maybe you ignore the fact that we speak not about the evil japanese subhumans and two nukes (with leaking informations about how bad the bombs had been), but 50! bombs against china, mostly against dense populated centers, killing more about 100 million people... not evil nazis or japs but chinese, the guys the americans helped 10 years earlier, they even started trouble with japan because of china.
That is different.
i agree about conventional bombing (okay, the first moment american cities would be the target national outcry would be great - but gladly the russian nukes will silence this very fast), this was seen as crime AFTER korea... but nukes? nope.
The whole thing is out of the box.
Just remember, mad dog did it, without a real need
"saving 8th army" cannot justify genocide and holocaust. The things mac does is exactly this. America do a holocaust without a need!
this change everything outside and inside usa. inside the McCarthy-madness will run wild, nearly destroying democracy... outside the rest of the world really hate the usa (like the islamistic jihads hate the usa), but now we speak about nearly every nation in the world,. from uk to new zealand
i think you really do not know what kind of massmurder mcarthur planned, right?
I don't follow your reasoning.
Earlier you tried to say that in WWII, nobody in the Allies cared about the deaths of enemy civilians.
I recall that the general consensus as the B-29 campaign against Japan started was that the Americans should kill "about half" of the Japanese population (which would be approximately 17 million people). And Americans were mostly pretty OK with that. Why should this war be any different, especially when MacArthur was commonly regarded as a hero by the American people? And how would democracy collapse in America? That's the part that confuses me most.
So is aerial genocide something Americans don't care about, or is it something that will spark a violent revolution?
Hi, nope.
he ignored anything i wrote.
he ignore the consequences of a large scale nuclear war
No, I told you that since the Americans had few nukes and the Soviets fewer, that the Soviets had pathetic delivery systems for these nukes, since biological/chemical weapons were not likely to be used widely, and furthermore that radiation goes away over time, and lastly that political leaders would probably seek a quick cease-fire because it was in no-one's interest to keep fighting, nuclear war in the early 1950's would not be a mega-apocalypse.
he ignore my comments about this war, in political terms (as described, Mac bomb china with 20-50 bombs in 1950 - i think this will crush american society, cause the people will - under no circumstances - accept a regime that kill 100-200 million people, so the us of a will be handicaped in political things because internal problems will explode)
No, it won't crush American society, because the mass-bombings and nukings of WWII didn't, and neither did the massacres of Amerindians, nor the killings of Filipinos.
and in military consequences - cause the russians will try to beat this mad dog as fast as possible, with ALL weapons they have
Which they can't deliver
So we speak about an nbc-fullsize war in 1952, in this the us of a is weakend by internal problems,
Which won't happen
hated in the world - even its allies will turn away from this genozid nuclear holocaust monsters
And they won't, because they didn't do that in WWII and they have a strong military/economic alliance with the US
So a sneaky russian surprise attack
With Tu-4s?
including conventional, nuclear, biological and chemical weapons
That they can't deliver
Havoc that will not end the world
At last this is my thinking.
You should probably do a bit more of that.
he ignore anything about nuclear winter
I'll stop ignoring when you provide reputable scientific evidence.
For me - a full sized nuclear war is game over for everybody
This isn't full sized nuclear war. This is a few piston-engined bombers trying to lob crude nukes into defended enemy airspace.
... he belive in us-propaganda with "superman save the planet from destruction cause he had to"
Are you trying to say that I am pro-nuclear war? Cause I ain't.
he ignore the consequences of nuclear fall-out, esp. if a lot bombs will be dropped
A lot of bombs won't be dropped.
he ignore the 10.000-year pollution of radiation in dense areas...
Because the aftermath of Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki hasn't lasted that long.
More nuclear weapons would result in more
intense radiation, but it wouldn't last longer. Radiation only lasts a certain amount of time... there can be more, but it's not going to last longer just because it came from Tsar Bomba and not from Little Boy.
so, why should i try to talk to him?
Because when I first came to this website, I had stupid ideas and beliefs but experienced members argued with me and showed me how I was mistaken until I acquired a better understanding of various topics.
You can discuss certain things - for example discuss the numbers of nuclear weapons used in such full scale war in 1952... but to ignore nearly anything that has consequences to all humans is - at last for me - not usefull.
Moral ruminations aren't a good way to win an argument.
I have read here about an uk-survive nuclear war in 1983-wank
Cool, can you give me a link to it?
It lack anything that is realistic. Nobody can survive a large nuclear war. That is and was a propaganda lie of military madness.
Japan survived a nuclear war, and the devastation that was done to them by fire-bombing was much worse than what happened to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. And yet they have the third-largest economy of any nation on Earth, behind only the US (which raped Japan) and China (which got raped by Japan).
But if you correct mistakes i never did,
I didn't
just because you like to ignore anything i write -
What did I ignore?
You could discuss the possibilities of the us airforce to destroy russian production facilities... (they do not know a shit about them, cause they had no informations about - the "b36 destroy them"-story is nothing i belive in, cause this b36 are dead large things in the air if they try to fly without escorts
Good point. Any B-36, B-50, B-29 or Tu-4 carrying nuclear weapons would be shot down before getting to enemy soil. Thus, no nuclear exchange.
(same problem with the German have me262 in 1942-scenario, just even larger))
Me 262s would be faster than anything else in the skies... sorry but where's the correlation?
we also ignore the fact, that the russians in the early 50ties had a lot really good spies in nearly anything important the us of a had.
OK... so?
But i agree, maybe my numbers of bombs are to high for this period, so we can change the thing to 7-8 years of war.
Highly unlikely. The Soviets and Chinese will get nuked by heavy bomber raids with strong fighter escort, pretty soon they'll settle for a truce in which eastern Europe is opened up to democracy and North Korea is yielded to the Allies. Worldwide communism is hurt badly. Some NATO cities, maybe even in the continental US, will get nuked, but this will just strengthen American and western European resolve against communism.
Do not belive that the russians will not nuke the us of a, or install some nice biological weapons in it.
How are they going to do that again?
Let's try this a different way. This is a Tupolev Tu-4, the only Soviet bomber capable of hitting the US with a nuclear payload.
It can only reach the continental US on a one-way mission. It cruises at about 224mph, but were it to be confronted by an F-86 or De Havilland Venom jet fighter... no worry! It can make a shallow dive and hit 350mph without breaking a sweat. Maybe even 360mph, or a breakneck 380mph! That should give it a few minutes of life before the Mach 0.9 interceptors blow it out of the skies. Yeah, the Russians really do have a foolproof delivery system.
Maybe (we all do not know a lot about these things) this is enough to wipe out human mankind...
And maybe it's not. Oh, wait a minute--it's definitely not.
Just remember - i create a scenario - he (and you) do critizise em, but do also give no proof about it.
You are creating a scenario. I am criticizing it because you have given neither proof nor substantial evidence for it.
You belive in "the us of a will destroy russian facilities" and i belive in "the usa do not find em, their long range bombing end in shot down b36
Then the Russian bombing will end in shot-down Tu-4. The Americans will have an easier time hitting the Soviets than vice-versa because we have better bombers and our strategic position lets us put airbases closer to Soviet territory and lets American aircraft attack from routes that give the Soviets less warning than if they attack us.
Think about it this way: a Soviet bomber has to cross Canada or pass Western Europe or Japan to reach the lower '48 states. An American bomber has to go across northern Russia to hit Moscow, but that's not quite as far, and besides, Chinese targets will be close and vulnerable.
We both cannot give prove - cause the described situation never had happend (gladly)
We need numbers of nuclear weapons in 1951, 52... then we need informations about "how fast could both side produce em in a war" and also we need informations about the chance to destroy em....
We have the basic information to know how the scenario would involve.
I just developted a scenario, it may be faulty, but at last i described on. He just ignored the described scenario and critizised things i never said so.
I didn't ignore it, I pointed out how it was wrong.