Trump says We Have Much Better Weapons than Russia

[Lincoln1976]

Still I was referring to nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl, sinking of a nuclear submarine, Issues with the Mayak power plant incident,

The Tsar bomb in 1961 is said to be the most powerful H bomb built and tested. So terrify that even sane people say that it is not where we want to go let keep with less powerful but powerful enough

The arms race to build a more powerful bomb how ridiculous is that.

Testing on your own land and blow it up, of course then they discovered islands would be better

I am just saying and it is hypothetical but if the US and Russia were to nuke it out
centuries from now the survivors would still be theorizing about how the dinosaurs became extinct and now have the question of how certain nations became extinct

OK, Chernobyl was a complete different pair of shoes...the Soviet Union was plagued by incompetance and corruption...that is right and that was the reason, Chernobyl blew up....it was a test on the back up system, where they found out, that that system was defective..surprise!
Communism is a bad system and it hampered their performance..yet we have to admit, that during the cold war, the US faced similar problems: the rushing into service of the USS Scorpion for instance...which led to the sinking of the boat and the loss of all of her crew...
K19 of the Russian navy: same thing, nearly led to her loss, yet the crew ingeniously got the situation under control...real heros, yet never acknowleged for it.

The Tsar bomb was interesting since it mapped out the absolute limit and yes, they were quite surprised by it's power. The US used to conduct their nuclear testing in the Arizona and New Mexico desert until it was mutually agreed to have nuclear testing done underground.

I agree...nuking it out is no option....dirty bombs are a big threat these days though and it's terrorists who might be using them soon.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Scared boi?

No, just don't need to waste my time marching around like a homo.

So your an arm chair Quarter back like Trump.

Got it ****

What was your favourite part of the service, showering?

My favorite part was you newbies sucking my..

Big toe ..
.

See? I told you it was for homos.

That would be you. A faggot like Trump/ sissy Obama and bill who never served our country.

 

[harmonica]

......in Afghanistan the general policy is to rotate WHOLE units--not individuals as they did in Nam--plain and simple FACT

so what? what is the point of your argument?
So, you rotate the whole unit out...fine...and rotate a new, fresh unexperienced one in...that's (as far as your initial argument goes) even WORSE!
Cause now, NO ONE has experience in the whole unit.....but here is, where the "rotate system argument" falls apart..cause frankly, it doesn't have that effect now, does it?

And that's what I was trying to tell you this whole fucking time! Geez!

it'd NOT the same as in Vietnam--as you tried to claim
..you DON'T know anything about the military --I can tell by your post
...much better to have a whole unit together than have a NEW, untested LEADER in charge--that's the difference

 

[harmonica]

hahahha
I provided evidence for my claim--you provided NOTHING for your claim
hahahahah--YOURS is the ''non-response''

I'm not sure what is more sad, that you think telling someone to read a book is evidence or that you're crowing over having provided that.

plain and simple - the NVA were good ..you didn't/don't know = you are spewing crap

 

[EduardBernstein]

The USA boasted of the mother of all bombs, Russia boasted of the father of all bombs.Meet the Russian 'father of all bombs' - CNN

 

[Lincoln1976]

it'd NOT the same as in Vietnam--as you tried to claim
..you DON'T know anything about the military --I can tell by your post
...much better to have a whole unit together than have a NEW, untested LEADER in charge--that's the difference

It is dude, it is...simple as...individual or whole unit is a refinement...the numbers talk and they talk freely....combat effectiveness of the US military was supreme over that of the NVA or VC by a long shot...

and that fact was not made up for by VC's ability to alwyas choose the engagement or the high morale and sacrificial attitute the North Vietnamese had.

I don't dispute the fact that a new unit leader is always problematic, yet that is only one aspect of the whole picture..the rotation argument claims clearly that the rotation of fresh troops, unfamiliar with the situation cause a drop off in combat effectiveness and that is, what I principaly dispute

 

[harmonica]

it'd NOT the same as in Vietnam--as you tried to claim
..you DON'T know anything about the military --I can tell by your post
...much better to have a whole unit together than have a NEW, untested LEADER in charge--that's the difference

It is dude, it is...simple as...individual or whole unit is a refinement...the numbers talk and they talk freely....combat effectiveness of the US military was supreme over that of the NVA or VC by a long shot...

and that fact was not made up for by VC's ability to alwyas choose the engagement or the high morale and sacrificial attitute the North Vietnamese had.

I don't dispute the fact that a new unit leader is always problematic, yet that is only one aspect of the whole picture..the rotation argument claims clearly that the rotation of fresh troops, unfamiliar with the situation cause a drop off in combat effectiveness and that is, what I principaly dispute

..the US had choppers--do you realize the huge advantages of this????
the US had air support/tanks/etc--huge advantages
OF COURSE they had more kills!! and they still lost

 

[harmonica]

it'd NOT the same as in Vietnam--as you tried to claim
..you DON'T know anything about the military --I can tell by your post
...much better to have a whole unit together than have a NEW, untested LEADER in charge--that's the difference

It is dude, it is...simple as...individual or whole unit is a refinement...the numbers talk and they talk freely....combat effectiveness of the US military was supreme over that of the NVA or VC by a long shot...

and that fact was not made up for by VC's ability to alwyas choose the engagement or the high morale and sacrificial attitute the North Vietnamese had.

I don't dispute the fact that a new unit leader is always problematic, yet that is only one aspect of the whole picture..the rotation argument claims clearly that the rotation of fresh troops, unfamiliar with the situation cause a drop off in combat effectiveness and that is, what I principaly dispute

the US had naval supremacy --HUGE advantage

 

[Lincoln1976]

..the US had choppers--do you realize the huge advantages of this????
the US had air support/tanks/etc--huge advantages
OF COURSE they had more kills!! and they still lost

OK...step back dude, ok?

Yes, choppers...to strike quickly and avoid the grind of dragging ones ass from one end of the country to the other...fine...it enabled a relatively small force to actively defend every corner of a mountainous country...

so, they didn't have to field 1 or 2 million soldiers...I get that

fire support from choppers could have an effect on the enemy, yet foliage was the biggest problem...the minigun was invented basically for this! those rocket launchers on Huey cobra chopper were a response...weaponry was developed as a response and it proved fairly effective overal.

The US lost, because from the very beginning, they sold the war to the public as a police operation..couple years and we're through with it...yet, when Tet hit, it was clear that that war would have to go on for years to come

The south Vietnamese government was another problem.

Yet, the lessons learned there have helped made the US military into what it is today and that shouldn't be forgotten.

 

[harmonica]

..the US had choppers--do you realize the huge advantages of this????
the US had air support/tanks/etc--huge advantages
OF COURSE they had more kills!! and they still lost

OK...step back dude, ok?

Yes, choppers...to strike quickly and avoid the grind of dragging ones ass from one end of the country to the other...fine...it enabled a relatively small force to actively defend every corner of a mountainous country...

so, they didn't have to field 1 or 2 million soldiers...I get that

fire support from choppers could have an effect on the enemy, yet foliage was the biggest problem...the minigun was invented basically for this! those rocket launchers on Huey cobra chopper were a response...weaponry was developed as a response and it proved fairly effective overal.

The US lost, because from the very beginning, they sold the war to the public as a police operation..couple years and we're through with it...yet, when Tet hit, it was clear that that war would have to go on for years to come

The south Vietnamese government was another problem.

Yet, the lessons learned there have helped made the US military into what it is today and that shouldn't be forgotten.

....man to man --the NVA were just as good as the Americans--if not better because they were fighting in their homeland and knew the terrain
...they also fought the Japanese and the French---they were much more experienced than the Americans

 

[DrainBamage]

plain and simple - the NVA were good ..you didn't/don't know = you are spewing crap

They got their asses handed to them and only achieved success by numbers. The only thing you've been able to support your bullshit with is demanding others read a book by someone who's opinion happens to be same as you.

You're a dumbfuck, and you should be sad about that.

 

[harmonica]

plain and simple - the NVA were good ..you didn't/don't know = you are spewing crap

They got their asses handed to them and only achieved success by numbers. The only thing you've been able to support your bullshit with is demanding others read a book by someone who's opinion happens to be same as you.

You're a dumbfuck, and you should be sad about that.

why the hostility ???!!! hahahhahahahaha
Ken Burns' book says the same thing .....

**The New York Times Bestseller****The book of the landmark documentary, The Vietnam War, by Ken Burns and Lynn Novick** The definitive work on the Vietnam War

 

[harmonica]

plain and simple - the NVA were good ..you didn't/don't know = you are spewing crap

They got their asses handed to them and only achieved success by numbers. The only thing you've been able to support your bullshit with is demanding others read a book by someone who's opinion happens to be same as you.

You're a dumbfuck, and you should be sad about that.

Ken Burns page 220--Marine Roger Harris:
''I have the utmost respect for the NVA soldier ......they were INCREDIBLE soldiers''

 

[harmonica]

plain and simple - the NVA were good ..you didn't/don't know = you are spewing crap

They got their asses handed to them and only achieved success by numbers. The only thing you've been able to support your bullshit with is demanding others read a book by someone who's opinion happens to be same as you.

You're a dumbfuck, and you should be sad about that.

hahahhaahaha
NO--NO BOOK--the MARINES say the NVA were INCREDIBLE soldiers
the Marines who fought the NVA said they were INCREDIBLE soldiers

 

[harmonica]

plain and simple - the NVA were good ..you didn't/don't know = you are spewing crap

They got their asses handed to them and only achieved success by numbers. The only thing you've been able to support your bullshit with is demanding others read a book by someone who's opinion happens to be same as you.

You're a dumbfuck, and you should be sad about that.

....I'm going to bet EVERYONE except you will take a Marine's [who fought in Vietnam ] word over yours
hahahhahahahahah

 

[DrainBamage]

NO--NO BOOK--the MARINES say the NVA were INCREDIBLE soldiers
the Marines who fought the NVA said they were INCREDIBLE soldiers

You aren't a very deep thinker are you? It's two entirely different things, opinions that they were incredible soldiers and actual battlefield results that they were on par with USA.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

NO--NO BOOK--the MARINES say the NVA were INCREDIBLE soldiers
the Marines who fought the NVA said they were INCREDIBLE soldiers

You aren't a very deep thinker are you? It's two entirely different things, opinions that they were incredible soldiers and actual battlefield results that they were on par with USA.

Time to put this into perspective. The NVA was, and still is, a highly trained and motivated Military Force. When faced with equal forces, they were as good as anyone. The problem was, the US never did use Equal Force whenever it could. We overwhelmed it with Artillery and Air Power which they didn't have much of. Force Multipliers do work. To make this point, the Chinese found this out when they invaded Vietnam in the late 70s and got their asses handed to them. And where did the Vietnamese get those force Multipliers? In a round about way, from the Good Old USA when they captured every lock stock and barrel weapon that South Vietnam had. And in the late 70s, the Chinese Mig-21s were not better than the Captured American provided F-5Es. And now the Vietnamese had plenty of Artillery to boot. The level of the actual NVA Soldier was always very high because they believed in their cause. It's one thing to go fight on someone elses land but another to defend on your own.

So, if you use how the battlefield went with the USA, our Force Multipliers always made the difference because we deprived the NVA of theirs. If you go by how they operated against China, they handed the much larger Chinese their asses back still in their hats.

 

[harmonica]

NO--NO BOOK--the MARINES say the NVA were INCREDIBLE soldiers
the Marines who fought the NVA said they were INCREDIBLE soldiers

You aren't a very deep thinker are you? It's two entirely different things, opinions that they were incredible soldiers and actual battlefield results that they were on par with USA.

do you enjoy making an idiot out of yourself??? I do
it's NOT an OPINION
ahahahhahahahahhahahaha
I think those Marines have some knowledge on the NVA--hahahhahahahahahhahahahahhaha
o·pin·ion
/əˈpinyən/
noun

1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

 

[DrainBamage]

do you enjoy making an idiot out of yourself??? I do
it's NOT an OPINION
ahahahhahahahahhahahaha
I think those Marines have some knowledge on the NVA--hahahhahahahahahhahahahahhaha
o·pin·ion
/əˈpinyən/
noun

1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.

You belive someone respecting an opponent is proof the opponent is on par with them, which is a logic fail since it doesn't prove that at all.

It just proves you're a simpleton.