• China puts refurbished soviet carrier into service
    115 replies, posted
Well now Taiwan can test their anti-aircraft carrier missile! [img]http://a57.foxnews.com/global.fncstatic.com/static/managed/img/U.S./660/371/APTOPIX%20Taiwan%20China%20_Norm.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=ewitwins;37793370]Alright, I think we need clarification: Did he or did he not attempt to actually climb into the barrel, or the cockpit? [editline]25th September 2012[/editline] My mind is full of fuck[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/2S1_Gvozdika.jpg/800px-2S1_Gvozdika.jpg[/img] The barrel would be pretty hard to crawl into.
[QUOTE=ewitwins;37793370]Alright, I think we need clarification: Did he or did he not attempt to actually climb into the barrel[/QUOTE] are you high why would he even climb into the barrel haha
Mother of God, that thing looks incredibly dated. [editline]25th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=thisispain;37793383]are you high why would he even climb into the barrel haha[/QUOTE] That's my poooiiiint
[QUOTE=jeimizu;37793379][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/2S1_Gvozdika.jpg/800px-2S1_Gvozdika.jpg[/img] The barrel would be pretty hard to crawl into.[/QUOTE] oh my god that colour is like so 1955 at least put a bird on it so it looks retro or something
[QUOTE=thisispain;37793392]oh my god that colour is like so 1955 at least put a bird on it so it looks retro or something[/QUOTE] 1972, to be precise.
[QUOTE=jeimizu;37793379][IMG]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d4/2S1_Gvozdika.jpg/800px-2S1_Gvozdika.jpg[/img] The barrel would be pretty hard to crawl into.[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://military-vehicle-photos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/2191.jpg[/IMG] 420mm
[QUOTE=mac338;37793357]This I'm unsure about. I don't think so. Maybe a couple hundreds of millions at worst if nuclear weapons detonated in major cities in the US, China and Japan and there was all-out war.[/QUOTE] Yeah, you are right. I had it in my head that China was at 1.7 billion, but they are only 1.3 it would seem. Though keep in mind that such destruction would be on a scale unparalleled. Imagine 20 separate Hurricane Katrinas hitting the United States. We aren't even remotely equipped to handle that sort of issue, even with all of NATO helping. China would have it ten times worse and with less help. Japan...who knows? Disease and famine would run rampant and kill ridiculous numbers of people, even in areas unaffected directly by radiation or blastwaves, people would likely die simply due to a lack of resources to spread around. With China, Japan, and the US all effectively removed from the world market...I can't even begin to imagine the issues that would cause. So yeah, you are totally right, maybe not a billion initially, but I'm betting it still wouldn't take that long to hit it.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37793451]Yeah, you are right. I had it in my head that China was at 1.7 billion, but they are only 1.3 it would seem. Though keep in mind that such destruction would be on a scale unparalleled. Imagine 20 separate Hurricane Katrinas hitting the United States. We aren't even remotely equipped to handle that sort of issue, even with all of NATO helping. China would have it ten times worse and with less help. Japan...who knows? Disease and famine would run rampant and kill ridiculous numbers of people, even in areas unaffected directly by radiation or blastwaves, people would likely die simply due to a lack of resources to spread around. With China, Japan, and the US all effectively removed from the world market...I can't even begin to imagine the issues that would cause. So yeah, you are totally right, maybe not a billion initially, but I'm betting it still wouldn't take that long to hit it.[/QUOTE] Mother Russia would claim what's left of the world. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lDQ7hXMLxGc[/media]
[QUOTE=dunkace;37793074]Island depute with Japan... Just finishes refurbishing a carrier, How convenient![/QUOTE] No air-wing though, but I suppose they could play with Japan's Helicopter Destroyers. [img]http://www.theaircraftcarrier.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/JMSDF_Hyuga_DDH181_2.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=Useful Dave;37793476]No air-wing though, but I suppose they could play with Japan's Helicopter Destroyers. [img]http://www.theaircraftcarrier.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/JMSDF_Hyuga_DDH181_2.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] Do those not have any helicopters yet, or what?
[QUOTE=GunFox;37793451]So yeah, you are totally right, maybe not a billion initially, but I'm betting it still wouldn't take that long to hit it.[/QUOTE] While WWII didn't have much use of nuclear weapons, lets use it as an example anyway. Germany, the losing part, lost 7 to 10% of their population during the war. The USSR lost 13% and the US lost 0,3%. Let's take an average of 10% and double it for a nuclear war. 20%. 20% of US', Japan and China's population is 347 million. It's a [B][I]very[/I][/B] rough estimate and [U]I'm no expert[/U] by far, but I'd guess that's a worst-case end-scenario. 30% of the population of Hiroshima, a relatively small city with a high population density died as a result of the strike. The same number applies to Nagasaki. Now bombs are bigger, of course, but cities are also bigger so I can guess the same percentage applies. There are also anti-nuclear defenses. So in an initial strike, in an absolutely worst case asteroid-hitting-earth level scenario if all the major cities in all three countries were hit, a bit less than 100 million would die if absolutely everything went impossibly wrong. That's my guess at least. The following war I can't predict. I have no idea how many would die, but I'm going to go by the numbers seen in World War 2 and say that I doubt that any number of casualties would exceed 300 million. Again, I'm far from an expert and if there are any variables I'm completely off on, be my guest on correcting them. But it doesn't seem likely that 73% of the population in all three countries would die, numbers not ever seen in any war I know of. While I see how the world might not be equipped to handle a disaster of this magnitude I think people are capable of taking care of themselves and I don't think we'd exceed these numbers. Maybe.
[QUOTE=mac338;37793525]While WWII didn't have much use of nuclear weapons, lets use it as an example anyway. Germany, the losing part, lost 7 to 10% of their population during the war. The USSR lost 13% and the US lost 0,3%. Let's take an average of 10% and double it for a nuclear war. 20%. 20% of US', Japan and China's population is 347 million. It's a [B][I]very[/I][/B] rough estimate and [U]I'm no expert[/U] by far, but I'd guess that's a worst-case end-scenario. 30% of the population of Hiroshima, a relatively small city with a high population density died as a result of the strike. The same number applies to Nagasaki. Now bombs are bigger, of course, but cities are also bigger so I can guess the same percentage applies. There are also anti-nuclear defenses. So in an initial strike, in an absolutely worst case asteroid-hitting-earth level scenario if all the major cities in all three countries were hit, a bit less than 100 million would die if absolutely everything went impossibly wrong. That's my guess at least. The following war I can't predict. I have no idea how many would die, but I'm going to go by the numbers seen in World War 2 and say that I doubt that any number of casualties would exceed 300 million. Again, I'm far from an expert and if there are any variables I'm completely off on, be my guest on correcting them. But it doesn't seem likely that 73% of the population in all three countries would die, numbers not ever seen in any war I know of.[/QUOTE] Fine! Rain on my macabre parade with things like facts and numbers! I see how it is!
[QUOTE=Apache249;37793485]Do those not have any helicopters yet, or what?[/QUOTE] They've [i]only[/i] got helicopters, which isn't quite as effective as even a air-wing of Harriers.
[QUOTE=mac338;37793525]While WWII didn't have much use of nuclear weapons, lets use it as an example anyway. Germany, the losing part, lost 7 to 10% of their population during the war. The USSR lost 13% and the US lost 0,3%. Let's take an average of 10% and double it for a nuclear war. 20%. 20% of US', Japan and China's population is 347 million. It's a [B][I]very[/I][/B] rough estimate and [U]I'm no expert[/U] by far, but I'd guess that's a worst-case end-scenario. 30% of the population of Hiroshima, a relatively small city with a high population density died as a result of the strike. The same number applies to Nagasaki. Now bombs are bigger, of course, but cities are also bigger so I can guess the same percentage applies. There are also anti-nuclear defenses. So in an initial strike, in an absolutely worst case asteroid-hitting-earth level scenario if all the major cities in all three countries were hit, a bit less than 100 million would die if absolutely everything went impossibly wrong. That's my guess at least. The following war I can't predict. I have no idea how many would die, but I'm going to go by the numbers seen in World War 2 and say that I doubt that any number of casualties would exceed 300 million. Again, I'm far from an expert and if there are any variables I'm completely off on, be my guest on correcting them. But it doesn't seem likely that 73% of the population in all three countries would die, numbers not ever seen in any war I know of.[/QUOTE] Some of your estimations look valid enough, but you also have to take into consideration the ability of nuclear weaponry to cause prolonged effects. And prolonged effects caused simply by the amount of dead in a single region, such as diseases. Also it's highly doubtful that you can compare the destructive power of modern nuclear weaponry to means of conventional warfare: single ICBM carries up to 15 nuclear warheads, and there're hundreads of ICBMs ready just for a retaliation strike. Also, what's going to be chosen as a priority targets? Known enemy WMD storages, including chemical and biological (everybody has that kind of shit), and muclear explosion anywhere near it can cause that stuff evaporate into the atmosphere.
[QUOTE=gudman;37793563]Some of your estimations look valid enough, but you also have to take into consideration the ability of nuclear weaponry to cause prolonged effects. And prolonged effects caused simply by the amount of dead in a single region, such as diseases. [/QUOTE] Actually I did. I added the number of people who died from the effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki afterwards too. [QUOTE=gudman;37793563]Also it's highly doubtful that you can compare the destructive power of modern nuclear weaponry to means of conventional warfare: single ICBM carries up to 15 nuclear warheads, and there're hundreads of ICBMs ready just for a retaliation strike. Also, what's going to be chosen as a priority targets? Known enemy WMD storages, including chemical and biological (everybody has that kind of shit), and muclear explosion anywhere near it can cause that stuff evaporate into the atmosphere.[/QUOTE] Fair enough. Then again, the precision of modern weaponry might cause less civillian casualties, albeit a higher military death toll.
[QUOTE]For now the carrier has no operational aircraft and will be used for training[/QUOTE] I don't know what you lads are yammering about, as far as it's intended purpose goes it fits the bill perfectly and they probably nabbed it at a decent price.
[QUOTE=mac338;37793582]Actually I did. I added the number of people who died from the effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki afterwards too. Fair enough. Then again, the precision of modern weaponry might cause less civillian casualties, albeit a higher military death toll.[/QUOTE] Oh, I see it now. Now that I think of it, you can substract some % from total estimation, as I believe modern nuclear weaponry is far less "dirty" then it was before. And I doubt it, as military installation (exluding the most complex and big ones) are not oftenly stationed in the open field, but somewhere near towns and cities. So severe civilian casualties are not to be evaded in any case. WMD's themselves are not purposed for direct warfare, they're more like weapons of terror. That's the reason they will never be actually used, I believe. When you tuch the button - you sentence thousands of innicent lives to death - including your own people, the ones in power understand it clearly.
[QUOTE=mac338;37793582]Actually I did. I added the number of people who died from the effects of Hiroshima and Nagasaki afterwards too.[/quote] Modern nuclear weapons work...oddly. They are often variable yield warheads which can have their size altered by varying the amount of tritium injected into them prior to launch. More tritium means a much bigger boom, buuuut the interesting flip side is that it also means significantly less radiation. So subsequent casualties have the possibility of being considerably lower, despite the blast radius of the bomb being several orders of magnitude larger. [img]http://imageshack.us/a/img694/5232/comparativenuclearfireb.png[/img] Current minuteman missiles use W87 warheads, which have a yield similar to the W88 (actually roughly 20-50% larger) ones in the picture. This is just a measure of the fireball. The one capable of melting marble and all that, the actual blast wave goes considerably further. Whaaat the picture doesn't show is that a single minuteman missile can launch 12 of these warheads. [quote]Fair enough. Then again, the precision of modern weaponry might cause less civillian casualties, albeit a higher military death toll.[/QUOTE] Nukes are for civilians. Military bases can be destroyed with conventional munitions as they are relatively small.
I figure any war against China would end up a lot like the cold war with proxy wars on many fronts.
[QUOTE=mac338;37793642]I figure any war against China would end up a lot like the cold war with proxy wars on many fronts.[/QUOTE] I feel like that might even not be possible. We are so economically linked, that no matter how much we dislike one another, the end conclusion is that we always stand to lose more than gain by waging even a proxy conflict with one another. Peace through trade! The only currently viable peace on a wide scale there is.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37793650]I feel like that might even not be possible. We are so economically linked, that no matter how much we dislike one another, the end conclusion is that we always stand to lose more than gain by waging even a proxy conflict with one another. Peace through trade! The only currently viable peace there is.[/QUOTE] Until one sucks another dry by economical means, hur dur.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37793650]I feel like that might even not be possible. We are so economically linked, that no matter how much we dislike one another, the end conclusion is that we always stand to lose more than gain by waging even a proxy conflict with one another. Peace through trade! The only currently viable peace on a wide scale there is.[/QUOTE] Very true. It's nothing more than a hypothetical scenario and it'll remain that way for the foreseeable future.
[QUOTE=gudman;37793659]Until one sucks another dry by economical means, hur dur.[/QUOTE] Temporary peace through economic vampirism?
[QUOTE=GunFox;37793666]Temporary peace through economic vampirism?[/QUOTE] Yaaah. Though, on a serious note, companies moving their production assets to China is somewhat troubling sign. I'm usually not the one to panic about such things, and I'm not the one to worry about it (as Russian comanies are so low China doesn't want any of them even close to their soil), but nontheless, if such a trend continues to grow it might spark some more issues with unemployment.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37793633]Modern nuclear weapons work...oddly. They are often variable yield warheads which can have their size altered by varying the amount of tritium injected into them prior to launch. More tritium means a much bigger boom, buuuut the interesting flip side is that it also means significantly less radiation. So subsequent casualties have the possibility of being considerably lower, despite the blast radius of the bomb being several orders of magnitude larger. [img]http://imageshack.us/a/img694/5232/comparativenuclearfireb.png[/img] Current minuteman missiles use W87 warheads, which have a yield similar to the W88 (actually roughly 20-50% larger) ones in the picture. This is just a measure of the fireball. The one capable of melting marble and all that, the actual blast wave goes considerably further. Whaaat the picture doesn't show is that a single minuteman missile can launch 12 of these warheads. Nukes are for civilians. Military bases can be destroyed with conventional munitions as they are relatively small.[/QUOTE] Nuclear yield is all about efficiency. Smaller and medium sized warheads cause more damage per yield since there is a diminishing return. And the very first nuclear salvo is targeted at military and governmental targets, not civilian. Those come after. Anyway it is no secret that more people will survive to the next day of a nuclear attack than those who do not. But then you'll see most of your dead in the following decade where you have a massive, starving, wounded and traumatised population without housing, medical supplies and a collapsed State with no ability to rebuild or restart any meaningful agriculture. It'll take 10 years for the population levels to stop free-falling and by then you'll have an barely industrialised corpse of a country with a medieval level population.
Wait a sec, can't everyone just launch their rockets into the space and detonate them in low-to-medium orbit and render all electronics in the world broken with just collateral damage to civilian population? Come on, CoD can't be that full of shit, I bet ya.
[QUOTE=Chernarus;37793186] I was guessing because they have barely any recent experience in war, they have the Korean War if you count throwing men at 50. machine guns. They have hardly any funding to split over 2.5Mn active soldiers, thus probably lack of general training. They also don't have a tech advantage, otherwise they would have built their own ship.[/QUOTE] Funny how the misconception of the "human wave attack" still exists. The Chinese used a special tactic to cause confusion and the appearance of attacking in waves. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_wave_attack#People.27s_Liberation_Army[/url] They performed well in their first Sandhurst Competition out of 55 teams, they won 2 individual events and a 2nd place in another. It doesn't tell the anything about their army for sure, but should give you an idea how well-trained Chinese soldiers behave. They've got several skirmishes with surrounding countries in the from the 70s-80s, and even with shitty equipment they didn't seem to perform all that bad. Their military budget the second largest in the world at 106bn USD. Initially it doesn't sound much, but remember that they barely got the same R&D that US have. They don't same level of tech, the same number of vehicles and equipment and they don't do stuff overseas (except chasing pirates). I'd say China may not have the best army in the world, but they definitely doesn't have the least competent army. [editline]25th September 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=gudman;37793294]I trained with them. Well, not really, I just was a special correspondent covering the joint military excercises of Russian and Chinese military. And I have to say that Chinese military out-competent Russian officers by half a continent. They're strange people, though, I've witnessed strange incidents during preparations - some of the Chinese artillery officers were paying very unsettling attention to some of the outdated (though modified severely) Russian arty pieces we used for training purposes. One of them was even bold enough to try and get into one particular unit - he was then forced to get out and walked away - just like nothing really happened, didn't even say anything. They were themselves very secretive about their own armor and aircraft - I've never had a chance to even get near them. Then I was asked by my superiors why my report was [b]that[/b] "one-sided", right.[/QUOTE] You gotta tell us more.
Is it fine to not feel threatened at all? Their carrier makes me chuckle.
sperging out about military prowess when all its gonna be used for in the future is air-striking black people
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.