XB-70 valkyrie vs B-1B lancer

[Thumpalumpacus]

The US did not "win" the Korean war, it was ended with an armistice, technically it has still not ended,....and it was a United Nations action.

After Uncle Ho assisted the allies in the fight against Japan and was then betrayed when the British and US allowed the French back in. The US did not have to enter the Vietnam conflict, it started off with "advisors" and escalated and eventually withdrew after achieving nothing.

I admit the first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait was justified, although, until then Saddam Hussain had been backed and supplied by the US (in the war with Iran) until then. There was no justification for the second Iraq war as there was no evidence of WMDs and no Iraqis took part in 9/11, US forces are still there after 18 years.....after achieving nothing.

Same goes for Afghanistan, Syria, and Libya.

There is no need to go into more detail, all the information is easily available online or at the library.

Right. So the US didn't start several of the wars you claim it started.

 

[special ed]

I don't want to be political, only factual. when I point out there were WMD in Iraq before the invasion. When I reported to the USAF in 1959 WMD was defined as CBR. Chemical, Biological, and Radiological. I knew this before my mil service. The definition was re-titled by some whiz kid along the way to present day to: NBC, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. The question: Did Iraq have Chemical weapons? Yes. Gas was used in the war with Iran and on their own citizens, the Kurds. If one paid attention to the news, new unused, stainless steel labs installed on trucks were shown at artillery sites. The reason: Serien gas has a shelf life of around six hours, so it must be mixed, loaded into the shells and fired soon to be effective. The TV quit showing these unused mobile labs when it was released they were German trucks (irony). Remember the preparations in Israel with gas masks. Yes again. Anthrax was found in the bunkers and was burned with other munitions to destroy it. Remember the troops who were sick later in the states who were near the fires. Nuclear, Radiological: certainty unproved but when the invasion began a large number of trucks exited Iraq to Syria with no customs controls. In just a few years after the war, Israel bombs a nuclear facility in Syria. As I recall, the Syrians didn't protest, the Russians said nothing, the announcement came from Israel. So there were at least two legs of WMD in Iraq.

 

[GrauGeist]

I don't want to be political, only factual. when I point out there were WMD in Iraq before the invasion. When I reported to the USAF in 1959 WMD was defined as CBR. Chemical, Biological, and Radiological. I knew this before my mil service. The definition was re-titled by some whiz kid along the way to present day to: NBC, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. The question: Did Iraq have Chemical weapons? Yes. Gas was used in the war with Iran and on their own citizens, the Kurds. If one paid attention to the news, new unused, stainless steel labs installed on trucks were shown at artillery sites. The reason: Serien gas has a shelf life of around six hours, so it must be mixed, loaded into the shells and fired soon to be effective. The TV quit showing these unused mobile labs when it was released they were German trucks (irony). Remember the preparations in Israel with gas masks. Yes again. Anthrax was found in the bunkers and was burned with other munitions to destroy it. Remember the troops who were sick later in the states who were near the fires. Nuclear, Radiological: certainty unproved but when the invasion began a large number of trucks exited Iraq to Syria with no customs controls. In just a few years after the war, Israel bombs a nuclear facility in Syria. As I recall, the Syrians didn't protest, the Russians said nothing, the announcement came from Israel. So there were at least two legs of WMD in Iraq.

The Dutch military did find a stockpile of artillery shells loaded with nerve agents in Northern Iraq that had been prepped but quickly "stashed".
There were also the massive stockpiles of insecticide concentrate in 55 gallon drums at several Army bases.
It takes a mixture of less than a teaspoon of Malathion per 10 gallons of water, sprayed in a 12" wide line at the base of a building to create a barrier that will kill insects on contact such as cockroaches for up to three-four weeks in dry conditions.

 

[wingnuts]

Right. So the US didn't start several of the wars you claim it started.

It started almost all of them and was very keen to get involved and was very keen to get involved.

 

[wingnuts]

I don't want to be political, only factual. when I point out there were WMD in Iraq before the invasion. When I reported to the USAF in 1959 WMD was defined as CBR. Chemical, Biological, and Radiological. I knew this before my mil service. The definition was re-titled by some whiz kid along the way to present day to: NBC, Nuclear, Biological, Chemical. The question: Did Iraq have Chemical weapons? Yes. Gas was used in the war with Iran and on their own citizens, the Kurds. If one paid attention to the news, new unused, stainless steel labs installed on trucks were shown at artillery sites. The reason: Serien gas has a shelf life of around six hours, so it must be mixed, loaded into the shells and fired soon to be effective. The TV quit showing these unused mobile labs when it was released they were German trucks (irony). Remember the preparations in Israel with gas masks. Yes again. Anthrax was found in the bunkers and was burned with other munitions to destroy it. Remember the troops who were sick later in the states who were near the fires. Nuclear, Radiological: certainty unproved but when the invasion began a large number of trucks exited Iraq to Syria with no customs controls. In just a few years after the war, Israel bombs a nuclear facility in Syria. As I recall, the Syrians didn't protest, the Russians said nothing, the announcement came from Israel. So there were at least two legs of WMD in Iraq.

The USA supplied chemical and possibly biological weapons to Saddam Hussain as part of their support for the Iraq war with Iran.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

It started almost all of them and was very keen to get involved and was very keen to get involved.

"Almost all"? You might want to check your math again. We didn't start Korea, Vietnam, first Iraq, second Iraq, (arguably) Afghanistan, Libya, or Syria.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Folks - let's stop the politics! Thank you!

 

[GrauGeist]

It started almost all of them and was very keen to get involved and was very keen to get involved.

You have zero clues about Korea - after Japan surrendered, Korea was divided in two zones at the 38th parallel.
The northern zone was under Soviet direction, the southern under U.S. direction.
In 1948, the southern half was declared a sovereign state: the Republic of Korea.
The north claimed the south was "stolen property" and invaded in June 1950.
The UN, not the US, formed the United Nations Command to repel the North Korean invasion.
This involved 22 nations under UN authority, which the U.S. was one of.

So again, No - the U.S. did not start the Korean war.

 

[wingnuts]

You have zero clues about Korea - after Japan surrendered, Korea was divided in two zones at the 38th parallel.
The northern zone was under Soviet direction, the southern under U.S. direction.
In 1948, the southern half was declared a sovereign state: the Republic of Korea.
The north claimed the south was "stolen property" and invaded in June 1950.
The UN, not the US, formed the United Nations Command to repel the North Korean invasion.
This involved 22 nations under UN authority, which the U.S. was one of.

So again, No - the U.S. did not start the Korean war.

I already pointed out it was a UN operation.

 

[GrauGeist]

I already pointed out it was a UN operation.

So where does this ^ fit in with this v then?

It started almost all of them and was very keen to get involved and was very keen to get involved.

 

[GrauGeist]

Folks - let's stop the politics! Thank you!

Oops...just saw this.
Not trying to be political, hope it didn't come across that way.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Oops...just saw this.
Not trying to be political, hope it didn't come across that way.

You're good!

 

[wingnuts]

So where does this ^ fit in with this v then?

The word "almost" seems to cover it.

 

[GrauGeist]

The word "almost" seems to cover it.

"Almost" only applies to Horseshoes, hand-grenades and nuclear warfare.

In regards to the conversation, there was no "almost" to all points presented, but rather "none".

I should also point out that Joe made it clear that the thread should get back on track

 

[wingnuts]

"Almost all"? You might want to check your math again. We didn't start Korea, Vietnam, first Iraq, second Iraq, (arguably) Afghanistan, Libya, or Syria.

The US did not have to get involved with the war in Vietnam, the French had given up. I agree with the first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait as I already mentioned. There was no reason to go back a time and no reason to invade Afghanistan and Syria and destabilise Libya, not of these wars (Afghanistan Libya Syria and Iraq) could be classed as "won" and none of the countries can be said to be in a better condition now than before the US got involved.

 

[FLYBOYJ]

The US did not have to get involved with the war in Vietnam, the French had given up. I agree with the first Iraq war to liberate Kuwait as I already mentioned. There was no reason to go back a time and no reason to invade Afghanistan and Syria and destabilise Libya, not of these wars (Afghanistan Libya Syria and Iraq) could be classed as "won" and none of the countries can be said to be in a better condition now than before the US got involved.

ENOUGH!

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Glad I read further. Apologies for my part in it.

 

[Dronescapes]

 

[Zipper730]

The both XB-70's did have bomb bays, though they were both filled with test equipment. The bomb bay door slid forward or aft, I can't remember.

The bomb-bays were located between the engine inlet ducts. They translated aft prior to weapons release.

misslles do no good if the grid is down and you cant lauch them

ICBM facilities have their own power systems and are faraday-caged to withstand EMP's (after all, they are designed to work in nuclear war).

The Minuteman was designed in the 1960's and the newest versions (Minuteman III) went online in 1970, and was updated in the late 1990's or early 2000's with technology that looks like it was from the late 1980's or early 1990's. Though some made jokes about it's dependence on 8" floppy-disks, it'll still launch the missile, and it's damned near hack-proof.

There was an interview of a Minuteman III crew and, when the issue of the primitive technology came up the crew-commander actually pointed out they had security through antiquity (something that does show a degree of intelligence).

 

[GrauGeist]

There was an interview of a Minuteman III crew and, when the issue of the primitive technology came up the crew-commander actually pointed out they had security through antiquity (something that does show a degree of intelligence).

That is a good point, actually.

My '62 Nova is not military hardware, of course, but in the event of an EMP, it will still operate because of it's coil driven breaker/point ignition.