- 20 May 2014 04:35
#14409153
What you've just written has nothing to do with what Tailz, myself, and others were discussing.
Tailz was making a point how the act of destruction of a city by a multitude of bombs or a single powerful bomb has no physical difference. While I still agree that this is an obvious fact, that a city destroyed by a rain of bombs is as destroyed as a city destroyed by a massive solitary bomb, I responded to him by mentioning the effects of nuclear contamination which makes a great difference:
We weren't discussing unexploded munitions or how many bombs or torpedoes fired by ships (what the hell are you even talking about? Did you even read the thread title or notice what we were talking about?) exploded on contact or how many failed to detonate, nor is it relevant. You decided to wait 3 weeks after Tailz and I exchanged posts in order to try to deliberately throw a thread off-topic?
redcarpet wrote:There is such a thing as unexploded bombs. All three branches of the US military suffered a lot of inefficiencies from the military industrial complex. The US Air Force in particular.
Whether we're talking about dud torpedoes of US submarines or US Air Force bombs, failure rates were probably the highest for the US than any Allied Power.
Didn't you know that, sir?
What you've just written has nothing to do with what Tailz, myself, and others were discussing.
Tailz wrote wrote:As for nukes, we place atomic weapons upon a pedestal in the panthon of weapons of war because these were the first weapons humanity created that could wipe out a city with one device, plus building them was such a technological advance and required so much in the way of resources. But there is no difference between the destruction wrought by a single nuke or the fire bombing of an entire city.
Tailz was making a point how the act of destruction of a city by a multitude of bombs or a single powerful bomb has no physical difference. While I still agree that this is an obvious fact, that a city destroyed by a rain of bombs is as destroyed as a city destroyed by a massive solitary bomb, I responded to him by mentioning the effects of nuclear contamination which makes a great difference:
I wrote wrote:Actually, there is. This is measured in terms of radiological effects on survivors and people living in the area for decades, or centuries (depending on the level of radioactive contamination). There is also, in addition to radiation, the effects of nuclear fallout in the event of a nuclear war.
We weren't discussing unexploded munitions or how many bombs or torpedoes fired by ships (what the hell are you even talking about? Did you even read the thread title or notice what we were talking about?) exploded on contact or how many failed to detonate, nor is it relevant. You decided to wait 3 weeks after Tailz and I exchanged posts in order to try to deliberately throw a thread off-topic?
"I don't know if you're a detective or a pervert."
"Well, that's for me to know and you to find out."
[ Forum Rules ][ Newbie Guide ][ Mission Statement ][ FAQ ]
"Well, that's for me to know and you to find out."
[ Forum Rules ][ Newbie Guide ][ Mission Statement ][ FAQ ]