Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-02-2017, 12:11 AM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
(15-02-2017 08:45 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(15-02-2017 07:46 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Heidelberg has more than one bridge, So, nuking HD (with a tactical nuke) would actually be more efficient than blowing each bridge up.

I still don't get it. Save time and effort by nuking everything??? Are there seriously not enough explosives to take out a few more bridges? I mean if you know the Russians are coming you could rig the explosives beforehand anyway...

No. With the Russians advancing in force, presumably with adequate air cover and SAM/AAA defenses, as well as their abiding love of heavy artillery, it would be a dicey proposition to get enough bombs (in the age before smart weapons, especially) onto the target to disable all the bridges before the Soviet armor could cross and establish a beachhead. (You also don't need to hit every bridge over the river, just the ones that can support the weight of tanks. The radiation/fallout will stop the lighter bridges from being used by lighter forces.)

Putting a nuke on the bridge takes care of your problem in one shot. We also had plans to target major formations of tanks with tactical nukes, usually from artillery, which is why the Sovs started developing weird-looking tanks like this one:

[Image: f1d5486736dfda785be36f9bec2dc2cc.jpg]

Meet the Object 279, designed to have exceptionally low ground-pressure (to cross soft or war-torn terrain quickly despite its weight) and be "aerodynamic" enough to withstand nuclear blasts nearby. Crews wouldn't live long after that, but... long enough to overrun NATO.

If you ever want to scare the shit out of yourself, look up some of the (now declassified) plans the US had in the 50s-80s for nuclear war in the event of a conflict with the Warsaw Pact.

(For something even weirder than the Soviet design, check out the Chrysler TV-8, our answer to the same problem... for which we even considered a miniature fission reactor to power it!)

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2017, 12:21 AM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
(15-02-2017 08:45 AM)morondog Wrote:  
(15-02-2017 07:46 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Heidelberg has more than one bridge, So, nuking HD (with a tactical nuke) would actually be more efficient than blowing each bridge up.

I still don't get it. Save time and effort by nuking everything??? Are there seriously not enough explosives to take out a few more bridges? I mean if you know the Russians are coming you could rig the explosives beforehand anyway...

The Russians had MANY more tanks than we did. One of the keys to capturing bridges like that is to overrun forces that are falling back in the hopes of not being destroyed/captured, so the defenders delay blowing up the bridges with dynamite. Getting us to blow up the bridges with half our forces still on their side of the river is a victory for the attacker.

With the actions of Spetz commandos against C3I (communications/command) centers, disruption of traffic and information via heavy artillery barrages and the general panic of falling back before 6-to-1 odds, and the likelihood that the Soviet attack was launched before there was time to evacuate the civilians (who might even be on the bridge, trying to flee), there are many scenarios where the only way to stop the onslaught would be a nuke.

With only token forces posted in Europe, the key to victory would be delaying the Soviets until we could get our military across the Atlantic and deployed from the cargo ships they'd be transported on... assuming they survived the crossing in the face of Soviet submarine and air attack... and that the Sovs didn't just nuke our fleets as soon as they were spotted.

War = some fucked-up calculus.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-02-2017, 02:47 AM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
(18-02-2017 12:21 AM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  
(15-02-2017 08:45 AM)morondog Wrote:  I still don't get it. Save time and effort by nuking everything??? Are there seriously not enough explosives to take out a few more bridges? I mean if you know the Russians are coming you could rig the explosives beforehand anyway...

The Russians had MANY more tanks than we did. One of the keys to capturing bridges like that is to overrun forces that are falling back in the hopes of not being destroyed/captured, so the defenders delay blowing up the bridges with dynamite. Getting us to blow up the bridges with half our forces still on their side of the river is a victory for the attacker.

With the actions of Spetz commandos against C3I (communications/command) centers, disruption of traffic and information via heavy artillery barrages and the general panic of falling back before 6-to-1 odds, and the likelihood that the Soviet attack was launched before there was time to evacuate the civilians (who might even be on the bridge, trying to flee), there are many scenarios where the only way to stop the onslaught would be a nuke.

With only token forces posted in Europe, the key to victory would be delaying the Soviets until we could get our military across the Atlantic and deployed from the cargo ships they'd be transported on... assuming they survived the crossing in the face of Soviet submarine and air attack... and that the Sovs didn't just nuke our fleets as soon as they were spotted.

War = some fucked-up calculus.

See, IMO, and it's just me, once you've gone nuclear... aren't you more or less blowing yourself up to avoid the Soviets taking the trouble? I mean, if they're willing to commit to war that means they've accepted the casualties that will result. No one's gonna come out of that with any sort of victory Undecided

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes morondog's post
18-02-2017, 05:03 AM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
(18-02-2017 02:47 AM)morondog Wrote:  See, IMO, and it's just me, once you've gone nuclear... aren't you more or less blowing yourself up to avoid the Soviets taking the trouble? I mean, if they're willing to commit to war that means they've accepted the casualties that will result. No one's gonna come out of that with any sort of victory Undecided

You're 100% right.

But our leaders at the time didn't see it that way. Read a good book on USAF General Curtis LeMay, and the official doctrines we crafted from his assertions to US civilian leadership about "winnable nuclear exchanges" (paraphrase), if you ever want to spend a whole day with the hairs on your neck and arms standing straight up.

They really believed we could come out on top-- damaged (and glowing, figuratively speaking), but on top, in a nuclear exchange. And even our ground warfare plans were predicated upon that premise.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
24-02-2017, 07:52 PM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
(13-02-2017 09:32 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  While I agree that we spend more money on defense than we can afford the graphic in the OP is a good example of alternative facts.

The federal government spends about 20% more on healthcare than they do on defense. That doesn't include whatever the percentage of the 8% of the federal budget that goes towards healthcare for federal retires and veterans in the FEHB and Tricare programs.

According to the GAO, in 2016 Defense was about 17% of Federal budget spending. But spending on housing and education are also exaggerated on the original graph -- they're so small a part of the budget that they don't even show up in the GAO graph.

http://www.gao.gov/fiscal_outlook/federa...k/overview

Also, that 17% doesn't include the 5% of the budget spent on veterans benefits and services. You mention that (lumped in with retirees), but without the defense department there wouldn't be "veterans", so I'd consider that part of defense spending, which puts it up to 23%. Especially since "veteran's benefits" is one of the lures used to bring in enlistees.

Something else not included in that figure is the amount of foreign aid we dole out to allies which is diverted into their military budgets.
For example:

"Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel $127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in bilateral assistance. Almost all U.S. bilateral aid to Israel is in the form of military assistance"

https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL33222.html

This also should be considered part of our "defense spending", which ticks it up another percent or so.

Not all defense costs are obvious, or directly revealed in the basic defense department budget.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
28-02-2017, 07:52 PM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
(10-02-2017 05:44 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Perhaps if we minded our own fucking business we wouldn't have so many "mission expectations?"

Minding your own business comes with a price attached, namely, you would have to give up your Standard of Living and Life-Style. It's important that the US Dollar continue to be both the de facto international reserve currency and the de facto international currency of trade.

I don't believe too many Americans are willing to do that.

Even though your moniker is "Minimalist", I'm not so sure you'd be willing to subscribe to the type of minimalism that would be imposed upon you, if the US Dollar lost its status.

The enemy numbered six hundred - including women and children - and we abolished them utterly, leaving not even a baby alive to cry for its dead mother. This is incomparably the greatest victory that was ever achieved by the Christian soldiers of the United States. -- Mark Twain
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2017, 08:20 PM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
(28-02-2017 07:52 PM)Mircea Wrote:  
(10-02-2017 05:44 PM)Minimalist Wrote:  Perhaps if we minded our own fucking business we wouldn't have so many "mission expectations?"

Minding your own business comes with a price attached, namely, you would have to give up your Standard of Living and Life-Style. It's important that the US Dollar continue to be both the de facto international reserve currency and the de facto international currency of trade.

I don't believe too many Americans are willing to do that.

Even though your moniker is "Minimalist", I'm not so sure you'd be willing to subscribe to the type of minimalism that would be imposed upon you, if the US Dollar lost its status.

A Minimalist is a theological position on the evidence for the existence of Jesus, a position which asserts that there isn't enough evidence to demonstrate that Jesus was a real person, rather than a mythological construct or amalgamation of parts from real people that blended into a legend that became a religion.

On the other hand, I concur with you that most of America's military deployment stance and actions after WW2 have been to protect the empire we inherited from the Brits and the Dutch (who previously controlled most of the world's oil production), following their decline in the wake of that conflict. Going from the Pound Sterling to the Petrodollar was largely what propelled us to Superpower status, and we have done some pretty evil (anti-democratic) shit in the previous seven decades to maintain that status.

Most people are blissfully unaware of our actions because we have "manufactured consent", to borrow a phrase from Chomsky (who himself borrowed it from the American propaganda committee that coined it), in order to manipulate the world in our favor, as our Brit predecessors had been doing for a couple of centuries prior.

Unfortunately, in the past 3-4 decades, our oligarchs have become so powerful and so greedy that they have (in my opinion) damaged our ability to maintain the Petrodollar AND our superpower status, through failures to invest in (or disembowelment of) the necessary infrastructure, education, and worker protections programs that were instituted in the mid-20th century and which helped to propel us toward the prosperity we all see disappearing right before our eyes.

In both conservative and liberal circles, we see strong backlash against the establishment, because on some level we all know that it is they who are screwing us.

However, I cannot agree with you that things would go entirely to shit, here, if we lost our status gradually, as happened with the UK. Most of the European countries are doing pretty well without the need for global empire... largely because they invest in their people more than they invest in the system which supports only the very top of the socioeconomic pyramid, as the USA does. What will make America go entirely to shit would be the collapse of the dollar-- such as what may happen when all the Treasury Bonds we've been selling to finance our military adventurism are devalued and sold for pennies on the Yuan.

But... y'know... when China sends troops here to kick in our doors, put bags over our heads, and cart us off to their prison camps in the Spratley Islands, in order to "pacify the threat from American religious terrorists and install/support a proper government", I will help your guerrilla unit battle against them.

Welcome to TTA. Smile

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
28-02-2017, 08:27 PM
RE: Uh-Oh - You Can Bet Congress Will Shit Itself
P.S. - Since most of you conservative atheists arrive here thinking you're alone among liberals, allow me to assure you that we have many conservative atheists on this site... I just happen to be one of those irritating libtards who pop up like weed(s) around here. Big Grin

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: