60 Years Ago Another Democrat Stole the White House

[beagle9]

It was not "multi-layered" at all. It was an extreme dumbing-down to the point where there was almost nothing of the reality left.

Keep it going, maybe it'll work for you somehow, meanwhile the smart people are moving forward.... Air power is the lynch pin to winning any war... Without it, the war is absolutely not in the favor of the military without it. Fact.

Right now it's a drone war fought by air in order to give either side the advantages looked for. Also the eyes in the sky is also an air supremacy thing. The technological air war is the softening up, then the eyes as the ground forces are directed by the air forces to strategically win their battles by way of intelligence gained by the air forces or by the Intel based upon information given by those forces. Operating blind is not an option.

 

[Dayton3]

Who ordered the hit then ?ne

No one ordered it. Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Kennedy. There is an unbroken chain of physical evidence connecting Oswald to the murder.

 

[Mushroom]

Air power is the lynch pin to winning any war... Without it, the war is absolutely not in the favor of the military without it. Fact.

Then explain how the Soviets lost in Afghanistan. The Afghans had no air power at all.

The claim that "Air Power" wins wars is false. Air power can help, but it will never win a war.

 

[beagle9]

No one ordered it. Lee Harvey Oswald murdered Kennedy. There is an unbroken chain of physical evidence connecting Oswald to the murder.

Oswald didn't act out of some sort of weird shallow vendetta he had for Kennedy or upon some sort of political disagreement or weird infatuation like Regan and his shooter had when they crossed paths, otherwise for whom was purely insane. No instead Oswald was a Hitman just as plain as the nose on his face. So who ordered the hit ? Was it the mob, the Russians, who ??

 

[beagle9]

Then explain how the Soviets lost in Afghanistan. The Afghans had no air power at all.

The claim that "Air Power" wins wars is false. Air power can help, but it will never win a war.

The soviets could have won that war if they had the right leadership at the time. It was just that simple. They could have turned Afghanistan into glass with a nuclear attack yes from the air in the form of missle's, but undoubtedly losing is getting to be something Russia has gotten into doing lately, otherwise just like America once was for decades gone by now. How can a nation lose, yet be so strong militarily? It boggles the mind really. Maybe the ground pounders are struggling, but the air war can finish it all immediately if need be. Not sure what holds militaries back when they are so powerful.

 

[Dayton3]

No instead Oswald was a Hitman just as plain as the nose on his face.

Why do you figure that?

 

[Dayton3]

The soviets could have won that war if they had the right leadership at the time. It was just that simple. They could have turned Afghanistan into glass with a nuclear attack yes from the air in the form of missle's, but undoubtedly losing is getting to be something Russia has gotten into doing lately, otherwise just like America once was for decades gone by now. How can a nation lose, yet be so strong militarily? It boggles the mind really. Maybe the ground pounders are struggling, but the air war can finish it all immediately if need be. Not sure what holds militaries back when they are so powerful.

For one, one of the major unwritten rules in international relations is that a nuclear power CANNOT use nuclear weapons against a non nuclear nation.

 

[beagle9]

For one, one of the major unwritten rules in international relations is that a nuclear power CANNOT use nuclear weapons against a non nuclear nation.

In war all that bull crap goes straight out of the window and fast.

 

[Mushroom]

The soviets could have won that war if they had the right leadership at the time. It was just that simple. They could have turned Afghanistan into glass with a nuclear attack yes from the air in the form of missle's, but undoubtedly losing is getting to be something Russia has gotten into doing lately, otherwise just like America once was for decades gone by now. How can a nation lose, yet be so strong militarily? It boggles the mind really. Maybe the ground pounders are struggling, but the air war can finish it all immediately if need be. Not sure what holds militaries back when they are so powerful.

How about naming a single war that was won by air power.

This should be funny, as I can't think of any. Not WWI, not WWII. Not the Korean War, not the Gulf War. Not the wars in former Yugoslavia, not even the war now in Ukraine.

Air power has never won a war, not once.

Oh, and dropping a nuke on somebody is not "air power".

 

[Dayton3]

In war all that bull crap goes straight out of the window and fast.

No it doesn't. Because many nations have nuclear weapons in this day and age.

 

[Dayton3]

How about naming a single war that was won by air power.

This should be funny, as I can't think of any. Not WWI, not WWII. Not the Korean War, not the Gulf War. Not the wars in former Yugoslavia, not even the war now in Ukraine.

Air power has never won a war, not once.

Oh, and dropping a nuke on somebodyrti is not "air power".

Especially since nuclear bombardment can rightfully be considered "artillery".

 

[Mushroom]

Especially since nuclear bombardment can rightfully be considered "artillery".

Nukes are a political weapon. The idea of them actually being "military weapons" largely died by the early 1980's.

And one does not even need air superiority to deploy them. Or even enter the airspace of the nation targeted with them even if they are using aircraft to deliver them.

And in the modern era, most nations would not use aircraft to deliver them. The preferred platform for the US and Russia for decades has been missiles. I think more than anything else, the bombers are mostly a holdout in case we want to escalate something, but not go as far as the "point of no return" as you can't recall a missile once it's launched. But you can have a dozen or so bombers with nukes holding somewhere between your country and another, as a warning that it is time for both sides to back down before it is too late.

Hell, just look at the newest nations to join the "nuclear club", or trying to join.

Hell, India has largely abandoned it's air deployment of nukes in the last 20 years. They are believed to have 16 nuclear bombs, and 52 nuclear warheads for their missiles.

The same with Pakistan. Their earliest nukes would have been delivered via the F-16 in a lob attack profile. But since then they have moved away from that now to cruise missiles and ballistic missiles.

China has never really had a decent "nuclear bomber". Since the early 1970s it was always primarily ballistic missiles, but since they have added cruise missiles.

Neither North Korea nor Iran have made any attempt at building aircraft to deliver nukes. Both are considering nothing but ballistic missiles as delivery systems.

 

[Mushroom]

No it doesn't. Because many nations have nuclear weapons in this day and age.

Nine of them to be precise. And they have not been used in combat in over 77 years.

And one big reason is that every country that has one knows that if they used it in anything other than retaliation to a strike on them with one (or a nation under their "nuclear umbrella"), they would become a pariah nation to the entire world.

For example, that is what has so many worried about North Korea. They are not known anywhere as being a "stable nation", and have repeatedly threatened to nuke both South Korea and Japan along with the US. However, but of those nations fall under the US Nuclear Umbrella, so a nuke against either one of those nations would be responded to by the US as if they were nuked. And likely the debris on the targeted city would still be blowing in the air when a US missile hits Pyongyang in retaliation.

And yes, that is likely one of the few cases where the capitol city would be the main target in a limited exchange. Russia would not nuke Washington DC, no more than the US would nuke Moscow. Neither is of a great consequence militarily, and removing the leadership could only make things worse. But in a case like North Korea, odds are that once Emperor Kim III was removed, more sane leadership would call an end to the madness. That is why the first 4 targets for US nukes on Japan were all military hubs and industrial centers. It was only around the time of bomb number 5 that the US would have admitted that Japan would never surrender, and order an attack on Tokyo itself.

For the same reason, in the hopes that whoever took charge after that would see reason and put an end to the insanity.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Who ordered the hit then ?

No one.

Oswald needed no order

 

[beagle9]

How about naming a single war that was won by air power.

This should be funny, as I can't think of any. Not WWI, not WWII. Not the Korean War, not the Gulf War. Not the wars in former Yugoslavia, not even the war now in Ukraine.

Air power has never won a war, not once.

Oh, and dropping a nuke on somebody is not "air power".

It took air power to deliver a nuke or nukes back then you knucklehead.... Japan lost the war finally to air power. Without the bomber's that delivered the nukes, Japan would have kept on fighting.

No war can be won without air supremacy being won early or mid way the conflict. Ask any ground pounders that have ever had to call in air strikes on or near to their critical position's, and they will tell you quick how much they couldn't have done it without the strike's they needed. Missle's fly through the air striking with precision from far away distances, thus constituting an assault from the air because no troops or ground equipment is involved, otherwise it wasn't hand to hand, armoured or bombardment by ground forces, but rather a strike through the air from safe distances that doesn't involve or expose those forces.

Now of course in the aftermath ground forces with PPE move in to collect the win once the enemy capitulates due to a nuclear strike or overwhelming air power. Put it this way, no war can be won without air power gaing air supremacy early on against the enemies air power used. Why do you think that they call it supremacy ???

Eyes in the skies was realized as the most crucial part of any campaign being waged. Without it the losses would be assured destruction of any objectives or campaigns being waged against any equal nation of equal strength.

 

[Mushroom]

It took air power to deliver a nuke or nukes back then you knucklehead....

That was a single bomber. That is not "air power", you knucklehead.

And that one bomb was also very early on. The Allies would have won without it, but at the cost of another 20 million or so dead. And it could have just as easily been delivered via boat.

And do not forget, that in order for it to be used, almost 7 million were killed just so they could get to the point that they could be used. Over 4 million on the Allied side alone. Taking multiple islands and bloody losses. Without the years of bloody ground war first, the final stroke could never have happened.

Today nobody even considers using aircraft for nukes. And air dominance has never been needed to use them. In fact, by the 1980s, the US moved completely away from the very concept of attaining air dominance to launch nukes. It was not needed as they started to specialize in the concept of penetration bombing.

No war can be won without air supremacy being won early or mid way the conflict.

Then explain the Soviets in Afghanistan. They had complete air dominance, and the Afghans fighting them had no air power at all. So please explain to us how "air power" is so important.

The US and other allies dominated the air during the Vietnam War. So how do you explain that?

And the Korean War, where neither side ever had air dominance. How does that figure into your claim?

In the Iran-Iraq War, there it is really interesting as Iran completely dominated the skies there. And much like in the Gulf War, the Iraqi Air Force would only come out when there were no other aircraft in the air. Just as in 1990-1991, Iran from 1980-1988 completely dominated the skies, yet the war dragged on for 8 years.

Sorry, I am still waiting for the reference that air power determines who wins wars. You seem obsessed that is true on how WWII ended. As well as the use of nukes. Well, I hate to tell you this cupcake, but there is no "PPE" that will protect somebody from nukes. Even if going into the aftermath of such a war if it ever happened. There is absolutely no PPE (Personal Protective Equipment for those that do not know) that will protect somebody from radiation. Even the best and newest MOPP suits are absolutely worthless. The absolutely most they can do is to prevent somebody from inhaling fallout. Not a damned thing about the radiation itself, and a $50 mask from Home Depot would be just as effective.

But please, tell us the war where air power won. Because you keep spinning in circles, and striking out every single time.

 

[beagle9]

That was a single bomber. That is not "air power", you knucklehead.

And that one bomb was also very early on. The Allies would have won without it, but at the cost of another 20 million or so dead. And it could have just as easily been delivered via boat.

And do not forget, that in order for it to be used, almost 7 million were killed just so they could get to the point that they could be used. Over 4 million on the Allied side alone. Taking multiple islands and bloody losses. Without the years of bloody ground war first, the final stroke could never have happened.

Today nobody even considers using aircraft for nukes. And air dominance has never been needed to use them. In fact, by the 1980s, the US moved completely away from the very concept of attaining air dominance to launch nukes. It was not needed as they started to specialize in the concept of penetration bombing.



Then explain the Soviets in Afghanistan. They had complete air dominance, and the Afghans fighting them had no air power at all. So please explain to us how "air power" is so important.

The US and other allies dominated the air during the Vietnam War. So how do you explain that?

And the Korean War, where neither side ever had air dominance. How does that figure into your claim?

In the Iran-Iraq War, there it is really interesting as Iran completely dominated the skies there. And much like in the Gulf War, the Iraqi Air Force would only come out when there were no other aircraft in the air. Just as in 1990-1991, Iran from 1980-1988 completely dominated the skies, yet the war dragged on for 8 years.

Sorry, I am still waiting for the reference that air power determines who wins wars. You seem obsessed that is true on how WWII ended. As well as the use of nukes. Well, I hate to tell you this cupcake, but there is no "PPE" that will protect somebody from nukes. Even if going into the aftermath of such a war if it ever happened. There is absolutely no PPE (Personal Protective Equipment for those that do not know) that will protect somebody from radiation. Even the best and newest MOPP suits are absolutely worthless. The absolutely most they can do is to prevent somebody from inhaling fallout. Not a damned thing about the radiation itself, and a $50 mask from Home Depot would be just as effective.

But please, tell us the war where air power won. Because you keep spinning in circles, and striking out every single time.

If I were in charge of this country or Russia concerning Afghanistan, trust me when I say that these wars would be won without the terrible carnage that occurs due to a ground war of attrition. My bombing of strategic targets would end the war quickly.

Oh and just as it were in Japan, where as at some point the land can be reoccupied by humans in the areas of ground zero within a reasonable amount of time pending all things considered, because the explosion is dissipated within a certain period of time of course, and the fall out only lingers for a specific amount of time after that.... Next the clean up occurs, but it's not like a nuclear melt down that last for year's and year's afterwards, otherwise like what happened at Chernobyl.

 

[Mushroom]

If I were in charge of this country or Russia concerning Afghanistan, trust me when I say that these wars would be won without the terrible carnage that occurs due to a ground war of attrition. My bombing of strategic targets would end the war quickly.

Sp. you can't seem to come up with any actual example. And simply say in one that you could have done better.

Well, I am done. You are 100% clueless, but the part about just nuking everybody and occupying the ruins made me laugh. So in reality, what you actually should have said is that air power means nothing, you are one of those that believes in nuking everybody that does not agree with you.

And you really seem to believe that the contamination from a nuclear warhead can just be swept up and thrown away. You really do have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[beagle9]

Sp. you can't seem to come up with any actual example. And simply say in one that you could have done better.

Well, I am done. You are 100% clueless, but the part about just nuking everybody and occupying the ruins made me laugh. So in reality, what you actually should have said is that air power means nothing, you are one of those that believes in nuking everybody that does not agree with you.

And you really seem to believe that the contamination from a nuclear warhead can just be swept up and thrown away. You really do have no idea what you are talking about.

Nuke anyone who don't agree with me ??? Where did you come up with that crock of bull crap from ? LOL.

Talking war strategy has nothing to do with anyone's belief that one has, but rather it's just common sense or common knowledge concerning strategies that have worked in the past. You staying in denial about air power yes having the most crucial roles in winning the war is simply laughable. That's right run away because you've put yourself into a corner that you can't get out of.

Slugging a war out on the ground yes can get a slow costly turn out in the end, but using air power/air supremacy once gained, always ends up being the deciding factor upon who ultimately wins the war.

Japan losing or surrendering after the air war escalated to dropping two nukes from above was the best example used, but you attempted to discard how important that was in world war two. Gaing air superiority over the Luftwaffe was key to winning the war against the Nazi's.

Without air assistance for look out/ reconnaissance over the trenches in world war one, then that war would have went in a different direction also.

Look, no one wants war anywhere period, but once they are started then simple assessments of battlefield strategies and achievement's are monitored. Nothing personal about any of it. We agree to disagree on strategies, deciding factors, and other such things, but as American's we are not enemies. Well not unless you are a Democrat, then you probably hate American's in your confused state of mind. lol

 

[Mushroom]

Nuke anyone who don't agree with me ??? Where did you come up with that crock of bull crap from ? LOL.

Talking war strategy has nothing to do with anyone's belief that one has

Nukes are not a "war strategy". Nukes are political weapons, the idea of them being "military weapons" ended decades ago.

And you keep failing, because you can only revert back to WWII, when that foolish concept was dreamed up by Curtis LeMay. Which has never worked in reality.

And there as no real "air superiority" during WWI! Hell, the biggest threat during that war was not actually enemy aircraft, but fire from the trenches. And you do not even need "air superiority" to do recon missions.

As I said, you keep spinning in circles, and relying on theories from 70 years ago that never worked. As is obvious, as you can not seem to come up with a single example from after WWII. And even ignore obvious cases where the very concept was proven to be a failure.