Advanced Weapons

a reply to: skalla

What I do understand Rods of God make for an alternative to a WW3 scenario that potentially would not result in a Nuclear Winter.

There are about 7 billion people on Earth today and about 1 billion of them live in the Western Hemisphere.

So where do the other 6 billion or so live?

Perhaps you would care to explain how a Hemisphere where today while there are internal conflicts within each country none of the Nation-States are at war with each other. Is responsible for thousands of years of history in conflict, in relation to the Eastern Hemisphere?

Perhaps what you do not get is that prior to the advent of US involvement in WW2 there were conflicts between nation states but nothing compared to WW1.

With the advent of tanks, planes, hand-held automatic rifles, chemical weapons and so on, in the Western Hemisphere counties did not arm themselves for control of resources just because we could.

Perhaps that is something you do not understand.

Thoughts?

a reply to: Kashai

Mankind has existed in in a perpetual state of war since we first presented on Earth.

That is not the case. Many cultures exhibit far more peaceful tendencies than the USA. USA is a gang of warmongers..

True story..

a reply to: purplemer

Cultures demonize each other all the time your, such a position is very likely the result of that.

The 100 years war was fought every soldier from the rank of lieutenant down was told that the reason for the war was that the other side was using the wrong shoulder to touch first when forming the sign of the crucifix upon there bodies.

Meanwhile, the elite from both side gambled over the outcome of battles.

Given your stereotypes, it is apparent, that you do not seem to understand we are not responsible for the fact that when weapons of war became automated. The first thing that happened is that those who lived in the Eastern Hemisphere
began killing each other with impunity and by WW2 had dragged in the United States by an Axis power at the time; invading this country.

War to us is something we take very seriously there are a substantive number of examples wherein conflict between nation-states in the Eastern Hemisphere was not.

To the benefit of Europe and Russia, proper had we decided to wait until Adolf Hitler and conquered those territories,
then used atomic bombs to defeat the Third Reich

Archeological research has shown a result of Chinese silk isolated in the mouths of Egyptian mummies and while Egyptians we not nomadic, the Israelites as recorded in history were not. Ergo, the Silk Road existed during the period of the Egyptian Empire. When Ghengis Kahn in cooperation with China they found that Israelites wish they had traded for thousands of years, they placed them in positions of authority.

Ghengis Khan according to history died as a result of a medical condition at which point Mongolian and Chinese forces left Europe and Russia.

Roman ships traveled the ocean blue and in most cases by skirting the coast. It was a common practice to stay within 12 miles of the coast, in case a storm approached, at which point they would head to shore.

Ancient Greeks who also applied this methodology should have been aware of India, China and so on Vikings could also travel west during the winter using ice as a freshwater source as well as shelter during storms.

A point is that Marco Polo did not discover the silk road and Christopher Columbus was not the first European to step foot up the Western Hemisphere. And neither is it realistic to assert that during the Europen invasion of the Western Hemisphere, that the elite already knew in earnest that the Western Hemisphere was not a New Wolrd.

On my end, archeological evidence in the Western Hemisphere presents factual indications that various European cultures visited the Western Hemisphere. In so far as Africans the Olmec Civilization left statues that clearly, depict
individuals that are generally classified as Nubian.

The United States of America in relation to its government is a blend of two cultures. Democracy is more often than not related to Ancient Greek civilization but consider as well a thorough evaluation of such cultures as the Cherokee Nation.

When it comes to trading? Spanish Man of Wars carried a chest of Spanish coins but when it came to cultures indigenous to the Western Hemisphere, they also carried coins all of which belonged to ancient cultures. The issue is that gold to those cultures was related to adornments, used during holidays.

But they did recognize ancient European forms of tender.

We are not your enemies but what we are is a culture that takes war very seriously.

With all due respect, there is also Easter Island whose artifacts were made by Polynesians.

Captain Cook 'discovers' Tahiti and Hawaii. The natives tell Cook how they navigated the vast Pacific Ocean. Later commentators dispute this, and some natives of today---many decades after ravages of their culture by outsiders--decide to rebuild the ancient navigation knowledge and traditional sailing canoes to create a new legacy of wayfinding and revive the spirit of the ancestral way as they teach others to face new horizons.

Herb Kawainui Kane speaks about Thor Heyerdahl and his Kon-Tiki expedition, and then the Hokule'a (Hōkūle'a)-- a re-created ancient double-hulled voyaging canoe (vaka taurua) featured in this extract.

a reply to: Kashai

And you're doing a poor job of proving it.

Ok so essentially given the fact that the Mig-29 is a response to American counterparts that were developed prior to the Mig-29, or otherwise declassified afterward a point would be that variants of American versions we also capable of carrying, the same amount of nuclear weapons than its Russian counterpart.

That's a hell of a leap and a logical fallacy. The F-15A-D was designed as an air superiority fighter, and has no ground attack capability, nuclear or conventional. The F-15E, which is a fairly significant redesign of the F-15 is a tactical bomber that has a poor air to air record, despite being based on the F-15.

At one time, they were talking about arming the F-15 with nuclear tipped air to air missiles, but the Eagle was designed before the multi role fighter became the go to design. It was originally designed to fight waves of bombers and their escorting fighters, not attack ground targets, so it has no nuclear capability.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Keep living in that fantasy world you live in pretty sure it makes you feel happy.

Otherwise, the Mig-23 variants that can carry nuclear weapons is a response to the F-15, F-16 variants and so on.

That you believe that the country that actually developed Nuclear Weapons do not have the capacity to fire 4 of them in general, from a tactical jet fighter and consistent with a Mig-23?

I know of some land in the Everglades that is actually scheduled to be filled in for the purpose of residences and the relatable services. I could get you in if you are willing to pay in at 5 thousand US per acre with a minimum purchase of 700 acres.

in other words, your position is irrelevant and what you are doing is proving you really have no idea as to what you are talking about.

Thought?

a reply to: Kashai

And you have how much actual experience with F-15s? As in actually putting your hands on them? You've made some incredible leaps. Not all aircraft in the US inventory can carry nuclear weapons. The F-15A-D and F-22 are two of them that can't. It's not "my position" it's factual, easily verifiable information.

The MiG-23 was designed before the F-15 or F-16 ever flew, and well before the design work for the F-16 ever started. It wasn't a response to either of them, it was a response to a need for a good ground attack aircraft.

The MiG-29 was a response to both of them, and doesn't carry nuclear weapons either. It was designed to counter the maneuverability of the F-16,and close in is a good match for either, but at long range is a poor counter.

The F-15E and F-16 both carry the B61. But the earlier F-15s don't have that capability.

a reply to: Zaphod58

As far sir as military aircraft I am familiar with a vessel designated "Scout".

in reality, it makes no real sense to present that a tactical jet fighter cannot, carry tactical nukes when a tank can in respect to its main gun.

Keep in mind that current nuclear treaties do not address the issue of tactical nuclear weapons meaning that all that has really happened is that fissionable, material from all concerned. Has simply been moved from weapons designed to interfere with civilization to a battlefield component.

Your understanding of the declassification of US military aircraft is inconsistent with the fact the Presiden Jimmy Carter was the first to offer the term "Stealth technology" as related to military aircraft.



In your fantasy world, soldiers who were involved in the Normandy invasion were never exposed to, fissionable material.

I mean why is it that one cannot by jewelry made of Uranium? I, mean one would consider that given the results people would have figured out a long time ago that incorporating this material into an explosive. The resultant effect of doing so would result in people dying beyond the range of the explosion as the radioactive material would become airborne.

There is a saying, "Ignorance is Bliss".

IMHO you seem to be evidence that the saying is valid.

a reply to: Kashai

You don't put air to air missiles on bombers(at least the existing ones, future bombers may), and you don't put bombs on interceptors, which is what the F-15 was designed for originally. Once again, the F-15 was originally designed to stop large numbers of Soviet bombers. It was built around the best radar system available at the time, with a large air to air missile capacity. Again, this is easily verified with minimal research.

Stealth technology has nothing to do with the F-15. And I'm far more familiar with that than you are. Just because Carter introduced it doesn't suddenly make the Eagle a bomber.

a reply to: Zaphod58

What you do not apparently seem to be familiar with is that any aircraft with engines like the F-15 can be modified observably to carry any payload that is consistent with its weight expectations.

in so far as myself?

My Stepfather who is retired actually spent more than a decade working for the military division of General Motors.

Then, of course, there is my Father of birth.

a reply to: Kashai

I'm well aware of that. That ability doesn't mean that it was done. In fact, they started to test the F-15A for ground attack missions, then decided to build the F-15E,which is a ground attack aircraft capable of carrying air to air missiles. That made putting a ground attack capability on the A-D models redundant, so they never followed through with it beyond a few tests.

The F-15E, while sharing design commonality with earlier F-15s, is a significantly different aircraft. It was designed to replace the F-111F, and is a heavy tactical bomber. There is no need for the earlier F-15s to carry any kind of bomb with the E model to do that job.

a reply to: Zaphod58

In so far as I know the E actually resulted when the US gave an F-15 to the Japanese to see what they could do with it.

Their modifications are very relevant to the F-15E's systems.

The ability does not mean that during the Cold War it would not make sense to be able to enable Jet Fighters to launch tactical, nuclear weapons.

I mean seriously if one can fire one from an M1 Abrams? One could certainly fire one not only from a Tactical Jet fighter but as well as from an Attack Helicopter.

Tactical nuclear weapons include gravity bombs, short-range missiles, artillery shells, land mines, depth charges, and torpedoes which are equipped with nuclear warheads. Also in this category are nuclear armed ground-based or shipborne surface-to-air missiles (SAMs) and air-to-air missiles.

Small, two-man portable, or truck-portable, tactical weapons (sometimes misleadingly referred to as suitcase nukes), such as the Special Atomic Demolition Munition and the Davy Crockett recoilless rifle (recoilless smoothbore gun), have been developed, although the difficulty of combining sufficient yield with portability could limit their military utility. In wartime, such explosives could be used for demolishing "choke-points" to enemy offensives, such as at tunnels, narrow mountain passes, and long viaducts.

en.wikipedia.org...

Perhaps you should look more into this if it, in reality, it is your intention to continue debating this topic.

Thoughts?

a reply to: Kashai

Many fighters are and have been able to carry the B57, B61, and even nuclear air to air missiles. Tactical nuclear weapons have been around since the 60s. Just about every multi role aircraft can carry them. The F-15A-D can't. When the first F-15s were built, the program motto was "Not a pound for air to ground".

The F-15E was begun as an internal McDonnell-Douglas program to replace the F-4 and F-111. It was developed separately from the Japanese F-15J, which is based on the A, and not the E.

The Abrams doesn't fire nuclear weapons, it fires depleted uranium shells. It even said that in the article you used. They can cause radiation effects from the dust they leave after hitting a target, but they're not nuclear weapons.

Hey Mikey! Hey Anderson! U.S. tanks fire depleted uranium rounds because they’re more dense, not because they “have a nuclear bomb in it” (as the Mayor of New York City claimed).

From the link posted here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: Kashai

Still doesn't have anything to do with the F-15 carrying nuclear weapons.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Nuclear artillery is a subset of limited-yield tactical nuclear weapons, in particular, those weapons that are launched from the ground at battlefield targets. Nuclear artillery is commonly associated with shells delivered by a cannon, but in a technical sense, short-range rockets or missiles are also included.

military.wikia.com...

This is weird, here you are claiming that things do not exist that actually do.

The United States of America's, nuclear submarines do actually carry nuclear torpedoes. I mean and in all sincerity, they carry enough ICBM's to turn North Korea into a parking lot, literally, individually.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Obviously, you do not understand that the primary issue in an aircrafts payload is weight.

So if in reality, one can fire an atom bomb from a tank then one can fire an atom bomb from a tactical jet fighter.

And then there is this.

A multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) is a ballistic missile payload containing several thermonuclear warheads, each capable of being aimed to hit a different target. By contrast, a unitary warhead is a single warhead on a single missile. An intermediate case is the multiple reentry vehicle (MRV) missile which carries several warheads which are dispersed but not individually aimed.[citation needed] Only the United States, United Kingdom, Russian Federation, France, Israel, Iran, and China are known to currently possess MIRV missiles.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Kashai

Nice try, but prove I said it didn't exist. Give me the exact quote. The only things I've claimed are that the F-15A-D doesn't carry nuclear weapons and that the M1 doesn't fire them.

Let's take a look at the problem of the M1 and nuclear artillery. From your link:

MGR-1 Honest John free flight rocket delivering W7 nuclear weapon, 1953
M65 Atomic Cannon delivering 280mm W9 and W19 nuclear shells, 1953
MGM-5 Corporal missile delivering W7 nuclear weapon, 1955
M110 howitzer delivering 203mm W33 nuclear shell, deployed in 1957
M115 howitzer delivering 203mm W33 nuclear shell, deployed in 1957
M-28/M-29 Davy Crockett (nuclear device) M-388 warhead derived from W54, 1961–71
MGM-18 Lacrosse missile with nuclear warhead. It was deployed in West Germany from 1959 to 1963.
M109 self-propelled and M114 towed howitzers delivering 155mm W48 nuclear weapon starting in 1963
MGM-29 Sergeant missile delivering W52 nuclear weapon, 1963
MGM-31 Pershing missile delivering W50 nuclear weapon, 1969
MGM-52 Lance missile delivering W70 nuclear weapon, 1972
Pershing II missile delivering W85 nuclear weapon, 1983

The only actual artillery are the M110, M115, and M109. The problem is that the M1 fired the 105mm gun, the M1A1 and A2 fire the 120mm. Two of those nuclear artillery shells are 203mm, and the third 155mm.

I never denied that these weapons exist, I denied that they are capable of being used in some of the ways that you claim they can be. There's a huge difference between the two.