Okay...Spwaw there are certain categories of battlefield rockets that serves as artillery support and so on...They give area denial characteristics and destroys units within that certain perimeter of destruction.When compared to battlefield/cruise missiles like the SCUD & FROG system, how the hell does it work...? Do they target a single target, or issit an area denial weapon also or issit used to destroy specific targets...
I know its not in the game or time period, i just gotta know how this system works...:rolleyes:
Dont fire me ok...hehehhe:D
General question on weaponry...
Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
-
Sturmbannfuhrer
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 8:35 pm
- Location: Größdeutschland
I think the guidance systems on those early types were extremely crude if they existed at all. I believe the carpet bombing concept was what they were trying to achieve. Pick an area and blast the h*ll out it till nothing moves.
Scud , Frog Cruise et.al. are pre targeted for a specific impact point, I believe, ... building, bridge, foreign leader's office complex, house etc. etc. .
At least that is what I think you were asking. Pardon my oops if I read it wrong.
Scud , Frog Cruise et.al. are pre targeted for a specific impact point, I believe, ... building, bridge, foreign leader's office complex, house etc. etc. .
At least that is what I think you were asking. Pardon my oops if I read it wrong.
Jim1954
KMC/T
Scud , Frog Cruise et.al. are pre targeted for a specific impact point, I believe, ... building, bridge, foreign leader's office complex, house etc. etc. .
I don't think the Scud was that accurate. It had the accuracy of the typical WW2 guided missile (eg V1, V2), and was probably designed to deliver tactical nukes (I think) or as a terrorist weapon (a la Iraq in the Gulf War).... or i guess you could try and use it as arty (bit on the expensive side, though...
Antarctic
"Quantity has a quality of its own"
-Stalin
-Stalin
-
Sturmbannfuhrer
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2002 8:35 pm
- Location: Größdeutschland
I don't think SCUD's can be MIRV'd (Or is it MLRV'd? I always saw it as MIRV)
That's the use of multiple (nuclear) warheads from a single ICBM, the missile goes up, apexes, the cone splits into all it's warheads, and each can target cities a good range appart by adjusting their fall back to earth over the long distance an ICBM drops when it comes down.
That's the use of multiple (nuclear) warheads from a single ICBM, the missile goes up, apexes, the cone splits into all it's warheads, and each can target cities a good range appart by adjusting their fall back to earth over the long distance an ICBM drops when it comes down.
If you can read this, you're at the end of my post.
SPWaW Record: W:0 / L:0 / D:0
SPWaW Record: W:0 / L:0 / D:0
It's MIRV.............
M(ultiple) I(ndependently targetted) R(eentry) V(ehicles).
Amongst the multiple warheads one can choose from an assortment of passive and active decoys as well as sophisticated Electronic Countermeasures Packages...........
MIRV's are COOL.
Martin
Amongst the multiple warheads one can choose from an assortment of passive and active decoys as well as sophisticated Electronic Countermeasures Packages...........
MIRV's are COOL.
Martin
Thank you.
MIRV's are heinous, and are the most destructive thing ever devised by man, when your house is gone because a Russian warhead, that was from a MIRV capable missile, and you survive the blast, but die of radiation poisoning, they won't be cool.
Nukes are bad, Mmmkay?
Besides, it puts the army out of a job to have nukes, let's stick to conventional warfare.
MIRV's are heinous, and are the most destructive thing ever devised by man, when your house is gone because a Russian warhead, that was from a MIRV capable missile, and you survive the blast, but die of radiation poisoning, they won't be cool.
Nukes are bad, Mmmkay?
Besides, it puts the army out of a job to have nukes, let's stick to conventional warfare.
If you can read this, you're at the end of my post.
SPWaW Record: W:0 / L:0 / D:0
SPWaW Record: W:0 / L:0 / D:0
Nukes aren't bad.............
American Nukes are the single thing that kept the U.S.S.R. from having their way with Europe, and Asia, if not the world.
Nukes served their function as a vital deterrent for quite some time keeping the Reds at bay.
Besides they won't be phased out until a new "politically correct" super weapon of mass destruction comes out.
What makes nuclear war so taboo and conventional war OK?
Many people still die, it just takes longer conventionally.
It's OK to fire bomb a city (Dresden, Tokyo, etc...ad nauseum) bot god forbid you use a TAC nuke.
It can be argued that nuclear weapons in the hands of the superpowers have kept things relatively stable for the last 60 years except for a few minor (in comparison to a World War) regional conflicts.
Besides my comment was in pure regard for the sophistication of MIRV technology.
Last time I checked this was a Wargamer's site, so I don't think my view is in any way offbase.
Martin
Nukes served their function as a vital deterrent for quite some time keeping the Reds at bay.
Besides they won't be phased out until a new "politically correct" super weapon of mass destruction comes out.
What makes nuclear war so taboo and conventional war OK?
Many people still die, it just takes longer conventionally.
It's OK to fire bomb a city (Dresden, Tokyo, etc...ad nauseum) bot god forbid you use a TAC nuke.
It can be argued that nuclear weapons in the hands of the superpowers have kept things relatively stable for the last 60 years except for a few minor (in comparison to a World War) regional conflicts.
Besides my comment was in pure regard for the sophistication of MIRV technology.
Last time I checked this was a Wargamer's site, so I don't think my view is in any way offbase.
Martin
A SCUD is a garbage can with a rocket motor at one end and a payload (small) at the other. Hitting anything with a SCUD is more a matter of luck than skill - this is a Nike-Ajax (-Hercules) man speaking.
Guidance for Katyushas and their equivalent? Sure, point it where you want it to go, elevate for what you think it will need. Press firing button. A redleg who knew his business could probably get an impact area within 100 meters of where he wanted, maybe a little closer but not much.
If he didn't know his trade .... you get a complete miss a la the rocket "barrage" that preceded the Normandy landings - all of the rockets missed, landing in the swampy and flooded areas behind the beach defenses. Made the troopies who were upchucking their breakfast in the landing craft feel better, maybe, but I doubt if it even scared the Germans.
Bing
Guidance for Katyushas and their equivalent? Sure, point it where you want it to go, elevate for what you think it will need. Press firing button. A redleg who knew his business could probably get an impact area within 100 meters of where he wanted, maybe a little closer but not much.
If he didn't know his trade .... you get a complete miss a la the rocket "barrage" that preceded the Normandy landings - all of the rockets missed, landing in the swampy and flooded areas behind the beach defenses. Made the troopies who were upchucking their breakfast in the landing craft feel better, maybe, but I doubt if it even scared the Germans.
Bing
"For Those That Fought For It, Freedom Has a Taste And A Meaning The Protected Will Never Know. " -
From the 101st Airborne Division Association Website
From the 101st Airborne Division Association Website
Re: Nukes aren't bad.............
Originally posted by gainiac
American Nukes are the single thing that kept the U.S.S.R. from having their way with Europe, and Asia, if not the world.
Nukes served their function as a vital deterrent for quite some time keeping the Reds at bay.
Besides they won't be phased out until a new "politically correct" super weapon of mass destruction comes out.
What makes nuclear war so taboo and conventional war OK?
Many people still die, it just takes longer conventionally.
It's OK to fire bomb a city (Dresden, Tokyo, etc...ad nauseum) bot god forbid you use a TAC nuke.
It can be argued that nuclear weapons in the hands of the superpowers have kept things relatively stable for the last 60 years except for a few minor (in comparison to a World War) regional conflicts.
Besides my comment was in pure regard for the sophistication of MIRV technology.
Last time I checked this was a Wargamer's site, so I don't think my view is in any way offbase.
Martin
You can't prove that the USSR didn't overrun the rest of Europe because of Nukes, there's not enough evidence to either prove or disprove that. Conventional Warfare may be bloody, cold, and horrible, but I don't think you grasp the numbers that we'd be talking about if you started a nuclear war. Tactical Nuclear Warheads still poison the land, Nukes can't be used in an invasion, it's suicide to nuke a beachhead, then have your troops walk onto the beach while it's still Day-Glo Green from the Radiation.
Fire-Bombings are actually less murderous than destructive, it's not an instantaneous explosion that vaporizes almost everything nearby. London was Fire-Bombed too, IIRC.
As to the comment that nukes had kept the world stable, what kept the world stable before the nukes? Before WWI, were there that many massive conflicts on that scale? Not quite, some big ones though. Was Korea a small battle or two? No, not really. Was Vietnam? No, again. The world isn't stable even today. Nukes are not a deterent, or a defense, they are a weapon. I don't see that this has anything to do with what kind of site this is, and I never claimed that your views were...
so I don't think my view is in any way offbase.
I was simply stating that Nuclear Weapons are not something that you call cool, they are an awe inspiring weapon of mass murder, as Nuclear Weapons have yet to be effectively used against solely military targets. Nuclear weapons also incur massive collateral damage, limiting their usage capabilities further.
I'm not a pacifist, I simply don't like the idea of nuking a city, killing millions of innocents, just to get a few targets inside the city. There's a PBS site that has the destruction radius for several modern kinds of Nuclear Warheads, I believe a 10 megaton Airburst, 10 Megaton Groundburst, and a 25 Megaton Airburst.
If I can find the site, I'll post it here, though I'm sure many here have seen it before.
If you can read this, you're at the end of my post.
SPWaW Record: W:0 / L:0 / D:0
SPWaW Record: W:0 / L:0 / D:0
I was trying to get allong
Then I woke up :p
OH yes, Bing...your description of a SCUD is perfect...
That and all this about Nukes is MHO, remember that. I just have different views than you, I'm not saying you're wrong, opinions aren't fact and can't be wrong. I'm just saying I believe Nukes never solved anything, except to cause more problems.
Then I woke up :p
OH yes, Bing...your description of a SCUD is perfect...
That and all this about Nukes is MHO, remember that. I just have different views than you, I'm not saying you're wrong, opinions aren't fact and can't be wrong. I'm just saying I believe Nukes never solved anything, except to cause more problems.
If you can read this, you're at the end of my post.
SPWaW Record: W:0 / L:0 / D:0
SPWaW Record: W:0 / L:0 / D:0
In regards to using the 'A' bomb against exclusive military targets.
Hiroshima was one of Japans largest naval bases in the home islands. The military and civilian population was warned by leaflets and radio that a new weapon was to be used and to evacuate. Naturally the sumarai mentality of the Japanese military told the population it was all STUFFING (lack of suitable word). The rest is history. This info came from the book "Hiroshima" an account of civilian and military personnel on that day.
Hiroshima was one of Japans largest naval bases in the home islands. The military and civilian population was warned by leaflets and radio that a new weapon was to be used and to evacuate. Naturally the sumarai mentality of the Japanese military told the population it was all STUFFING (lack of suitable word). The rest is history. This info came from the book "Hiroshima" an account of civilian and military personnel on that day.
"God Bless America and All the Young men and women who give their all to protect Her"....chief
I've read the said book, and yes, it was.
But if anyone up at the top honestly believed the Japanese would take it as anything but Propaganda, then they were a very stupid fool, especially as the book doesn't tell you that there were tons of Leaflets dropped all over both Germany and Japan and elsewhere to convince troops and civilians to surrender and not fight.
Sad to say it doesn't matter if they tried, telling someone you're going to shoot them 100 times then telling them you're going to do it one more time before shooting them doesn't give you the excuse of saying "I warned them" really.
But if anyone up at the top honestly believed the Japanese would take it as anything but Propaganda, then they were a very stupid fool, especially as the book doesn't tell you that there were tons of Leaflets dropped all over both Germany and Japan and elsewhere to convince troops and civilians to surrender and not fight.
Sad to say it doesn't matter if they tried, telling someone you're going to shoot them 100 times then telling them you're going to do it one more time before shooting them doesn't give you the excuse of saying "I warned them" really.If you can read this, you're at the end of my post.
SPWaW Record: W:0 / L:0 / D:0
SPWaW Record: W:0 / L:0 / D:0
errr, back to the original topic.....
the best rockets are the US 4.5 ", Brit Land Matress, SU Katyusha.
In general, if you fire from shortish range (~20 hex) you get roughly a 6 x 6 hex pattern, but this grows larger the further away you are from the target.
Generally, I am after supression in the target zone but you DO get alot of kills if the infantry is moving.
I use rockets to blunt an enemy offensive, or prepare an are for an offensive. If I get good coverage, I general just drive in and eat the enemy like popcorn.
Back to the side topic:
If nukes were so good, why havent they been used in 50 years? Nukes is a last resort, they make a big mess environmentally and politically. But think of the alternative....we all hate to lose.
the best rockets are the US 4.5 ", Brit Land Matress, SU Katyusha.
In general, if you fire from shortish range (~20 hex) you get roughly a 6 x 6 hex pattern, but this grows larger the further away you are from the target.
Generally, I am after supression in the target zone but you DO get alot of kills if the infantry is moving.
I use rockets to blunt an enemy offensive, or prepare an are for an offensive. If I get good coverage, I general just drive in and eat the enemy like popcorn.
Back to the side topic:
If nukes were so good, why havent they been used in 50 years? Nukes is a last resort, they make a big mess environmentally and politically. But think of the alternative....we all hate to lose.
The Nature of War
G_X,
"You can't prove that the USSR didn't overrun the rest of Europe because of Nukes, there's not enough evidence to either prove or disprove that."
Your right I can't prove this, but I'm willing to bet that the U.S.S.R. found Pershings to be quite an intimidating variable of the total equation. Conventionally Europe could not stand up to an invasion by the Soviets. Pershings ensured that a Soviet invasion would never succeed.
"Conventional Warfare may be bloody, cold, and horrible, but I don't think you grasp the numbers that we'd be talking about if you started a nuclear war."
I fully grasp the capabilites of nuclear weapons. I worked with various types of ordnance when I served my country.
"Tactical Nuclear Warheads still poison the land, Nukes can't be used in an invasion, it's suicide to nuke a beachhead, then have your troops walk onto the beach while it's still Day-Glo Green from the Radiation."
I agree with you here as well, none of the above are valid tactics in which to employ a Tac-nuke.
Tac-nukes are a last ditch resort when you absolutely positively have to stop an otherwise conventionally unstoppable assault.
Like something along the lines of what would have been the probable Soviet gambits employed if they invaded Europe.
"Fire-Bombings are actually less murderous than destructive, it's not an instantaneous explosion that vaporizes almost everything nearby."
Look up the casualty totals for Tokyo and Dresden due to "conventional" firebombing.
"The U.S. bombing strategy of 1942-44 against Japan was expanded in a big way in March 1945, beginning with the fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9 and 10, 1945. The area of Tokyo selected was four miles by three miles, a zone with a civilian population density of 103,000 per square mile. A high concentration of incendiary bombs dropped from the huge U.S. B-29 Superfortresses ignited a series of fires, fanned by brisk winds, which raged out of control within half an hour, the result of which was that more than 15 square miles of Tokyo was burned out. About 100,000 men, women and children were killed and another 100,000 people were made homeless. According to the U.S. Army Air Forces: "No other air attack of the war, either in Japan or Europe, was so destructive of life and property." (18) (19)"
Here's the link: http://www.ieer.org/comments/bombing.html
"It was now argued that one of the main objectives of night-time blanket bombing of urban areas was to undermine the morale of the civilian population and attacks were launched on Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden and other German cities. This air campaign killed an estimated 600,000 civilians and destroyed or seriously damaged some six million homes."
"On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 135,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 250,000. Whatever the figure, it was probably greater than the 51,509 British civilians killed by the Luftwaffe during the whole of the Second World War and the 70,000 immediate deaths at Hiroshima after the dropping of the first atom bomb on 6th August 1945."
The atom bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also examples of area bombing. It has been estimated that over the years around 250,000 people have died as a result of these two bombs being dropped.
Here's another: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWarea.htm
"London was Fire-Bombed too, IIRC."
The Jerries never had anything close to the awesome offensive capabilities of the USAAF.
"As to the comment that nukes had kept the world stable, what kept the world stable before the nukes? Before WWI, were there that many massive conflicts on that scale? Not quite, some big ones though."
The US kept the Soviets at bay. Nope I can't prove that. Tell me why did they engage us in an arms race?
"Was Korea a small battle or two? No, not really. Was Vietnam?"
Compare the casualty totals to WW2 and in relative terms Korea and Vietnam were minor conflicts.
"No, again. The world isn't stable even today."
I agree the world isn't stable today, but I still hold the position that if it wasn't for the United States of America's policy of Mutually Assured Destruction the Soviets would have acted in a much more aggressive manner during post WW2 history.
"Nukes are not a deterent, or a defense, they are a weapon."
Since when is being a deterrent, defense, and a weapon mutually exclusive?
For Example:
If I have a shotgun, and a LARGE german sheperd to protect my home from forcible entry is that not a deterent? I would think so due to external warning sign on my property, i.e. "Beware of Dog", "Beware of Owner", "NRA sticker on my car"......
Is it not a defense because if those warnings aren't heeded and my sovereignty is violated my dog will attack the home invader and I will shoot them to protect my family?
I think the method in which the dog and shotgun are used qualifies both as a weapon as well.
"I don't see that this has anything to do with what kind of site this is, and I never claimed that your views were...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so I don't think my view is in any way offbase.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I was simply stating that Nuclear Weapons are not something that you call cool, they are an awe inspiring weapon of mass murder, as Nuclear Weapons have yet to be effectively used against solely military targets. Nuclear weapons also incur massive collateral damage, limiting their usage capabilities further."
I find it morally hypocritical that on this very website it's been expressed that flame throwers are considered cool, quad 50's are considered cool, massive rocket bombardment's are considered cool....etc ad nauseum..........but a nuke isn't?
(Yes I know it's a game, but it's a game that abstracts one of the more unsavory qualities of reality.)
I"ll clarify that my statement (MIRV's are cool) was in regard to the pure technology involved. Appreciation for the ingenuity of the weapons platform. Not the human destructive implications.
Sorry for any confusion.
I pose this question;
At what body count is massive wholesale horrible murder of human beings no longer cool?
After all WAR IS MURDER. State sanctioned. After a complete and utter breakdown of diplomacy and civility.
Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing /'m&r-d(&-)ri[ng]/
Date: 13th century
transitive senses
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE <murders French> d : to defeat badly
intransitive senses : to commit murder
synonym see KILL
"I'm not a pacifist, I simply don't like the idea of nuking a city, killing millions of innocents, just to get a few targets inside the city."
I'm not pacifist either I'm a realist, and however much I don't like it there are times and places where violence on any scale is unavoidable.
I believe that certain situations can warrant nuking a city, historically speaking I find that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are justifiable. Horrible none the less, but justifiable.
I find that ideologies where it's acceptable to kill in one fashion and not another are born of ignorance and sadly paridoxical.
War is atrocity which manifests itself when the greed of a few holds sway over many and all hell breaks loose.
However If your going to wage war your stomach better be made of steel and you must be willing to employ whatever means are necessary in order to defeat your perceived enemies.
Armed Forces Kill. Leaders coordinate this killing.
Warfare is simply the brute strength uncivil will of one portion of society to hold sway over another.
Yours in friendly thought provoking debate,
(In other words............Sorry If I come on to strong.... )
Martin
"You can't prove that the USSR didn't overrun the rest of Europe because of Nukes, there's not enough evidence to either prove or disprove that."
Your right I can't prove this, but I'm willing to bet that the U.S.S.R. found Pershings to be quite an intimidating variable of the total equation. Conventionally Europe could not stand up to an invasion by the Soviets. Pershings ensured that a Soviet invasion would never succeed.
"Conventional Warfare may be bloody, cold, and horrible, but I don't think you grasp the numbers that we'd be talking about if you started a nuclear war."
I fully grasp the capabilites of nuclear weapons. I worked with various types of ordnance when I served my country.
"Tactical Nuclear Warheads still poison the land, Nukes can't be used in an invasion, it's suicide to nuke a beachhead, then have your troops walk onto the beach while it's still Day-Glo Green from the Radiation."
I agree with you here as well, none of the above are valid tactics in which to employ a Tac-nuke.
Tac-nukes are a last ditch resort when you absolutely positively have to stop an otherwise conventionally unstoppable assault.
Like something along the lines of what would have been the probable Soviet gambits employed if they invaded Europe.
"Fire-Bombings are actually less murderous than destructive, it's not an instantaneous explosion that vaporizes almost everything nearby."
Look up the casualty totals for Tokyo and Dresden due to "conventional" firebombing.
"The U.S. bombing strategy of 1942-44 against Japan was expanded in a big way in March 1945, beginning with the fire bombing of Tokyo on March 9 and 10, 1945. The area of Tokyo selected was four miles by three miles, a zone with a civilian population density of 103,000 per square mile. A high concentration of incendiary bombs dropped from the huge U.S. B-29 Superfortresses ignited a series of fires, fanned by brisk winds, which raged out of control within half an hour, the result of which was that more than 15 square miles of Tokyo was burned out. About 100,000 men, women and children were killed and another 100,000 people were made homeless. According to the U.S. Army Air Forces: "No other air attack of the war, either in Japan or Europe, was so destructive of life and property." (18) (19)"
Here's the link: http://www.ieer.org/comments/bombing.html
"It was now argued that one of the main objectives of night-time blanket bombing of urban areas was to undermine the morale of the civilian population and attacks were launched on Hamburg, Cologne, Dresden and other German cities. This air campaign killed an estimated 600,000 civilians and destroyed or seriously damaged some six million homes."
"On the 13th February 1945, 773 Avro Lancasters bombed Dresden. During the next two days the USAAF sent over 527 heavy bombers to follow up the RAF attack. Dresden was nearly totally destroyed. As a result of the firestorm it was afterwards impossible to count the number of victims. Recent research suggest that 135,000 were killed but some German sources have argued that it was over 250,000. Whatever the figure, it was probably greater than the 51,509 British civilians killed by the Luftwaffe during the whole of the Second World War and the 70,000 immediate deaths at Hiroshima after the dropping of the first atom bomb on 6th August 1945."
The atom bomb attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were also examples of area bombing. It has been estimated that over the years around 250,000 people have died as a result of these two bombs being dropped.
Here's another: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWarea.htm
"London was Fire-Bombed too, IIRC."
The Jerries never had anything close to the awesome offensive capabilities of the USAAF.
"As to the comment that nukes had kept the world stable, what kept the world stable before the nukes? Before WWI, were there that many massive conflicts on that scale? Not quite, some big ones though."
The US kept the Soviets at bay. Nope I can't prove that. Tell me why did they engage us in an arms race?
"Was Korea a small battle or two? No, not really. Was Vietnam?"
Compare the casualty totals to WW2 and in relative terms Korea and Vietnam were minor conflicts.
"No, again. The world isn't stable even today."
I agree the world isn't stable today, but I still hold the position that if it wasn't for the United States of America's policy of Mutually Assured Destruction the Soviets would have acted in a much more aggressive manner during post WW2 history.
"Nukes are not a deterent, or a defense, they are a weapon."
Since when is being a deterrent, defense, and a weapon mutually exclusive?
For Example:
If I have a shotgun, and a LARGE german sheperd to protect my home from forcible entry is that not a deterent? I would think so due to external warning sign on my property, i.e. "Beware of Dog", "Beware of Owner", "NRA sticker on my car"......
Is it not a defense because if those warnings aren't heeded and my sovereignty is violated my dog will attack the home invader and I will shoot them to protect my family?
I think the method in which the dog and shotgun are used qualifies both as a weapon as well.
"I don't see that this has anything to do with what kind of site this is, and I never claimed that your views were...
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
so I don't think my view is in any way offbase.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I was simply stating that Nuclear Weapons are not something that you call cool, they are an awe inspiring weapon of mass murder, as Nuclear Weapons have yet to be effectively used against solely military targets. Nuclear weapons also incur massive collateral damage, limiting their usage capabilities further."
I find it morally hypocritical that on this very website it's been expressed that flame throwers are considered cool, quad 50's are considered cool, massive rocket bombardment's are considered cool....etc ad nauseum..........but a nuke isn't?
(Yes I know it's a game, but it's a game that abstracts one of the more unsavory qualities of reality.)
I"ll clarify that my statement (MIRV's are cool) was in regard to the pure technology involved. Appreciation for the ingenuity of the weapons platform. Not the human destructive implications.
Sorry for any confusion.
I pose this question;
At what body count is massive wholesale horrible murder of human beings no longer cool?
After all WAR IS MURDER. State sanctioned. After a complete and utter breakdown of diplomacy and civility.
Main Entry: 2murder
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mur·dered; mur·der·ing /'m&r-d(&-)ri[ng]/
Date: 13th century
transitive senses
1 : to kill (a human being) unlawfully and with premeditated malice
2 : to slaughter wantonly : SLAY
3 a : to put an end to b : TEASE, TORMENT c : MUTILATE, MANGLE <murders French> d : to defeat badly
intransitive senses : to commit murder
synonym see KILL
"I'm not a pacifist, I simply don't like the idea of nuking a city, killing millions of innocents, just to get a few targets inside the city."
I'm not pacifist either I'm a realist, and however much I don't like it there are times and places where violence on any scale is unavoidable.
I believe that certain situations can warrant nuking a city, historically speaking I find that Hiroshima and Nagasaki are justifiable. Horrible none the less, but justifiable.
I find that ideologies where it's acceptable to kill in one fashion and not another are born of ignorance and sadly paridoxical.
War is atrocity which manifests itself when the greed of a few holds sway over many and all hell breaks loose.
However If your going to wage war your stomach better be made of steel and you must be willing to employ whatever means are necessary in order to defeat your perceived enemies.
Armed Forces Kill. Leaders coordinate this killing.
Warfare is simply the brute strength uncivil will of one portion of society to hold sway over another.
Yours in friendly thought provoking debate,
(In other words............Sorry If I come on to strong....
)Martin
Warriors need weapons, weapons need manufacturers, manufacturers need workers, workers are civilians, ergo civilian casualties are necessary to break the chain of war. Whenever we attack the source we win. When we play a political war (Korea, and VietNam) we come out on the short end of things. My two cents.
PS: Throw in another political boo boo "The Gulf War":(
PS: Throw in another political boo boo "The Gulf War":(
"God Bless America and All the Young men and women who give their all to protect Her"....chief