- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Pentagon debuts its new stealth bomber, the B-21 Raider
Posted on 12/3/22 at 10:06 am to cajunangelle
Posted on 12/3/22 at 10:06 am to cajunangelle
quote:
The cost of the bombers is unknown. The Air Force previously put the price at an average cost of $550 million each in 2010 dollars — roughly $753 million today — but it’s unclear how much is actually being spent. The total will depend on how many bombers the Pentagon buys.
A spokesman on America's First News Radio said Friday that the projected cost is $2 Billion. And that's per plane.
If we make 10 we'll probably give 5 to Ukraine.
Posted on 12/3/22 at 10:07 am to cajunangelle
quote:
years of secret development
Soooo chyna will debut their version during their New Years celebrations in late Jan/early Feb.
Posted on 12/3/22 at 10:18 am to LookSquirrel
quote:Our stated position on use of nuclear weapons hasn't changed since I worked ICBMs back in the day.
I could be wrong but, I think I may be more right than wrong.
Posted on 12/3/22 at 10:25 am to LookSquirrel
Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations
Wiki
Arms Control Today
It is much debated and murky but, we, (the US), refuse to adopt a no first use policy. This new bomber expands what used to be our Triad and seems to indicate more reliance on their use, (IMHO).
So, it is NOT bullshite.
quote:
A nuclear draft doctrine written by the Pentagon calls for maintaining an aggressive nuclear posture with weapons on high alert to strike adversaries armed with weapons of mass destruction (WMD), pre-emptively if necessary.
Wiki
quote:
Yet, the new doctrine’s approach grants regional nuclear-strike planning an increasingly expeditionary aura that threatens to make nuclear weapons just another tool in the toolbox. The result is nuclear pre-emption, which the new doctrine enshrines into official U.S. joint nuclear doctrine for the first time, where the objective no longer is deterrence through threatened retaliation but battlefield destruction of targets.
Arms Control Today
It is much debated and murky but, we, (the US), refuse to adopt a no first use policy. This new bomber expands what used to be our Triad and seems to indicate more reliance on their use, (IMHO).
So, it is NOT bullshite.
Posted on 12/3/22 at 10:26 am to Jbird
quote:
Our stated position on use of nuclear weapons hasn't changed since I worked ICBMs back in the day.
For the layman...what is it vs what he said?
Posted on 12/3/22 at 10:33 am to KAGTASTIC
We will not use nuclear weapons as a first strike, we however reserve the right to respond in kind. Russia was the only nuclear power to state they reserve the right to use nukes as a first strike option. That may have changed with NK but at the time they were the only one to state they would use them as a first strike.
Posted on 12/3/22 at 10:35 am to Gaspergou202
quote:
The bombs were a blessing in the insanity of WW2! Not surprised that Ms. Teacher Union and/or Prof. Gender Studies didn’t teach you this!
I won't challenge your knowledge of what our "historians" have pummeled into our heads regarding that episode, other than offer a "what if".
What IF Japan tried to surrender before the 2 new toys were used, "to end the Pacific war"?
There are discussions on that in the "alt-history" world.
Posted on 12/3/22 at 10:35 am to LookSquirrel
quote:So this may have changed our stated position.
nuclear draft doctrine
Posted on 12/3/22 at 10:41 am to Jbird
quote:
Russia was the only nuclear power to state they reserve the right to use nukes as a first strike option.
Russia published its official doctrine just recently, so there would be no misunderstanding. They said YES, they would use them but, only as a defense of the Motherland proper. They also said NO Tactical nukes. If they cross that line, they will do it in a big way. They know what crossing the Rubicon would mean for them.
Posted on 12/3/22 at 10:43 am to Jbird
quote:
So this may have changed our stated position.
Sad to say but yes.
Posted on 12/3/22 at 10:48 am to LookSquirrel
quote:If it has changed, the only reason would be the thought our military is too weak otherwise.
So this may have changed our stated position.
Sad to say but yes.
Posted on 12/3/22 at 10:56 am to cajunangelle
quote:
“It’s the embodiment of America’s determination to defend the republic that we all love.”
Your appointment was an attack on the republic. Your appointment was the transfer of our military from civilian control to Raytheon control.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/21/us/politics/lloyd-austin-waiver-pentagon.html
Congress Grants Waiver to Austin to Serve as Defense Secretary
Posted on 12/3/22 at 2:17 pm to LookSquirrel
quote:
I won't challenge your knowledge of what our "historians" have pummeled into our heads regarding that episode, other than offer a "what if". What IF Japan tried to surrender before the 2 new toys were used, "to end the Pacific war"? There are discussions on that in the "alt-history" world.
History is subject to challenge like all other forms of human endeavor. I personally enjoy having my “historical knowledge” challenge since that is the only way to rid my knowledge of falsehoods and increase my factual inventory.
History is a strange beast. There’s a long running argument to decide if history is an art or science. Unfortunately, it’s both. The science is the accumulation and dispersement of “primary documents”. The art is how a “historian” interprets and weighs the importance of this evidence.
Always question a historian’s interpretation of any history!
What if, or alternate history is one of my favorite fictional fields as well as fantasy and science fiction. But one must always remember that this is fiction, and guard against incorporating it into your mental understanding of reality.
For instance, did Japan try to “surrender” before the bombs. No.
Japanese governmental history is complex and fascinating. War time power was mostly held by the military and primarily the army, very complicated. Next were the governmental ministries. Of primary concern here is the foreign or diplomatic organizations. Then the least defined was the Emperor.
The military believed that it could cause America enough damage to force a negotiated peace recognizing Japanese prewar goals. This basically was Japanese foreign policy until the defeat of Germany in spring 1945.
After this the military authorized the diplomats to negotiate a reduced but continued foreign empire through neutral USSR. This was thwarted when USSR declared war.
The official plan was to hit the invading American invasion with waves of men, women, and children to create such a blood bath that America would negotiate the territorial, governmental, and status of the Emperor to prewar levels.
The non-military ministers were ready to surrender with the status of Emperor preserved. Then bomb one. Military unmoved. Bomb two, military still unmoved. Emperor however decided surrender with him in office is the way. He makes his decision known and records a message to be broadcasted to the nation.
Japanese history is resplendent with factions running a coup to “protect” the Emperor even against himself. They initiated the coup to keep the “blood bath plan” in effect. It only failed because they couldn’t find the record before it was broadcasted.
It was that close!
Fascinating history, and so much more than American racist dropped the bombs on poor Asian women and children to put the communist in their place.
Posted on 12/3/22 at 2:32 pm to Zach
What a waste.
With smart weapons, why are we spending all this money on large, nuclear capable bombers in 2022?
With smart weapons, why are we spending all this money on large, nuclear capable bombers in 2022?
Posted on 12/3/22 at 2:51 pm to Gaspergou202
quote:
History is a strange beast. There’s a long running argument to decide if history is an art or science. Unfortunately, it’s both. The science is the accumulation and dispersement of “primary documents”. The art is how a “historian” interprets and weighs the importance of this evidence.
Yes, I agree with this BUT, the history we get is sometime his story vs. his, or her story. Those that don't fit the preferred narrative may be ignored. See David Irving, for instance.
Regarding this below, I will have to rely on a murky remembrance of what I read long ago.
quote:
For instance, did Japan try to “surrender” before the bombs. No.
A total surrender was offered with just one caveat. And that was they wanted to keep the Emperor in place. I believe even the warrior generals agreed to this. But the allies found it unacceptable. So, the bombs dropped on what turned out to be civilian populations that had little to no tactical affect. Not wanting to belabor the point, with my rusty recollection.
ETA; Was going to WW2truth.com to look see but, wouldn't you know it? It's been zapped and now gone. History is alive and changing still.
This post was edited on 12/3/22 at 2:59 pm
Posted on 12/3/22 at 4:07 pm to cajunangelle
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/2/23 at 4:37 pm
Posted on 12/3/22 at 4:31 pm to cajunangelle
To be piloted by a transgender bot? Oh brave new world.


Posted on 12/3/22 at 4:53 pm to cajunangelle
Might as well have made a sTeALtH buggy. It'd be about as survivable in any fight where you'd need low observable tech at all, and would be a hell of a lot cheaper. 
Posted on 12/3/22 at 5:00 pm to LookSquirrel
quote:
So, it is NOT bullshite.
If you weren't using an ancient source, that may be the case. But you are. Here ya go.
LINK
Try again.
Popular
Back to top



1




