B-52H turns 50!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
While they are used to launch cruise missiles, the B-52 is still used in a traditional carpet bombing role.

I was under the impression almost all bombing today was precision bombing.

When was the last time carpet bombing was used? Was it used in Afghanistan?

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Sprayber
I don't think anyone hides the fact that the B52 is a weapon of war. Where did you get that from? Just because the US has found a machine that does its job reliably doesn't make them any different from those countries that find less efficent means.

Where do you get the idea that we're talking about the morality of the United States vs that of other nations? No one said the US is different from other nations in this context.

By writing that the B-52 is just a tool, you minimalize its purpose. A hammer is a tool. A gun can be used in self-defence agaisnt a specific target. The B-52 was designed soley to destroy large areas and the people within these areas.

[Kyle]

Originally posted by Tingkai


While they are used to launch cruise missiles, the B-52 is still used in a traditional carpet bombing role.

Yes, of military targets. Not cities, but troop formations or cave fortreses.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Tingkai

By writing that the B-52 is just a tool, you minimalize its purpose. A hammer is a tool. A gun can be used in self-defence agaisnt a specific target. The B-52 was designed soley to destroy large areas and the people within these areas.

I in no way minimalize it's purpose. It is designed to attack large areas of land with maximum amout of damage possible and do so from a long range. But it's nothing especially evil. Not more than a gun that you use to kill someone within sight. Given enough guns and enough people they too can kill just as many. I stand by my statement. It's a tool. an extreamly deadly and effective tool. But a tool none the less. You may have me confused with those that celebrate the plane. I don't. It's nothing without the people who get in it and fly or the people that direct where it should be used. I guess one of the reasons I can be so bland about it, is that I have never been on the recieving end of its payload. But if I was, I think I would feel far more animosity towards those people inside and those leaders that felt that my city or troop concentration needed to be bombed rather then the plane itself.

Someone close to me was killed by a log truck. I don't hate all log trucks. I hate the stupid and incompetant drivers that populate the freeways.

[Tingkai]

We'll go around in circles on this one so I'll just say that I disagree for the reasons previously stated.

[Lonestar]

Disagree all you want. You're still wrong.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by joseph1944
The B-52H model was not built until 1960 and enter service May of 1961. Next month it will be 51 year old.

2002 - 1961 = 41, not 51.

As for the dates, I was remarking on the B-52 in general, not specifically the B-52H. In order for the plane to be 51 years old, it would have had to have entered service in 1951, which leaves it plenty of time to be landscaping the Korean pennensula.

Sprayber, as I said, most of the deaths occured not by ground combat, but by direct bombing as well as economic disruption. When you bomb the dikes in North Vietnam (a war crime, btw), and a famine results because of the destruction of the crop land, then those who die were just as surely killed by the bombing as those who were blasted into chunks.

And, yes, the B-52s did target civilians. Ever hear of the Hanoi bombings? Hanoi is a city. Cities have cilians in them. B-52s cannot "surgically" strike cities (well, today they can, when firing cruise missiles). They can only level them.

US SOP, among other things, is aimed at destroying the enemy population's will to fight. For some reason, despite the fact that every study of the effects of bombing on populations, the US still seems to cling to the belief that eventually the will to fight back will crumble under the weight of endless bombing.

Asher, gunpowder was not invented as a weapon, but as a food additive. It amazes me what the Chinese will eat sometimes, given that one of the ingrediants in original gunpowder is pig dung. Even when it's explosive capabilities were discovred, it was used for amusement long before someone discovered it could be made into a rocket, let alone for projecting small pieces of metal.

I would say it's similar to Nobel's invention of dynamite, which he thought would save lives, since most blasting required nito glycerin, which is highly unstable. Instead, it lead to the development of explosieves for use in war. He was so horrified by the results of his invention that he created the Nobel Peace Prize.

Sprayber is correct, the B-52 is just a tool. However, unlike most tools, this one was designed to be a weapon of mass destruction. It has no creative purpose. It's only role is to kill lots of people. Even guns have other uses than just killing people.

[Az]

yeah ! like ......... hunting!


*imagines going after a bunny with an AK *

[Transcend]

Tingkai, I think you are just jealous that China doesn't have the same stuff.

B-52 is a great tool to keep our country secure and democracy free from the Soviet threat. The hawks in Kremlin would laugh their butt in face of your naive pacifism, Chegnitz. Unfortunately, there were not enough Americans like you so they were unable to gain too many advantages.

[chequita guevara]

Trancend, exactly how many wars did the "hawks" in Kremlin fight?

How many did the "doves" in Washington fight?

Start in 1917, with the assention of the Bolsheviks and end in 1991, with the disolution of the USSR. Add in colonial wars and foreign occupations. You may consider wars started by Soviet allies or in which the US paid the principal share of costs, but didn't actually use soldiers (as far as we know).

After completing your list, again laugh at my "naive pacifism."




BTW, I'm not a pacifist. I don't believe in imperialist wars, which are the only kind the US fights.

[Transcend]

How many wars did USSR fight from 1945 to 1990? Well, here is a partial list:

1946-1949: Sponsored Chinese Communists in their civil war
1948-49: Sponsored communist uprisings in Malaysia, Greece, and Turkey
1950: Forced Kim-IL-Sung into attacking South Korea
1951: Tricked Chinese into the Korean War
1953: Invaded East Germany to crush the Berlin Uprising
1957: Invaded Hungaria to crush another uprising
1959: Sponsored Castro to overthrow existing Cuban government
1960s: Massive military aid to Arab countries to fight against Israelis
1963-1973: Massive military aid, including thousands of advisors, to North Vietnam to fight against the US
1968: Invaded Czechslovakia to crush the "Prag Spring"
1969: Border clash with China almost lead to nuclear exchange
1979-1989: Invaded Afghansitan

Chegnitz, your beloved USSR has initiated or fought wars almost on a yearly basis from 1945 to 1989, and there are countless more covert activities and sponsored uprisings that escaped my knowledge. Also, the 2 biggest wars the US fought during the Cold War were defensive wars in which America merely wanted to preserve the existence of its allies. In both Korean and Vietnam wars, the Soviets(and Chinese to a lesser degree) were the true mastermind and aggressor.

[chequita guevara]

He paints half a picture, some of it completely false, and thinks he created a masterpiece.

[Giancarlo]

Another thing the Soviet Union made itself collapse with all of those wars... the whole system was a failure because it was fighting everywhere. The Soviets made Afghanistan collapse, and the Soviets were responsible for starting Civil Wars in South/Central America.

Maybe Chegitz, it is time you look at who you are supporting. Che, the US is fighting for the capitalistic cause, the only just and working system.

[Transcend]

Chegnitz, run out of arguments huh? It seems your only argument now is to resort to personal attacks.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Trancend, exactly how many wars did the "hawks" in Kremlin fight?

How many did the "doves" in Washington fight?

Start in 1917, with the assention of the Bolsheviks and end in 1991, with the disolution of the USSR. Add in colonial wars and foreign occupations. You may consider wars started by Soviet allies or in which the US paid the principal share of costs, but didn't actually use soldiers (as far as we know).

After completing your list, again laugh at my "naive pacifism."




BTW, I'm not a pacifist. I don't believe in imperialist wars, which are the only kind the US fights.

I dislike to disagree with you comrade

but the US has (prior to the last 50 years) engaged in very few major imperial wars (which I am not neccesarily against either)

neither WW1 nor WW2 nor 1812 nor Independence nor Civil War were imperialistic wars

Jon Miller