Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

world war 3

POST REPLY
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 06 Feb 2005, 09:47
Comrade Russell wrote:
Exalt, do you know how much destruction ONE MEGATON mirv does?
It will wipe out entire city. So, entire american insfracture would be wiped out just by SS-18 "Satan"s.

Why would you shoot city with one megaton bomb? I would pack 3x300kt, it deals much more damage.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 06 Feb 2005, 09:55
City Killering, theres no point designing a missile with 3x300 kiloton warheads, when you could do it with one large warhead. Such as the 20-25 megaton SS-18 Mod 6, designed to destory massive industrial or even urban areas.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1019
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Dec 2004, 21:30
Party Member
Post 06 Feb 2005, 10:05
Nikita*- wrote:
City Killering, theres no point designing a missile with 3x300 kiloton warheads, when you could do it with one large warhead. Such as the 20-25 megaton SS-18 Mod 6, designed to destory massive industrial or even urban areas.

3x300 kt destroys larger area than 1 Mt and 20x1Mt destroys more than 1x20Mt.

If you want to destroy as much as possible, don't use huge warheads but many smaller and divide them evenly at target area.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 2820
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Feb 2005, 02:51
Party Bureaucrat
Post 16 Feb 2005, 03:38
Quote:
3x300 kt destroys larger area than 1 Mt and 20x1Mt destroys more than 1x20Mt.

If you want to destroy as much as possible, don't use huge warheads but many smaller and divide them evenly at target area.


that's for soft target, for hard targets like installations in the Cheyenne mountains, single massive war heads would be necessary
Soviet cogitations: 4
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Apr 2005, 05:47
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 07 Apr 2005, 06:17
Nikita*K wrote:
Before we get any futher into this; how and why do you think the Soviet Union collapsed?


I think the Afghanistan war was the main key factor to collapse.
It was unthinkable the breakdown in 1979...
Because of this war, the Red Army became weak. The people started to think they were not invencible, and they did not agree to the idea of violating other nations sovereign ...
These collapse opened the door to Catholics pressure to liberalize the eastern europe countries. Pope John Paul II had a trascendental role about this.
Finally the rest of the world saw the collapse as a capitalistic victory ... but this is false ... it was a religious and god`s victory over atheism and USSR materialistic culture ....

Now, the same battle is playing role ... the US materialistic culture will suffer the same punishment as the USSR ...

... it is a question of time ....

USSR ocuppied Afghanistan in 1979 ... and in 1989 they retired and the Berlin Wall breakdown they definitely collapsed...
USA will collapse definetely in 2011 ...(ten years from september eleven 2001)
Soviet cogitations: 1791
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 11 Dec 2004, 11:58
Party Member
Post 07 Apr 2005, 07:09
The Afhani conflict is totally extraneous to the collapse of the CCCP.

The USSR did not become 'weak', either.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 4
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Apr 2005, 05:47
New Comrade (Say hi & be nice to me!)
Post 07 Apr 2005, 08:01
Nikita*K wrote:
The Afhani conflict is totally extraneous to the collapse of the CCCP.

The USSR did not become 'weak', either.


Are you from Russia?

maybe it is strange for you...
Soviet media never told the truth about the Afghanistan conflict...
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1911
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Jun 2003, 23:38
Old Bolshevik
Post 07 Apr 2005, 08:04
Quote:
Are you from Russia?

maybe it is strange for you...
Soviet media never told the truth about the Afghanistan conflict...


1. You dont need to be from Russia to understand his point.
2. i'll skip that one,
3. If so, neither did western media.
Soviet cogitations: 12
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Oct 2005, 22:14
Unperson
Post 31 Oct 2005, 15:33
cant wait for that wasr 2 happend, it would be the destruction of the states and i will make sure am part of that.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 43
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 16 Jun 2005, 22:34
Pioneer
Post 31 Oct 2005, 23:57
this is a communist forum, the soviet union always wins


[sptNz *edit*: False! It would be pointless to discuss then.

- well it sure seems that way to me
Soviet cogitations: 2775
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 27 Sep 2004, 23:23
Party Bureaucrat
Post 02 Nov 2005, 00:13
Quote:
3x300 kt destroys larger area than 1 Mt and 20x1Mt destroys more than 1x20Mt.


one magaton detonations have a much larger psychological impact.

NY plan would be to target a citty with multipe warhead. 1 megaton-rnage bomb in the area of highest population concentration, and several smaller kiloton-range bombs with overlapping blast radii on the surrpounding city.

Also, smaller weaons (cruise missiles) on key power distribution canters (in the USA a few years ago, one power station malfunction knocked out power to the whole east coast!). Finally, Naplam Fire-bomb cruise missiles on forests, chemical cruise m,issiles on water resivoirs, and biological cuise missiles on cities after the nukes go off, to ensure the death of survivors. Total annhialation.
Whoppee for Comrade Sergei.
KoT
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 20
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 18 Nov 2005, 03:27
Pioneer
Post 30 Nov 2005, 05:04
Lets make a kind of a comparisson of war to every day events. The "usual war" is gonna be something more like a street fight. However, if Russia and America would go to war it would be something more like two guys locked in a small kitchen armed with hand grenades. What am I talking about? Mhm, nuclear warfare...
Playa Playa
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 282
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Oct 2006, 21:52
Komsomol
Post 15 Oct 2006, 00:45
what counts in a war is the power of nubers. It has always been so, It is so nowadays and it won't change.
those who have the most people on their side will win.
and I think in a world war 3 no one will launch a single nuke. because everyone knows what follows the first nuke.
but every leader thinks that starting a war could cause the launching of enemy nukes...
lets bring it to a point: there will never be a world war III
Image
Soviet cogitations: 467
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Aug 2006, 01:10
Unperson
Post 15 Oct 2006, 03:49
Numbers? Your correct, it is about numbers. But your wrong (in my opinion) about the number of soldiers.

The only numbers that matter are:
1. Do you have more nukes than the other party?
2. Is your party large enough to be able to sustain more nuke hits than your enemy. Can you bleed your enemy white before he can do the same to you?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 282
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Oct 2006, 21:52
Komsomol
Post 16 Oct 2006, 17:32
hmm... you're right i guess..
Image
Soviet cogitations: 22
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 04 Oct 2012, 06:32
Pioneer
Post 27 May 2013, 19:35
If a hot war ever took place between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, Warsaw Pact forces would have steamrolled NATO at pretty much any time during the Cold War. Overall, I think Soviet weapons were slightly more technologically advanced or were better suited for their strategies compared to their Western counterparts. I live in the U.S., and I watch a lot of the military, history, and discovery channels. The media makes it look like Western equipment is superior to Soviet equipment, but the U.S. has only faced 3rd world countries with outdated or monkey model equipment. The Soviet Union had equivelant military technology to the West, but in far greater numbers. Western Europe wouldn't be able to hold Warsaw Pact forces back so they would resort to nuclear weapons. In a non-nuclear war, the Soviet Union overruns Western Europe in a month or two. In a nuclear war, the Soviet Union would overrun Western Europe in a couple of weeks, but casualties would be far greater. In a conventional war, NATO has no chance. NATO does have a chance if they are the first to use nuclear weapons, but if the Soviets actually wanted to invade Western Europe, they probably would have used nuclear weapons because they thought NATO would. The Soviet Union was also more prepared for a nuclear war, I think. Nuclear weapons are nowhere near as destructive as most people think. It would take about 3% of the Soviet nuclear arsenal just to destroy a city the size of Washington D.C. Most nuclear weapons wouldn't be targetted at civillian centers but at military targets, so casualties wouldn't be as high. NATO had a horrible defense strategy called "Forward Defense". This is basicly the opposite of "Defense in Depth" that was proven to work in WW2 to stop an equivelant or superior enemy force.
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.