|
Cippalippus posted:USSR and USA are/were modern countries with a degree of respect for the human lives of their citizen, which can't be said of 60s/70s China or India. Or even today. Please go on about how the US and USSR respect the lives of their citizens while the Chinese and Indians don't. What exactly do you think would account for this? It certainly can't be political ideology, as the US and India are both democracies and the USSR and China are both Marxist (to varying degrees - whatever China is it isn't a fully fledged democracy). 
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:48 |
|
|
Who wants to buy a Tu-95?
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:Please go on about how the US and USSR respect the lives of their citizens while the Chinese and Indians don't. Look better, I specified in the 60s/70s. While lumping India with China might be unfair, you can't deny that what happened in China (cultural revolution) in those years was too extreme even for the Soviet loving Union, or the USA. In those same years, both USA and USSR made significant progress, the former abolishing most of its racist/segregationist legislation, the latter with the various de-stalinization campaigns. edit: oh yeah, I see the "even today". Disregard that part, there was a sentence I edited out. Cippalippus fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
"Get free insurance quotes." Yeah. Sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
I would wait for the price to come down, kind of a bear market for those
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 05:37
|
|
|
Doesn't ship to Russian Federation 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
quote:Shipping and handling
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:I would wait for the price to come down, kind of a bear market for those 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 05:57
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I'm betting Ukraine is really kicking themselves over listening to us and getting rid of the nukes the fallen USSR left in their territory. Yeah I forget if it was here or elsewhere that I saw this posted but it's basically a big gently caress you/reminder to anyone that a promise to protect you if you give up your nukes it worthless coming from Europe/the USA (and honestly probably from anyone). NATO/EU membership might give you a chance of being defended but at this point I honestly wonder if that is even enough. Alaan posted:And everyone else is glad they DID get rid of them because the list of bad factors is getting long: a new and unstable government, a possibly leaving region, bullied by Russia, and armed with nukes is not what I call a happy combination. Especially when Russia is openly courting senior military officials to side with their puppet ex-pres. Yeah a country should definitely give a gently caress about everyone else since obviously invasion to their own detriment is better than other people suffering from nuclear fallout. Basically what VikingSkull said: VikingSkull posted:Really if anything the last decade and a half has shown that if you're a shitheel leader of a backwater fuckhole and you don't wanna be invaded by a world power, you better get crackin' them atoms.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 06:34
|
|
|
I think the problem would be different, but not necessarily better. You better hope everyone in the command and control loop of your nukes are loyal to your new government, and not to the nutjob(who has a huge chunk of the countries money) that is having his citizens gunned down in the street.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
I would like to buy that Tu95, turn the bomb bay into a gay bar and name the entire thing the "bear patrol". Then fly it along russian airspace blasting gay propaganda across the airways. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 06:47
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:Yeah I forget if it was here or elsewhere that I saw this posted but it's basically a big gently caress you/reminder to anyone that a promise to protect you if you give up your nukes it worthless coming from Europe/the USA (and honestly probably from anyone). NATO/EU membership might give you a chance of being defended but at this point I honestly wonder if that is even enough. The problem is they likely couldn't have maintained them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 06:57
|
|
|
Cippalippus posted:You're making a big deal about nothing, honestly. South Africa would've never used the nukes because, as you remember and said, they didn't have enemies. I don't know if you know this but apartheid was somewhat upsetting to many people. Nebakenezzer posted:I thought they were worried about wars with their neighbors and wanted an ace in the hole. So what was the delivery system, anyway? From what I heard their primary target was their own cities in the event of a successful black revolt so it wouldn't require anything too advanced.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
The Sourh African chem/biological weapons were intended for use on their own population, the nuclear weapons were intended as a deterrent against the Cubans and other Soviet sponsored forces. Among other things the South Africans looked into weaponizing some sort of sterilizing agent for general use and I think they actually did weaponize MDMA for riot control.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:The Sourh African chem/biological weapons were intended for use on their own population, the nuclear weapons were intended as a deterrent against the Cubans and other Soviet sponsored forces. Weaponized MDMA? Goes from a riot to a party with just one dose!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 07:20
|
|
|
Totally TWISTED posted:Yeah I forget if it was here or elsewhere that I saw this posted but it's basically a big gently caress you/reminder to anyone that a promise to protect you if you give up your nukes it worthless coming from Europe/the USA (and honestly probably from anyone). NATO/EU membership might give you a chance of being defended but at this point I honestly wonder if that is even enough. We never agreed to protect them. Read the actual text of the Budapest Memorandum. Far from being some sort of pseudo-Article V, all the US, the UK, and Russia (as well as France and China, in a separate but related agreement) agreed to was: - respect the sovereignty of Ukraine - refrain from the threat of use of force against Ukraine's independence - refrain from economic coercion (something you could argue the UK and France violated through the recent EU discussions) - promised to take immediate UNSC action if Ukraine was ever the victim of aggression involving nuclear weapons (emphasis mine) - reaffirmed their commitment under the NPT to not use nukes against a non-nuclear weapon state party to the NPT - Agreed to consult in the event a situation arises concerning these commitments. The only thing the US and UK are obligated to do is consult, which we have done and are doing. Not invading Ukraine was on each power that signed the agreement to hold themselves to. If you are going to sign an agreement that relies on Russia to unilaterally restrain themselves from acting aggressively against you, a country with a weak military in Eastern Europe that historically has fallen within the Russian sphere of influence, that kind of falls in the "fool me And EU membership doesn't count for poo poo if you want to have a big brother to come protect you. NATO and Article V is the only one that matters as far as security guarantees go. Which is why this push to extend NATO east was loving stupid and hopefully this will put the final nail in the coffin for continued NATO eastern expansion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
Nukes would have made everything worse for Ukraine. Either the existing oligarch regime would have been propped up by all means by the US and Russia, or the Russians would have been applauded for invading in the case of massive political unrest. gently caress, there'd be C-5's landing with whores, beer and pizza for the soldiers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:And EU membership doesn't count for poo poo if you want to have a big brother to come protect you. NATO and Article V is the only one that matters as far as security guarantees go. Which is why this push to extend NATO east was loving stupid and hopefully this will put the final nail in the coffin for continued NATO eastern expansion. Which is something Fogh Rasmussen kindly reminded Swedish politicians some time ago. Swedish politicians on all sides have sort of assumed US/NATO would save us in the case of Russian aggression. The Ukrainian situation has highlighted the many shortfalls of the Swedish defence, including the fact that we are still using Hawk as AA and that the army is basically a colonial police. At the moment we can defend one part of the country versus limited opposition for roughly one week. Some politicians are lobbying to join NATO as a way to get a better defence without increasing spendings. Also this week, the Swedish Air Force sent Gripen to Gotland, basically just for showing flag. As I have understood it, we would be better served with putting some AA and anti-ship missiles there, since Gotland is in range of Iskander.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 10:23
|
|
|
Cardiac posted:Also this week, the Swedish Air Force sent Gripen to Gotland, basically just for showing flag. We don't have any meaningful AA or anti-ship missiles though, nor are we likely to get any in the near future. The kind of people who are clamoring for Aster-30 or Patriot are delusional; buying either of those systems would basically require increasing defense spending by 50-100% just for that. Buying a single live Patriot missile requires a seven-figure sum in USD, and the entire Swedish yearly defense budget is only about USD $6 billion. We did have truck-mounted anti-ship missiles though, for a few short years in the 90's. They disappeared again in the early 2000's because they weren't of any use in Afghanistan. Basing fighter jets on Gotland isn't very unusual either, it happens pretty regularly because it really is a very convenient location and it's not like we have any other bases left. Still, Gotland is just as vulnerable to short- and medium-range ballistic missiles with non-nuclear warheads now as it was in 80's. The difference is that in the 80's there were at least two runways and several dispersed basing areas on the island, whereas now everything is just clustered together at the civilian Visby airport, and even if you manage to take off you're within range of S-300 batteries in Kalingrad, not to mention any naval assets in the southern Baltic sea. Also, in 80's, the USSR launching live ballistic missiles is very likely to have made everyone else with nukes extremely nervous and prone to start fingering the Big Red Button, so the reluctance to use such weapons may actually be smaller now than back then. Either way the island is basically impossible to defend against a determined attacker with Russia's capabilities, then as now. At least in the 80's doctrine said we had to try and make it prohibitively expensive, though. Bonus for nerds (from 1975, though):  To give you an idea of scale, Gotland is a bit smaller than Long Island; about 1200 sq miles to Long Island's 1400. The population is about 57,000, to Long Island's 7.5 million. TheFluff fucked around with this message at 12:08 on Mar 6, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 11:33
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Really if anything the last decade and a half has shown that if you're a shitheel leader of a backwater fuckhole and you don't wanna be invaded by a world power, you better get crackin' them atoms. Syria has a nuclear program?
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Breaky posted:Syria has a nuclear program? They did until the Israelis bombed it flat a few years ago. They're cheating six ways from Sunday on the chemweapons stuff, which has a similar diplomatic effect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 13:23
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:They did until the Israelis bombed it flat a few years ago. I was being facetious but you're right. It's just... bothersome to see what we trumped up to go to war with Iraq over just kinda being not even talked about much now despite real incidents of Assad gassing his own populace. Anyway, probably best for another thread.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 13:34
|
|
|
It's even got pictures of them taking the good engines off and hanging some red tags!
|
|
#
?
Mar 6, 2014 14:28
|
|
|
As far as maintaining your nukes goes my thought on that is who's going to call your bluff and bet that your nukes won't go boom when you push the button?iyaayas01 posted:We never agreed to protect them. Read the actual text of the Budapest Memorandum. Far from being some sort of pseudo-Article V, all the US, the UK, and Russia (as well as France and China, in a separate but related agreement) agreed to was: My fault for not having read it and going off what others had said. Maybe geo-politically stupid (to expand NATO east) but it is sad that the former Soviet states are still being used as a buffer by both sides.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 03:07
|
|
|
Sjurygg posted:gently caress, there'd be C-5's
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:It's even got pictures of them taking the good engines off and hanging some red tags! It'd be funny if the three million dollar bid was Kim Jong Un looking to buy the People's First Heavy Bomber.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Does anyone know what the joystick by the radar-type screen is for? Remote guns or what?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 10:06
|
|
|
Smiling Jack posted:The Sourh African chem/biological weapons were intended for use on their own population, the nuclear weapons were intended as a deterrent against the Cubans and other Soviet sponsored forces. Weaponized MDMA? Hardly. Basson was supplying a Civil Co-operation Bureau operation manufacturing high quality MDMA and Methaqualone and selling it on the streets to dissident students and the like, it certainly drove a significant amount of so-called third force activity in the run up to 1994 but Coast was nothing more than a weak excuse. It was really good MDMA too. Weaponized crowd control agents used by the apartheid government: CR, Denoted as Super Doom in the units fielding it. A play on words for the local bug spray called Doom Super. Came in a black spray can with a red high volume nozzle. That poo poo was devastating enough without the inventive "open mouth for baas" style that it was used in. CN, CS and BZ were also manufactured. All of the above were far better, quicker acting and easier to deliver than MDMA. As far as the delineation on on-shore biochem weapon use, there was none. Biochemical and nuclear options were both external options. ming-the-mazdaless fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 11:09
|
|
|
^^^ Lmao my mom still calls every insecticide ever 'Doom'.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 11:16
|
|
|
simplefish posted:Does anyone know what the joystick by the radar-type screen is for? Remote guns or what? The guns on the Bears were human-operated, so my best guess is the joystick's a manual training stick for the radar. The reason I suggest this is because there's one on the B-52 at the Radar and Navigator's station:  That stick's too new to have ever been a gun control. I will say one thing, I want to see the world through one of the Russian 'nose windows' before I die: 
BIG HEADLINE fucked around with this message at 11:35 on Mar 7, 2014 |
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
Koesj posted:^^^ Lmao my mom still calls every insecticide ever 'Doom'. Yeah; god, it's annoying. On the subject of riot control in the days of Apartheid, those with any interest should get: http://www.galago.co.za/CAT1_035_b.htm
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 11:55
|
|
|
B52 question: do all seats in the B52 have the ability to eject or is that a capability not available to all crew?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:47
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:B52 question: do all seats in the B52 have the ability to eject or is that a capability not available to all crew? Yes, they all get ejection seats. The navigator and radar navigator have to go out the bottom, though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Space Gopher posted:Yes, they all get ejection seats. The navigator and radar navigator have to go out the bottom, though. That has to be Mr Toad's Wild Ride, for sure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 17:59
|
|
|
All 6 crew have ejection seats, though 2 of them fire downwards. More than you'll ever need to know about them: http://www.ejectionsite.com/b-52.htm
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
Oxford Comma posted:That has to be Mr Toad's Wild Ride, for sure. Just hope it isn't an emergency right after takeoff unless they have some sort of mechanism to only rocket you beneath the airframe a ways and then stop your descent once you're clear.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 18:21
|
|
|
Like some sort of parachute? Don't forget the B-52's role as a low-level penetration bomber.
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 18:27
|
|
|
BIG HEADLINE posted:The guns on the Bears were human-operated, so my best guess is the joystick's a manual training stick for the radar. If it's anything like the B1 that's a nav/weather/bombing radar control. Way to the right in this picture. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 19:52
|
|
|
Snowdens Secret posted:Like some sort of parachute? Would a parachute deploy fast enough after you just ejected out of the bottom of a plane at something like 100 ft?
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 14:48 |
|
darnon posted:Would a parachute deploy fast enough after you just ejected out of the bottom of a plane at something like 100 ft? Unless the plane was standing still it probably doesn't matter as you'd have considerable forward velocity too.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 7, 2014 23:01
|
|