Trump says We Have Much Better Weapons than Russia

[DrainBamage]

Korea we fought to a stalemate, not a win. What’s PG1?

Nope, the military objective was to drive communist forces back to 38th parallel, it was written right in the resolutions authorizing military action.

The first Iraq war wasn’t a win, otherwise we wouldn’t have had to go back.

Military objective was to drive Iraqi forces out of occupied Kuwait.

 

[Correll]

But, I hope we are NOT developing nuclear powered cruise missiles. That sounds like a very bad idea.


I can see what Russia would go for it, but it is not for US.

It IS a very bad idea. If they are using radioactive substances to power the thing, how much of that radiation is hitting the atmosphere? If it is a closed system like on a carrier or submarine (but much smaller), it is still a nuclear powered missile.

Not only will you get the explosion from the warhead, but the nuclear system powering the missile will also be vaporized, meaning that at the minimum, you have a low yield nuclear dirty bomb.

But, if you know how nuclear bombs work, then you know that the reaction is started by an explosion. What could that mean? What if the exploding warhead turned the system powering the missile into a nuclear bomb?

If the system is only for use with nuclear missiles, than the down side would be in theory, I speculate, that the bomb just becomes a little more dirty, when it hits.


If the system is good enough, I can see how that could be argued to make some sense, sort of, though that means that you lose the option of using the system for conventional strikes, because of use of radioactive materials. At least without taking serious diplomatic costs.




If they plan to use it with conventional warheads, then that is insane. They would be spreading radioactive materials around the planet at best and at worst on a battle field or territory they plan to send their people into.


Barring some shocking unknown tech, this sounds like a terrible idea on the part of Russia.

 

[fncceo]

Let the dick waving begin!

Woo hoo! My kind of party!

 

[candycorn]

The United States has acquired technology that level entire cities and it will be completely masked with natural events. And we have had this technology for quite some time.

 

[Taz]

The United States has acquired technology that level entire cities and it will be completely masked with natural events. And we have had this technology for quite some time.

Got a link? Or is this wishful thinking?

 

[Taz]

Korea we fought to a stalemate, not a win. What’s PG1?

Nope, the military objective was to drive communist forces back to 38th parallel, it was written right in the resolutions authorizing military action.

The first Iraq war wasn’t a win, otherwise we wouldn’t have had to go back.

Military objective was to drive Iraqi forces out of occupied Kuwait.

So not wins. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[candycorn]

The United States has acquired technology that level entire cities and it will be completely masked with natural events. And we have had this technology for quite some time.

Got a link? Or is this wishful thinking?

It’s a quote from the OP. Good question.

 

[DrainBamage]

So not wins. Thanks for clearing that up.

If you believe a military force accomplishing the military objective they were tasked with "pushing the communists back to 38th parallel" then clearly you aren't really interested in whether you'r'e actually correct, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[Camp]

If we won all those wars, why are we spending billions of dollars and keeping troops in all those places we "won"?

 

[Likkmee]

Let the dick waving begin!

You ALWAYS ask for it..........

 

[Lincoln1976]

If we have such great weapons, why haven't we won a war since WWII?

Korean war? Cold war and yes, that one was won by economic and military might...the US outspend the Soviet Union, bankrupting the latter...Gulf war..operation Iraqi freedom...there is quite a list and a lot of military interventions as well

 

[DrainBamage]

If we won all those wars, why are we spending billions of dollars and keeping troops in all those places we "won"?

To pursue political objectives.

 

[Lincoln1976]

If we won all those wars, why are we spending billions of dollars and keeping troops in all those places we "won"?

now, there is a real interesting question...have you heard President Trump in his interview with Tucker Carlson? "we have such a thing as an military-industrial complex and those people love war" (analogous)...but don't worry...other countries have fallen into the same trap and they are supposedly so much more pacifistic than the US...like Germany or the UK...yet, they have troops there for ages now...it's all a big scam with fat cats behind the scene getting rich while poor sods die and other poor sods shoulder the bill

 

[Camp]

Who won the War on Drugs?

 

[longknife]

The main difference between the Soviet - and Chinese - military and the US is simple - the education level of the operators. Also the command and control strategy.

Soviet and Chinese people cannot make any decisions for themselves. Even the most simple of changes has to be approved by "higher headquarters" often going to the very highest level.

Americans can and often do make instant decisions based upon their view of the situation.

You can have all the technology in the world. But, without the ability to use it wisely and in a timely manner, it's worthless.

 

[Lincoln1976]

Who won the War on Drugs?

the democraps...they get their voting base solidly hooked on welfare and drugs...just put your X there, at the dem candidate, collect your welfare cheque and make the illegal alien drug dealer and his connections in Mexico happy...disgusting

 

[Lincoln1976]

The main difference between the Soviet - and Chinese - military and the US is simple - the education level of the operators. Also the command and control strategy.

Soviet and Chinese people cannot make any decisions for themselves. Even the most simple of changes has to be approved by "higher headquarters" often going to the very highest level.

Americans can and often do make instant decisions based upon their view of the situation.

You can have all the technology in the world. But, without the ability to use it wisely and in a timely manner, it's worthless.

Perfect assessment!
A while back, O stombled over this little gem (I always wondered why arab armies lost even when they outnumbered their non-arab opponents (like the 6 day war)

 

[harmonica]

The main difference between the Soviet - and Chinese - military and the US is simple - the education level of the operators. Also the command and control strategy.

Soviet and Chinese people cannot make any decisions for themselves. Even the most simple of changes has to be approved by "higher headquarters" often going to the very highest level.

Americans can and often do make instant decisions based upon their view of the situation.

You can have all the technology in the world. But, without the ability to use it wisely and in a timely manner, it's worthless.

what exactly are you saying?
1. all that education and all that technology and the HUGE advantage of air and naval supremacy did not help in Vietnam or Korea
2. the Chinese gave the US a monumental ass whooping in Korea--not once, but twice--except for the Marines ..and this was 1950
..the Chinese are not stupid
.....MacArthur underestimated the Chinese right before they kicked our asses--twice--kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula--plus beating the crap out of the other units

 

[Lincoln1976]

what exactly are you saying?
1. all that education and all that technology and the HUGE advantage of air and naval supremacy did not help in Vietnam or Korea
2. the Chinese gave the US a monumental ass whooping in Korea--not once, but twice--except for the Marines ..and this was 1950
..the Chinese are not stupid
.....MacArthur underestimated the Chinese right before they kicked our asses--twice--kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula--plus beating the crap out of the other units

Hold your horses there! The US in Vietnam had a very different problem...how to fight a war without the hope of winning...North Vietnam could not be invaded and that was the whole problem...

So, a bit unfair to say: well, they didn't win there, so their tactics, training and weaponry must have been crap...wasn't the case, quite the opposite...how many Viet Cong and NVA personal were killed?
and there lies a very good example for the point being made: while NVA and Viet cong lost a combined total of nearly 1 million men killed and 600 000 wounded, did the US lose only 58 000 dead and 300 000 wounded...the brunt of the casualties was taken by South Vietnam on the South's side with 300 000 killed and 1.1 million wounded...

Now, given the fact that the main fighting was carried out by the US military, it proofs exactly the point...bad leadership is a real problem in armies.

China used in Korea the only tactic, they have mastered: swarm tactics....if you call swarming an enemy position with your men and having them shot until your enemy runs out of amunition a good tactic than don't be surprised to get a strange look from people....but that is what the Chinese did...life is cheap in China....the total strengh of Chinese military personal was around 3 million and they lost roughly 750 000 killed and missing plus another 700 000 wounded

What was the outcome: an exhaustion peace...yeah, not so much of a victory after all, is it?

You can win wars with that tactic: Russia lost 13 million soldiers KIA in WW2....let that number sink in...but they sure weren't superior in their leadership on any level, having their greatest asset in the fact that they defended their home country

 

[harmonica]

what exactly are you saying?
1. all that education and all that technology and the HUGE advantage of air and naval supremacy did not help in Vietnam or Korea
2. the Chinese gave the US a monumental ass whooping in Korea--not once, but twice--except for the Marines ..and this was 1950
..the Chinese are not stupid
.....MacArthur underestimated the Chinese right before they kicked our asses--twice--kicked a whole Corps off the peninsula--plus beating the crap out of the other units

Hold your horses there! The US in Vietnam had a very different problem...how to fight a war without the hope of winning...North Vietnam could not be invaded and that was the whole problem...

So, a bit unfair to say: well, they didn't win there, so their tactics, training and weaponry must have been crap...wasn't the case, quite the opposite...how many Viet Cong and NVA personal were killed?
and there lies a very good example for the point being made: while NVA and Viet cong lost a combined total of nearly 1 million men killed and 600 000 wounded, did the US lose only 58 000 dead and 300 000 wounded...the brunt of the casualties was taken by South Vietnam on the South's side with 300 000 killed and 1.1 million wounded...

Now, given the fact that the main fighting was carried out by the US military, it proofs exactly the point...bad leadership is a real problem in armies.

China used in Korea the only tactic, they have mastered: swarm tactics....if you call swarming an enemy position with your men and having them shot until your enemy runs out of amunition a good tactic than don't be surprised to get a strange look from people....but that is what the Chinese did...life is cheap in China....the total strengh of Chinese military personal was around 3 million and they lost roughly 750 000 killed and missing plus another 700 000 wounded

What was the outcome: an exhaustion peace...yeah, not so much of a victory after all, is it?

You can win wars with that tactic: Russia lost 13 million soldiers KIA in WW2....let that number sink in...but they sure weren't superior in their leadership on any level, having their greatest asset in the fact that they defended their home country

..we had a HUGE advantage with air and naval supremacy --and the NVA still kicked some ass in Nam..if he wasn't for choppers and air, it would've been a lot different
...no--you hold your horse---the Chinese kicked our asses in Korea--plain and simple--when we had air and naval supremacy!!

..Vietnam was unwinnable --my wife's uncle died in one of the biggest ambushes in Nam.....they gave the USMC a good ass whipping--the NVA were very smart--very smart.....we had amphib carriers and land based choppers plus tanks at that battle AFTER the ass whipping
..considering the HUGE advantage the US had with carriers, amphib carriers, choppers, land based air, the NVA proved they were just as good, if not better