Talking bollocks thread #3

GarryB wrote:

Here are a couple of links Garry.

With a neutron bomb the radiation is increased, but not as much as you might think... the explosion is dramatically reduced however.

I remember an infographic from the 1980s where they showed the radiation levels from different tactical nuclear devices and they had vehicles on the ground in the form of a big long column of tanks and APCs stretching several kms long. In the first image a 1KT bomb goes off and you see the radiation damage probably does as much killing as the blast. In the next image a 10KT bomb has a bigger blast radius but the radiation is only slightly bigger. In the next image a 100KT bomb has only a slightly bigger radiation radius than the much smaller bomb... it is not ten times bigger as you might think, but then the explosive blast might be ten times bigger but it doesn't have a blast radius ten times bigger.  A 5KT neutron bomb had the radiation radius of a 1MT bomb and less explosion and blast than the 1KT bomb and to increase its effect it can be set off up in the air where the blast probably wont even break windows but the radiation kills over a greater area again....

That is why they were banned because it was believed by both sides that they would be too tempting to use to exterminate the other side.

My point was that because they do not render the enemy's cities uninhabitable they are less useful in an all out nuclear war.

Though they would be very useful in eastern europe, just fire them from smerch batteries at ukraine and the baltics so that you have a very easy time re-assimilating you lost land.

My point was that because they do not render the enemy's cities uninhabitable they are less useful in an all out nuclear war.

Actually they would be the best way to wipe out a population... very few bunkers built for WWIII are lined with inches of lead shielding to protect the occupants so where a nuclear weapon would need to be enormous to kill everyone in a city and hardened shelters... neutron bombs could do it much more efficiently and it is not the same as an EMP pulse so you could fly a formation of cruise missiles over a city and have then explode in a pattern to get the best coverage.

Deep down in a bunker you wont even know you are dead, though any radiation meters will scream.

Though they would be very useful in eastern europe, just fire them from smerch batteries at ukraine and the baltics so that you have a very easy time re-assimilating you lost land.

Naaaa... just wall it up and let nature take over... every 50 years or so launch another volley to clear out any potential threats...

GarryB wrote:

My point was that because they do not render the enemy's cities uninhabitable they are less useful in an all out nuclear war.

Actually they would be the best way to wipe out a population... very few bunkers built for WWIII are lined with inches of lead shielding to protect the occupants so where a nuclear weapon would need to be enormous to kill everyone in a city and hardened shelters... neutron bombs could do it much more efficiently and it is not the same as an EMP pulse so you could fly a formation of cruise missiles over a city and have then explode in a pattern to get the best coverage.

Deep down in a bunker you wont even know you are dead, though any radiation meters will scream.

My point was that you want to contaminate the enemy's cities and factories so that they cannot recover.

Cities are not the only populated areas on the planet and even with cities many people live far enough away from the centre that not even an RDS-220 dropped on their city would kill them.

In a nuclear war you want to ensure the annihilation of the enemy, to do this you want to make sure that they cannot recover and as such contaminating all of thier industry and infrastructure goes al ong way.
After a while you would then send you army to make sure that there are no survivors.

Sadly the real cause of their fall was greed rather than ignorance, they have as many smart engineers as anyone else has, but as is often the case when you are selling an idea and don't have to prove anything it comes down to lying.

There is a card game called bullshit. It is a bit like Bridge where you bid for the game and then try to match what you bid... the problem is that in defence contracts there are no consequences when you lie with your bid... it is like professional sports... when someone is caught taking drugs to cheat they claim it is because everyone else is using them and they wanted to win. If you don't catch the cheats effectively honest rule abiding players can no longer compete and either start cheating or accept that they will lose every time.

With defence contracts if you don't make fantastic promises you wont get the contract, and if you don't get contracts you go out of business, so you start to make claims and deal with those problems when you have the contract... maybe try to hire a company that was competing with you for the contract that also promised the same things... except they might not be able to do it either...

You don't get sales for fair prices the customer needs to think they are getting a good deal...

GarryB wrote:they have as many smart engineers as anyone else has

What on earth gives you that idea? They have a bunch of local grown morons who have gone through ther ultra dumbed down education system and a bunch of random scumbags so loyal and devotes that they left thier country because the pindos pay more.

They might have had some decent engineers back in the previous century but now I doubt thay have a single one.

Dude.

It is called a bell curve because it looks like a bell.

The bulk in the middle are normal you and me type people (everyone thinks they are of normal intelligence except for arrogant pricks who think they are smarter than most people... but everyone does stupid things all the time and occasionally smart things too).

The fact of the matter is that on each side of the bell curve there are dumb people and there are smart people in every population.

If you take the bell curve of intelligence for every country on the planet there is not that much variation the centres of the bell curves would not be that far apart and either way the vast majority of people are close enough that it doesn't really matter much anyway.

Sometimes you get real outliers who are way above anybody else but they are rare.

The point is that if you are actually measuring intelligence rather than general knowledge then there are tribes in Papua New Gunea where there are people just as smart as the smartest white guy.

There are plenty of people going to Oxford or Cambridge who would die in the wild because they couldn't look after themselves... people who couldn't wire a plug themselves and have to post it home to mummy and daddy to do it.

Funny thing is that most westerners think the west is the pinnacle of civilisation and that Russia wouldn't be able to build a bridge to the Crimea... and it would take 20 years and go 1000 times over budget and it will fall down in 5 years time anyway... and do you know the really funny thing... is that despite having a bigoted and ignorant view of Russia they would probably be right if they were talking about local projects in Europe that do screw up and do go way over budget and the resulting product is rubbish and the reason they are so sour about Russia is because they seem to be getting stuff done... stuff they don't seem to be able to do any more themselves.

So Garry are you trying to claim that the whole planet has got immeasurably dumber or that the west is not comprised of morons?
For the former you might be able to make a case but to claim the latter would be moronic.

In the past most people across the planet had something called common sense, if you are goin to claim that the modern west is not completely retarded you might want to explain what happened to it.

We have to remember that we are dealing with people that deal with problems by pretending that they do not exist.
Outmatched by Russian missiles? Just revive some 1970's museum pices and claim them to be superweapons!
That is the level of 'intelligence' we are dealing with.

So Garry are you trying to claim that the whole planet has got immeasurably dumber or that the west is not comprised of morons?

Are you confusing intelligence with knowledge? 500 years ago a lot of what people thought about the world was wrong... does that make them stupid?

80 percent of Americans think Elvis is actually still alive, but does that make them stupid or wrong or perhaps they just misunderstood the question... surely if radio stations continue to play his music then in a way he does live on.

For the former you might be able to make a case but to claim the latter would be moronic.

Intelligence is not what you know. It is how well you work things out for yourself, it is making the right choice first... you don't need to stick your hand into the fire to understand pain... the clear feeling of increased heat as your hand gets closer is sufficient to stop you actually plunging your hand into the flame.

Intelligence is not limited to humans... I only had to pick up my sisters cat and push him back inside through an open window he kept climbing out of but did not seem to realise he could get back in through and would meow at the door till he was let in. Once he understood he could get in and out he was fine.

In the past most people across the planet had something called common sense, if you are goin to claim that the modern west is not completely retarded you might want to explain what happened to it.

Common sense is not innate within a person protecting them from stupid things. Common sense is just a generally held belief that everyone assumes is true and never tests for themselves.

For a while even though politicians were not trusted the media was because the media always seemed to be anti politicians and previously would not agree with them or take what they say at face value without checking. Now they just copy and paste without even thinking... for instance it was common sense that Putin poisoned the Skripals because only Russia has that sort of poison and that a dead ex Russian spy is in their interests. Sounds like common sense till you examine it... if they wanted him dead they had years to kill him when he was in prison. They could have killed him instead of swapping him for someone else. And of course the fact that HATO all have manufactured their own brew of the poison in question in fact it is likely the only country that doesn't have lots of samples is Russia because it was a soviet design and now is centred in Kazakhstan or somewhere that is not Russia. Now it makes little sense at all... making the British government and british media and western media and western governments who all believed it look rather silly. No apology of course. No embarassment. No rolling back all the arbitrary punishments inflicted on Russia for this made up bullshit.

We have to remember that we are dealing with people that deal with problems by pretending that they do not exist.
Outmatched by Russian missiles? Just revive some 1970's museum pices and claim them to be superweapons!
That is the level of 'intelligence' we are dealing with.

Indeed... very stupid.... but at the end of the day Russia having some hypersonic missiles and some super nuclear weapons that definitely will make it through to their targets... we still end up with the status quo... both sides are able to inflict damage the other side is able to survive taking and there is nothing either side can do to stop the other inflicting that damage except to not try yourself.

MAD... mutually assured destruction works even though by definition it works.

Do you presume that I do not understand the meaning of the word intelligence?

Intelligence is the ability to reason, to comprehend, the ability to work things out without any prior knowledge of them.
We now get to our point reason, comprehend and work out mellenials do not!

They sit there all day polluting my planet with thier stupidity while making as much of nusense of them selves as is physically possible, there is not an intelligent thought in thier empty heads only a bunch of moronic programming installed by various media.



There ofcourse are still people who have most of thier mental faculties intact however they are few and far between these days.... atleast in the english speaking world that is.

For every idiot out protesting and robbing stores by looting there are plenty of law abiding quite sensible people keeping society going...

This is miles off topic so I am going to shift it to the talking bollocks thread where it belongs.

dino00 wrote:This will be moved to other place of the forum but I can't let this go away, Sujoy you are wrong CIA don't have any problem with Christians or Protestant, they coups are exclusively against left government, allies of Russia, allies of Iran, or countries that Israel or the Big corporations can't exploit, some countries are all this.
Sorry for the and the work for the Moderator.

The population of Protestants is increasing day in, day out across South America. It has been very well documented, for example in this book

Is Latin America Turning Protestant?: The Politics of Evangelical Growth

https://www.amazon.com/Latin-America-Turning-Protestant-Evangelical-ebook/dp/B004E0Z43K

Apart from that, according to prominent Catholic blogger Jorge Rondón in his essay: La Expansión del Protestantismo Fue Parte del Plan de Guerra de la CIA para América del Sur (The Expansion of Protestantism Was Part of CIA War Plan for South America), US President Richard Nixon encouraged the introduction of Protestant missions after a 1969 memorandum received by then Vice President Nelson Rockefeller which stated: "the Catholic church has ceased to be an ally in whom the U.S. can have confidence


https://web.archive.org/web/20180828134247/https://medium.com/@juliosevero/the-religious-war-between-cia-and-kgb-in-latin-america-50d7ade40b95

Previously the CIA used the Vatican. But for the last 10-15 years they have spend billions of $$ to promote the growth of Protestantism across South America by infiltrating the government of those countries as well as their civil society.

Sujoy wrote:

dino00 wrote:This will be moved to other place of the forum but I can't let this go away, Sujoy you are wrong CIA don't have any problem with Christians or Protestant, they coups are exclusively against left government, allies of Russia, allies of Iran, or countries that Israel or the Big corporations can't exploit, some countries are all this.
Sorry for the  and the work for the Moderator.

The population of Protestants is increasing day in, day out across South America. It has been very well documented, for example in this book

Is Latin America Turning Protestant?: The Politics of Evangelical Growth

https://www.amazon.com/Latin-America-Turning-Protestant-Evangelical-ebook/dp/B004E0Z43K

Apart from that, according to prominent Catholic blogger Jorge Rondón in his essay: La Expansión del Protestantismo Fue Parte del Plan de Guerra de la CIA para América del Sur (The Expansion of Protestantism Was Part of CIA War Plan for South America), US President Richard Nixon encouraged the introduction of Protestant missions after a 1969 memorandum received by then Vice President Nelson Rockefeller which stated: "the Catholic church has ceased to be an ally in whom the U.S. can have confidence


https://web.archive.org/web/20180828134247/https://medium.com/@juliosevero/the-religious-war-between-cia-and-kgb-in-latin-america-50d7ade40b95

Previously the CIA used the Vatican. But for the last 10-15 years they have spend billions of $$ to promote the growth of Protestantism across South America by infiltrating the government of those countries as well as their civil society.

I am an agnostic atheist and I hope all the religions loose their malignant power.

Saying that, it's true that in Brazil the Evangelic Church has a tremendous power, including in politics were they have a political block that votes according to the Bible.
And to be honest I don't know exactly what the Protestant are for, and the difference from others religions.

I just hope for the best of all Humanity we can one day live without religion, or at least that people don't put they invisible friend in the middle of people's rights and lives.
Sujoy don't take it bad, but I think that your President is taking India to a very bad path, and challenging China it's not a good idea.

It's your country and I don't know much about the difficult situation regarding border status, but I am seeing India's democracy strength shrinking...and more and more people taking the side of China and Pakistan, and revaluating who supports terrorism and who doesn't...I included.

dino00 wrote:Sujoy don't take it bad, but I think that your President is taking India to a very bad path, and challenging China it's not a good idea.

I certainly don't mind. I suspect you are referring to India's Prime Minister. If you have some time, you can check some of my recent posts where I've categorically mentioned that our PM has been created by US, Saudi Arabia and Israel. So he is basically following their instructions.

However, as far as China is concerned it is China not India which has adopted a very aggressive posture. China has entered Indian territory by force. They are carrying out such antics across Asia.

dino00 wrote:It's your country and I don't know much about the difficult situation regarding border status, but I am seeing India's democracy strength shrinking...and more and more people taking the side of China and Pakistan, and revaluating who supports terrorism and who doesn't...I included.

Pakistan says it exists only to destroy India and establish a Sunni Islamic nation. Pakistan continues to promote Islamic terrorism in several countries. It doesn't want good relations with India.

I'm not sure which people you are referring to when you say "more and more people taking the side of China and Pakistan". Will you please elaborate?

On the contrary Anglo-Saxon states that generally hates us are all siding with India against China. Similarly, China's military aggression in South China sea is bringing ASEAN and Japan much closer to India.

Yes it was PM Modi, the president I never heard of.
About the disputes about territories I am sure it's a very complicated matter, with various sides saying their interpretation is the correct one.
I found strange that 2 Nuclear powers are risking a war because some desolated place. Big Egos I guess.
I don't follow India/Pakistan/China politics close but from what I read in recent times the new Pakistan Prime Minister ( I was to write President, but a quick Google search helped )
Looks to be a completely different politic compared to his predecessors, but Pakistan is a very complicated case...

Online I am seeing more and more people that previously had a good view of India and a bad of Pakistan completely reverse their judgement. The prime minister I say, it's like they have their politicians exchanged .

China is a military super power with empire hunger, with all respect India can't win a limited conventional war against China, and wouldn't survive a nuclear one.
I sincerely hope the Indian politics do their best to wedge war against poverty, not try military adventurism.

I tried to be the most honest but respectfully I could, this isn't my country, my knowledge is scarce about the matter and it's a serious situation.

dino00 wrote:
Online I am seeing more and more people that previously had a good view of India and a bad of Pakistan completely reverse their judgement.

dino00, I'm sorry, you need to share some more information about who these people are. Which country are they from? For all that we know, they could well be part of the Chinese and Pakistani internet troll army.

Can't these people see how China is bullying Vietnam, Phillipines, Indonesia and Malaysia almost every single day by trying to lay claim to their territories?

dino00 wrote:China is a military super power with empire hunger, with all respect India can't win a limited conventional war against China, and wouldn't survive a nuclear one.
I sincerely hope the Indian politics do their best to wedge war against poverty, not try military adventurism.

To be sure, Indian politicians do NOT have the appetite for military adventurism. They do not intend to invade China. But China has a long history of invading other countries.

1950 - Tibet

1962- India

1969 - Soviet Union

1979 - Vietnam

If war is thrust upon you by the Chinese what other options do you have except for fighting back? China was a nuclear power in 1969 and 1979. Did that prevent the Soviet Union or Vietnam from fighting back? No. Why? Because they had no other option but to fight China.

Had they not fought back, today Vietnam and Siberia would both have been a part of China and Russians and Vietnamese would have been rotting in Chinese gulags.

About the internet thing that it's not that important... same people that had an opinion on India and Pakistan behavior, with the Modi nationalism, and the surprising peaceful behavior of the Pakistan Prime Minister in the fight they had some time ago, changed their opinion, but this is anecdotal, n terms of the 2 countries behaviors Pakistan was the mature one, I am not talking about who "won" militarily.

About the border disputes I don't know. India should deescalate, Russia would happily intermediate, if it isn't already.
China wouldn't take anything from Soviet Union. Zero.

China is a military super power

No it's not. They need Russian help for any state of the art stuff they produce, the best hardwares they operate are bought in Russua and their soldier have no experience.

They also have no real allies.

Russia would happily intermediate, if it isn't already.

Nope. They are already trying to hurry up the contracts for 21 mig-29 and 12 su30mki. They also agreed to speed up delivry of S-400.

dino00 wrote:About the internet thing that it's not that important... same people that had an opinion on India and Pakistan behavior, with the Modi nationalism, and the surprising peaceful behavior of the Pakistan Prime Minister in the fight they had some time ago,  changed their opinion, but this is anecdotal, n terms of the 2 countries behaviors Pakistan was the mature one, I am not talking about who "won" militarily.

About the border disputes I don't know. India should deescalate, Russia would happily intermediate, if it isn't already.
China wouldn't take anything from Soviet Union. Zero.

"Thank FM Sergei Lavrov for convening the Russia-India-China (RIC) Meeting of Foreign Ministers today. A productive exchange of views on the global order, multilateralism, multipolarity and convergences." - External Affairs Minister of India, Dr. S. Jaishankar

https://twitter.com/DrSJaishankar/status/1275455565808848897

Isos: Respectfully I couldn't disagree more with your post even if I tried

Did Russia helped with the DF-41, DF-21,DF-26, DF-17, what about the aircraft carriers, destroyers, supersonic long range cruise missiles, UAV that in many cases are way ahead of Russian ones, the supersonic drone?etc...

Which countries do you characterize as an military super power?

About the Russia role on this, Russia can intermediate between the two and still sell weapons to both ahead of time and still don't antagonize neither, as you can see in the magnumcromagnon post



Fun fact: India and Portugal had a 2 day war in 1961 we totally won!!!  joking. People died for nothing. We were a fascist dictatorship, glad we lost, Goa should be Indian obviously.

Their BM are at the level of soviets in the 70s-80s... they have nothing comparable to modern russian ones.

Their carriers are a copy of soviet design. Until the CATOBAR which will be a total failure. Their j-15 is a copy of su-33 thanks to Ukraine who sold them some su-33.

Their supersonic missiles are total copies of russian kh31 and oniks. They have nothing that comes close to kh-22/32 and no supersonic bombers.

Their UAV suck. All the countries that bought some are trying to sell them back. For that matter I would take Iranian stuff over theirs.

The quality of their stuff is low. Exemple of tank biathlon when their tanks fall apart.

Their army is untrained and is mostly used to keep an eye on the people in case they try a revolution.


Depend what you call a military superpower. For that matter, considering countries geostrategies, only Russia is a military superpower. Only because they have no expension will. USA try to dominate the world but without all the "allies" they have, they wouldn't be able to do so. China is no better and struggle in taking some islands, let alone taking countries or dominating the world.

Russia isn't pushing them at war. But they talked about the weapon with India first and then talked about meetings to calm things down.

I understand a big share of your points, and was expecting some of them.

Their BM are at the level of soviets in the 70s wrote:

You can't believe in what you wrote above, if you are being serious you just can't.

I agree that Russia is ahead in the most important related military systems, let's hope it keeps that way.

You can't believe in what you wrote above, if you are being serious you just can't.

That's the case. For exemple russian Iskander which is better than any chinese equivalent is just the update of soviet Oka missile which was banned under INF treaty because it was so good it affraid americans. That's 80s technology and is still better than chinese stuff.

The natural follow up missile for russians are hypersonic missiles and they introducing them. Chinese have nothing like that and are producing those DF which are at the level of soviet stuff. Russians are introducing the kinzhal which is launched by a quite old interceptor that the chinese would love to get an assembly line for.

Edit: I just looked for another exemple and try to compare their JL2 whuch was was introduced in 2005 and soviet R-29RM which was in use since 1986. Same caracteristics and even better for the soviet missile but 20 years between the two. The R-29RM was improved since then and is even better.

Isos wrote:

You can't believe in what you wrote above, if you are being serious you just can't.

That's the case. For exemple russian Iskander which is better than any chinese equivalent is just the update of soviet Oka missile which was banned under INF treaty because it was so good it affraid americans. That's 80s technology and is still better than chinese stuff.

The natural follow up missile for russians are hypersonic missiles and they introducing them. Chinese have nothing like that and are producing those DF which are at the level of soviet stuff. Russians are introducing the kinzhal which is launched by a quite old interceptor that the chinese would love to get an assembly line for.

I quote on purpose only the 70's part
DF-17 is a serious threat.

China will be the number 2 military super power in the 30's, if not in quantity at least in quality.

I edited my post. The soviet missiles used in the 80s were developed in the 70s.

China will be the number 2 military super power in the 30's, if not in quantity at least in quality.

We are already in 2021. How would they lead in quality in 2030s ? They will use the stuff they are producing today and it sucks. They better keep the quantity on their side...