevent a public outcry against NK and sustain the trade relations... BUT on this occasion they publicized NK's nuke test/threat on the front page. It leaves me speculating if it is an inentional act to GET a public outcry for action against NK, either political, financial, or military.


In 2003 my prediction to my friends was that NK would stay on its trend until China intervened. China has for years been a growing power, and unlike the US, very passive in foriegn affairs. The US has been a little over active, lending to our Love-Or-Hate relation with the rest of the world... but I don't think China will be able sit passive forever. Eventualy a situation like the one in NK will force China to act outside thier own borders.

[Capt.Drake]

North Korea will get in trouble if the test a nuke, I think China said sth about it, cause I don't think they will tolerate a nuke test in their back door, and a war in the area isn't needed by any party in the area

[Phoenix911]

china is 1 of thew the countrys involed in the broken down 6th ways talks aimed at stopping NK so i sure they are not happy about it.

[CPT.TIKER]

well if NK lunched nukes at US that would be like doing China's dirty work
and if US and other countries invade NK then China might help (again)
can u beleve that after we helped them they been cold to us

[Phoenix911]

American did not help north korea, they helped south korea.
NK is still licking there wounds from teh first fight and because of this they particuly always blaim the US for pressure on them and such even tho the other countrys are putting pressure on them out of there own free will because they beleave the test and nuke program should not be happening.

China would not help them aswell tiker because they already have dissagreed with NK and want them to dissarm any nukes and stop the nuke program.