try luanching at Cuba and that place will be off the map
Advertisement

by BlazingAngel » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:26 pm

by United Kingdom of Kent » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:26 pm
Madnolia wrote:United Kingdom of Kent wrote:Madlonia are you just not going to reply to the counter points made for your comments about HM armed forces and it's capabilities?
Sorry got distracted, and in case you have not realised i am no military expert and have quoted no sources. I just formed my list on what i beleived what i believed was true without researching so if i was wrong on some accounts i am sorry.


by Madnolia » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:27 pm

by United Kingdom of Kent » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:28 pm

by The Greater Ohio Valley » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:28 pm

by BlazingAngel » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:28 pm

by Britanno » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:29 pm

by Madnolia » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:30 pm


by Marcurix » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:30 pm
Madnolia wrote:H-Alba wrote:The Chinese military may be large, but it is incapable of offensive tasks. It's a glorified national defense force, whilst the UK's is stronger in offensive. It may not be the best, but it is better than China's military.
The UK has a tiny military that may be more advanced technically than china but it is only designed to defend the uk.
There is no way on earth that the uk could win a war with china on anything other than home turf.
The UK doesnt even have an aircraft carrier at the minute. We have to share with france.
The UK recently placed an order for loads of american hoverplanes, and now the carriers need to be redecked to stop the deck from melting. Thats when the carriers will be finished in 2016 that is.

by BlazingAngel » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:30 pm

by BlazingAngel » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:32 pm

by United Kingdom of Kent » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:32 pm

by Madnolia » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:33 pm
Marcurix wrote:Madnolia wrote:
The UK has a tiny military that may be more advanced technically than china but it is only designed to defend the uk.
This is false. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sierra Leone and so on all prove this not to be the case.
and what, exactly, is your fathers role in the UK army?There is no way on earth that the uk could win a war with china on anything other than home turf.
Do explain.
The UK doesnt even have an aircraft carrier at the minute. We have to share with france.
The UK does currently have an aircraft carrier, it only carriers helicopters.The UK recently placed an order for loads of american hoverplanes, and now the carriers need to be redecked to stop the deck from melting. Thats when the carriers will be finished in 2016 that is.
source.

by BlazingAngel » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:33 pm

by United Kingdom of Kent » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:35 pm
Madnolia wrote:Marcurix wrote:
This is false. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sierra Leone and so on all prove this not to be the case.
and what, exactly, is your fathers role in the UK army?
Do explain.
The UK does currently have an aircraft carrier, it only carriers helicopters.
source.
My dad was bomb disposal, but he is now an engineer who fixes broken guns and such.
I know that has nothing to do with how useful an army is but just thought id point that out.
My dad taught navy SEALS how to diffuse IEDs They hung him out a helicopter. Fair trade i would say.

by Madnolia » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:36 pm
Marcurix wrote:Madnolia wrote:
The UK has a tiny military that may be more advanced technically than china but it is only designed to defend the uk.
This is false. Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Sierra Leone and so on all prove this not to be the case.
and what, exactly, is your fathers role in the UK army?There is no way on earth that the uk could win a war with china on anything other than home turf.
Do explain.
The UK doesnt even have an aircraft carrier at the minute. We have to share with france.
The UK does currently have an aircraft carrier, it only carriers helicopters.The UK recently placed an order for loads of american hoverplanes, and now the carriers need to be redecked to stop the deck from melting. Thats when the carriers will be finished in 2016 that is.
source.

by BlazingAngel » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:37 pm

by United Kingdom of Kent » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:37 pm

by BlazingAngel » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:38 pm

by Madnolia » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:39 pm
United Kingdom of Kent wrote:Madnolia wrote:
My dad was bomb disposal, but he is now an engineer who fixes broken guns and such.
I know that has nothing to do with how useful an army is but just thought id point that out.
My dad taught navy SEALS how to diffuse IEDs They hung him out a helicopter. Fair trade i would say.
So he's an armorer pretty good trade, have you ever really discussed properly the armed forces with him?

by Madnolia » Wed Apr 09, 2014 3:57 pm

by Imperializt Russia » Thu Apr 10, 2014 5:17 am
Also,Lamadia wrote:dangerous socialist attitude
Imperializt Russia wrote:I'm English, you tit.

by Madnolia » Thu Apr 10, 2014 2:07 pm
Imperializt Russia wrote:
One. As a test.
To wave their dick at the US.
A 50 megaton weapon has almost no applications. It requires a horrifically large quantity of nuclear material that could be better used to build a number of smaller weapons, which would be more efficient in terms of their actual effects as well.Madnolia wrote:
The Tsar boma was something like 100 megatons. Also russian.
Tsar Bomba was 50Mt as detonated but with capability to produce a design of 100Mt. It was the practical realisation in how the Tellar-Ulam design can be scaled to an arbitrary yield by just strapping more stages to it.
Had they produced enough material to fill out a third stage and boost it to 100Mt, they would have destroyed all their research aircraft and facilities and irradiated northern Russia. As a 50Mt design, it was probably the cleanest-burning nuclear weapon ever detonated.BlazingAngel wrote:
After the Russian created it, the US found it out and sent a team to shut it down before the Russian can use it, I saw a Video about it
...
No, this never happened.United Kingdom of Kent wrote:
Half the Western Hemisphere no way if that's true I'm scared.
A ~5-10Gt strategic nuclear exchange would destroy swathes of the US, Europe and Russia. Something in the region of 8% of Europe would be completely unliveable.
If the US strategic targets were caught off-guard in February and destroyed in their silos and on the airfields, an enormous band of 700-3000rad radiation fallout from the Peacekeeper-MX fields over the north-east US.

Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Fahran, Grinning Dragon, Myrensis, Point Blob, The Archregimancy, Valyxias
Advertisement