Search results

The links you gave to skyscraper city did not contain the quotes you were giving. Nor was a other source given.

You do know that: 1. Skyscraper city is for the concrete and steel fetishist. 2. Neither of your quotes are to be found in the links you provided, so neither of your quotes have a source.

Probable the same as CT and DT, they think it's a d*ck measuring contest. And because it's a democracy the politicians who pull it off get electional brownie points.

My post was a reply to ChineseTiger, who seems to believe that more is better. My logic is very simple: 1. In a MAD scenario there is nothing left after the MAD exchange. So why bother who is going to attack you after that. There is nothing left to attack but nuclear waste land, no population...

Oh yes please, let there some army forces remain. What are those army forces going to fight for and for whom? Those forces would probably turn out to be a meanace to those few surviving civilians. After a MAD nucleas exchange there is nothing left to fight for. That is what it is, Mutual Assured...

It is possible to destroy enough to render that what survives useless and leave the country in such a state land grab is not very attractive to other countries. Survival of some military units is worth nothing when all the support systems have gone and no population to fight for.. What will be...

MAD just assures that the parties in the conflict are destroyed. No need to destroy the rest of the world. Why would you care in what position the other countries are after a nuclear conflict. For the nations in a MAD conflict, there is no such thing as planning for what happens after the...

That does not matter. No country is willing to get wiped out while helping another. France is not going to help the US in a MAD scenario. Why should they? It's not likely those nukes are going to make a difference. In a MAD scenario only 2 countries are going down, others do not have to get...

Have to admit, it is a good tactic under these circumstances.

Sure they did. ---------- Post added at 10:39 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:38 PM ---------- And the Iranian military are the masters of the battlefield?

Not overspending is the hard part if you are in a quasi arms race.

Then India has a GDP of 2.02 trillion dollars? As far as I know Indian GDP over 2010 was 1.6 trillion dollars, making $15bln about 1%.

Nothing wrong with securing your borders, but I have no idea how long India's borders are and how much it costs to maintian them. $15 bln is roughly 1% of Indian GDP, so about 5%-10% of the government budget I think. That's a lot if it were annual costs, so that's why I asked. The PPP remark...

But does it matter if they can get the right performance out of it?

You do know that foreign weapons have to be paid in the full and you do not get those weapons at PPP? How much of that $15 bln is a one time expense and how much does it cost to maintain those borders?

Why should Israel give up all its advantages? The whole reason of Israel not winning against Hezbollah, is because the price of winning against Hezbollah is higher than Israel is willing to pay. You can not defeat millitia like Hezbollah on their territory without commiting attrocities beyond...

RIP to the miners. The number of cassualties in mining accidents pale to the number of cassualties in traffic accidents, and not only in China.

A few hundred nukes are more than enough as a deterrence. You don't need to kill every single individual to kill off a society. More nukes than that and you are only left with higher costs to maintain and secure them.

It's not about tonnage, but about spread. 1000 1 megaton bombs evenly spread do a lot more damage than 1 1000 megaton bomb. The biggest immidiate killers of a bomb (neutron bombs not included) are pressure and heat. Both are r^2 or r^3 (can't remember which one). So 70.000 nukes => 2200 km^2...

In an open battle field they get their *** kicked. But fighting in their own cities, willing to make the civilian sacrifices, yes they are great.