Will There Be A WWIII. Thoughts?

Discussion in 'World Events' started by clayton, Mar 31, 2010.

  1. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    yes there is also speculation which is basically what this whole thread is based on, the only way this could ever be changed is if ww3 takes place, and i agree, all of our countries have highly trained solders. to operate military equipment.

    oh and PS my cousin was trained and flew one of the b-2's he was a Canadian serving jointly with the us air force, yeah i know my family is full a solders, but that meas class.



    roll your eyes all you want i won this part of the debate long ago, when or if an all out war comes, or happens, Money is no obstacle, do you think back during the depression we had the money going into the war, to build the war machines we did,,,again money has no meaning if a war of this scale breaks out, it comes down to how much resource you have, and luckily for the USA they have NATO and especially Canada with our massive amounts of resource. as i am sure our enemy would be doing the same, (which would make a quick victory kind of an over statement), but none the less money is still void, we will worry about finances AFTER THE WAR.


    in Montreal Quebec Canada, we can spit them out like candy, just like a car plant, spits out old school cheviots, damn bombardier and all them nice companies did a nice job building them plants, If a war breaks out these plants will go into over time, do you realize the industrial power of central Canada and eastern U.S.A, if a war breaks out..you obviously don't,
    You obviously haven't read anything on how economies operate in war time.
    well maybe small wars like desert storm, Korea, Vietnam etc, they don't count, were talking a world war here, and from the military production at the time compared to the state of global economics at the time, again proves my point that money would mean little come war time.



    yeah but watch and see how many of them little fighters get shot down compared to modern bombers. in the end if countries want to waste money on them go ahead, acceptable losses will be OK, because all they will be doing is destroying each other while the real fight is on the ground being backed up by real bombers, not playing cat and mouse in the sky.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    The fact that this thread is largely speculation does not remove facts from play.

    Only in your own mind.

    Once more I suggest you check actual facts and history.
    Money always comes into it during wartime.
    And the Depression (especially the US one) was relieved at least in part because of European spending in the US on weaponry for the start of WWII.

    Pure speculation. Can you support this with any examples from history?

    You seem to be under some confusion vis a vis Bombardier's products (and the tooling they have) and the Apache (and the tooling required to produce it).

    And the workers will require paying. Oops, money again.

    Obviously.

    And again you demonstrate your ignorance. Read economic histories of WWII. Money (and the lack of) counted for a great deal.

    And you obviously know little about the employment of aircraft.

    Cat and mouse in the sky? Re-read what I wrote: it was about F-15Es (all thirty of them), versus one B-2, as bombers.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Even in World War II, USA had to buy the bombers from Boeing...they don't give things out for free. Apache is too slow ( decent gunship however ), it is to be replaced with Comanche. Fighter/bombers....attack planes......Sorry mate, we don't operate the Apache, so I am pretty sure we are not building them...
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    F-15Es are capable of carrying nuclear payloads

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Most fighters are anyways
     
  8. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    OK, OK, i will drop the bomber fighter thing and accept we need a good mix of both, that work for you

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    and yes the British and all of the allies spent billions, energizing the USA economy and our's in Canada. funny thing is they borrowed the money from us to pay us for the military support and rebuilding effort, the money they borrowed, was nothing but resources we had, there was no hard cash involved till after the war which the Brits took almost 60 years to pay back at the time of the war,

    "This week is a red-letter day in the history of the British Isles. The government of the United Kingdom will by the end of this year close a wartime chapter that started nearly 60 years ago. The British government will pay back to the United States the last installment of the loans taken by the then British government under Sir Winston Churchill at the height of the Second World War"


    http://www.dart-creations.com/article-tree/debt/debts-to-the-us.html


    during the war money will mean little when it is between any of our allies, it will be there. even though the actually physical money is not, only raw resources.
     
  9. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    *facepalm* Money matters....if the USA wants to buy from Northdrop, Lockheed Martin, and Boeing, they need to bring out the $$.
     
  10. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    oh nm guys, yall just don't get it...ww2 was paid for by money that didn't even excist yet, if for say ww3, happens and were all broke, because of it do you think were going to stop fighting and let the resources we have in the ground sit there are the materials all ready in the factories, just sit there and surrender, i doubt it were going to keep pumping our oil and mining our ore, and producing weapons, even if it means going in debt for fuck a hundred years. too much of or not enough of will not stop us from producing military equipment, we will be spending resources not money.
     
  11. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    Labor costs, transportation, weapons systems, ammunition, weapons platforms, troopers......they all costs $$
     
  12. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    To say the zero had weak armor and weapons because of the fact it was a carrier based plane is a poor arguement. The fact is every US plane that worked on carriers had an incredible amount of armor and amount of damage they could inflict on zeros. actually, its not that the zeroes had very little armor, they didnt have any AT ALL

    actually no it wasn't, it worked great if you could get into position, but trying to get into position is a pain. If several planes from the Japanese face off against several American planes, 9 times out of 10 they will be going head on, for a thatch weave you are assuming the zero pilot is:

    1. Not very aware of his surroundings

    2. alone

    3. Doesn't shoot down the American plane before the American initiates the weave.

    the perfect attack on a zero was to climb to a high altitude and dive into the zero. With it's lack of armor a few shots was all it took to down a zero. If you missed than you continued diving in a straight line and do not attempt to turn. The F4F wildcat's engine was superior to the zero's at low altitudes. Also, the zero's flaps were not insulated so they had the nasty habit of freezing at steep climbs making responsiveness very sluggish.

    So to fight a zero if you have the offense you dive down on him, fire, if you hit him you win, if by some miracle you don't, you dive and run as fast as you can.

    Not really, they had more than enough resources to fight the war. They had conquered enough of China and Indonesia to ensure that.

    Shogun, if you understood what the significance of their culture meant to the war it would be crystal clear as to why exactly they lost it, and it had nothing to do with America's ability to outproduce them. We could still build many things a lot better than they could. ie, our aircraft carriers could hold significantly more planes, our tanks were far superior to Japanese tanks.

    No it made the extremely closed minded. The Battle of Midway was not the turning point of the Pacific war. And by the time the Great Mariana turkey shoot took place Japan had already lost the war, no they were just delaying.

    It took only a little over a year for the fate of the Pacific war to be decided.
     
  13. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Soullust do you actually serve a point? Or do you just disagree for the hell of it. Because you have not added one intelligent thing to this debate and as a matter of fact some of the things you have added are pretty idiotic. For example, you saying fighter planes dont make a difference. It's an interesting opinion, it's just wrong though.
     
  14. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380
    if a war breaks out and the usa is broke, but there are countries trying to nuke there plants, we will see how much money means, either they build it with our reasorces, or the government takes over there plants.
     
  15. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Shogun, actually the apache is one of the faster attack helicopters. But the Comanche was cancelled a little less than a decade ago.
     
  16. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    19,179
    Actually there was. And when that ran out* we Brits switched to "giving away" colonies, territories, trade agreements (for one thing we had the entire Pacific locked into an understanding whereby they could only trade with the UK - that was something the US was glad to break) and lend-lease.
    The point is that at more than stage of WWII it was touch and go as to whether we could afford to continue.

    * It didn't entirely run out since we had to keep some for those deals that involved cash only.

    You continually fail to understand: it costs money to extract and process resources.
    If you can't pay your workers then they can't feed themselves or their families. Then they don't come to work because they're out looking for something that WILL put food on the table.
     
  17. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    soullust, the silly assumption you are making is that the US will be broke. We have a GDP of 13.4 trillion dollars.

    also, with the importance of the internet the US could win the cyberwar without breaking a sweat. Namely because when the internet was built there were dozens of loopholes, holes, and things that could be used to hack ANY computer. There is no antivirus in the world that stops them. Theres no antivirus in the world that can even detect an intrusion using them. They are the perfect hacks. They aren't like other hacks because they are more like bugs in the fundamental code of the internet. The thing is that they are the kind of bugs that only the guy that actually coded that portion of the internet would know about, nobody is going to scan through the billions of lines of code that make up the internet. It's a little known hack and the fact is that only the actual coders know about how to use them. Considering the US built and continues to build the internet we are in access of all of those bugs. I wouldn't be surprised if the US has been hacking China for quite some time, the fact is that internet loophole hacks are undetectable.
     
  18. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    The fact is soullust, while you do bring new opinions to the table. They are all wrong. There is a reason why radical new ideas never reach any fame, it's because they just don't make sense.
     
  19. soullust Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,380

    If you don't see my point then you obviousely are not reading, Bombers like the b2, will cost less in the long run because far less of them will ever get shot down..My oppinion,

    as for the money and you saying i have no point, if you can not see the facts and the common sense behind what i am saying then, please don't ever become future leaders, we would be doomed

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  20. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    Soullust, dyw and I have extremely extensive knowledge about this subject. You are wrong and you do not even know the first thing about it.
     
  21. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    At 2 billion dollars a pop how much cheaper can it get.

    Soullust, what the hell qualifies you to know? I wrote a 17 god damn page history paper on war in the Pacific and I know the war like the back of my hand. I can tell you that your opinion, while it is unique, is idiotic. The US has never and cannot just refuse to pay for them. If you are too infantile to figure out why than I suggest that you return to kindergarten and learn how to count using your fingers.

    The fact is you should not be a future leader because you do not even grasp basic economics. How old are you? 13? 12?
     
  22. Shogun Bleed White and Blue! Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,635
    No, I said it is not necessarily the best Japan had to offer, because it was only a carrier-based fighter. Thach weave was the best if those circumstances were met.... and if the American fighters used were the older ones, you see it doesn't completely rely on fighter performance. They will fight till the end and won't surrender that is their weakness. Japanese tech wasn't as good back then, I know that. There was not much they drained from China and Indonesia. Midway saw the downfall of Yamamoto's fleet, and in the Turkey Shoot, they lost a tremendous number of fighters, and it was damaging to their pride. It is not called arrogance, its pride, there is a difference.
     
  23. fedr808 1100101 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,706
    I hate to break it to you, but 1, if not for those fighters being shot down than those bombers would have been annihalated a long time before.

    2. Just because your brother piloted a B-2 doesn't make you special, it makes him special, dont try to steal credit from an obviously seasoned pilot.

    3. I hate to break it to you, but Canada wouldn't make a difference. They have a tiny armed forces and the fact is that they wouldn't give away resources for free.
     

Share This Page