freeandfun1
VIP Member
- Feb 14, 2004
- 6,201
- 296
- 83
- Thread starter
- #41
Nah.
a) Hitler lost at Stalingrad because the russians fought through sheer attrition and managed to keep his bogged tanks from overrunning the city. Untold numbers of russians were marched willingly and unwillingly to their death in that battle. Napoleon lost against a meager russian force at Moscow because they retreated and left no city to overrun and his overstretched supply lines could not supply his troops or cavalry. In the end of the pacific theatre, the United States likely avoided a battle of attrition by staying home and taking cities out one by one with nukes, rather than confronting the army.
Exactly. So the only way would be to eventually resort to nukes.
b) In a nuclear war people or even soldiers are not the best target. They are control centers, morale centers and missile silos. Hence the development of precision nukes for fortified defenses and moabs for large fielded armies.
Fuel air bombs work well too.... But I don't get where you are going.... Tactical nukes are used on the battlefield against soldiers and their equipment (tanks, etc.)
c) Could china really supply an army of 200,000,000? Five bullets each would equal 1,000,000,000 bullets. Sounds impractical. More likely they would strive for nuclear parity, which they have made much progress in thanks to B.C.
Right now, China has, between the ages of 18 - 32 about 150,000,000 MALES. So yes, an army of 200,000,000 is very conceivable.
The Bible says that in the end-days, an Army of 200,000,000 will march from the East into the ME.
Also, not every man in an Army fires a gun. Don't forget support elements, etc. So let's say of the 200,000,000 only 50,000,000 are Infantry that drops the bullet ratio down to 250,000,000..... very practical.
But hey, that is what this thread is about.... discussing ideas. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong.
a) Hitler lost at Stalingrad because the russians fought through sheer attrition and managed to keep his bogged tanks from overrunning the city. Untold numbers of russians were marched willingly and unwillingly to their death in that battle. Napoleon lost against a meager russian force at Moscow because they retreated and left no city to overrun and his overstretched supply lines could not supply his troops or cavalry. In the end of the pacific theatre, the United States likely avoided a battle of attrition by staying home and taking cities out one by one with nukes, rather than confronting the army.
Exactly. So the only way would be to eventually resort to nukes.
b) In a nuclear war people or even soldiers are not the best target. They are control centers, morale centers and missile silos. Hence the development of precision nukes for fortified defenses and moabs for large fielded armies.
Fuel air bombs work well too.... But I don't get where you are going.... Tactical nukes are used on the battlefield against soldiers and their equipment (tanks, etc.)
c) Could china really supply an army of 200,000,000? Five bullets each would equal 1,000,000,000 bullets. Sounds impractical. More likely they would strive for nuclear parity, which they have made much progress in thanks to B.C.
Right now, China has, between the ages of 18 - 32 about 150,000,000 MALES. So yes, an army of 200,000,000 is very conceivable.
The Bible says that in the end-days, an Army of 200,000,000 will march from the East into the ME.
Also, not every man in an Army fires a gun. Don't forget support elements, etc. So let's say of the 200,000,000 only 50,000,000 are Infantry that drops the bullet ratio down to 250,000,000..... very practical.
But hey, that is what this thread is about.... discussing ideas. Nobody is right and nobody is wrong.