Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 78910111213141516
Results 226 to 228 of 228

Thread: What was the point of Hitler's project?

  1. #226
    Administrator
    Lei Feng Protege
    Defense Professional
    Join Date
    23 Aug 05
    Location
    Arlington, VA
    Posts
    12,804
    wouldn't have been effective, either, too much open space to justify the cost, considering how relatively few of those things were around in the 1960s (compared to the insane 1980s stockpiles). densely populated targets or military targets, on the other hand...

    considering how close the US/USSR got to nuclear war, I'm certain that in a three-sided Cold War we'd have seen full-blown nuclear warfare by the 1960s at the latest. Central Europe would probably get the worst of it-- all those tactical nukes or even nuclear mines.

    wonder if both sides would try to lob a few towards the US just to make sure that if -they- died, the US wouldn't pick up the pieces. if somehow all the combatants survived until the 1980s, definitely.
    There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

  2. #227
    Senior Contributor Stitch's Avatar
    Join Date
    14 Nov 06
    Location
    Patterson, CA
    Posts
    3,080
    Quote Originally Posted by kato View Post
    Hitler wouldn't have nuked Eastern Europe. Completely contrary to the Blut und Boden theories the Nazis adhered to.

    Now, Moscow and London though...
    Moscow, maybe; that still might affect the Lebensraum Hitler was trying to take from the untermenschen Slavs (Russians).
    "There is never enough time to do or say all the things that we would wish. The thing is to try to do as much as you can in the time that you have. Remember Scrooge, time is short, and suddenly, you're not there any more." -Ghost of Christmas Present, Scrooge

  3. #228
    Official Thread Jacker Senior Contributor gunnut's Avatar
    Join Date
    27 Jan 06
    Location
    DPRK, Demokratik People's Republik of Kalifornia
    Posts
    23,775
    Quote Originally Posted by astralis View Post
    wouldn't have been effective, either, too much open space to justify the cost, considering how relatively few of those things were around in the 1960s (compared to the insane 1980s stockpiles). densely populated targets or military targets, on the other hand...

    considering how close the US/USSR got to nuclear war, I'm certain that in a three-sided Cold War we'd have seen full-blown nuclear warfare by the 1960s at the latest. Central Europe would probably get the worst of it-- all those tactical nukes or even nuclear mines.

    wonder if both sides would try to lob a few towards the US just to make sure that if -they- died, the US wouldn't pick up the pieces. if somehow all the combatants survived until the 1980s, definitely.
    That scenario reminds me of this episode:

    The Omega Glory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. What is the point of the Marines?
    By Tarek Morgen in forum The Field Mess
    Replies: 58
    Last Post: 02 Jul 11,, 09:19
  2. Why We Should Get Rid of West Point
    By astralis in forum The Staff College
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 15 May 09,, 18:38
  3. What's the point of the F-35??
    By The_Burning_Kid in forum Military Aviation
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 06 Jan 06,, 18:53

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •