Smart concrete

Everything can be destroyed, it's only a question of which method you use.

After the first attack, you will only be able to build a stone sling.
 
During WW2 the UK would use an earthquake bomb that demolished every thing that was near it when it went off. It would penetrate mountains and collapse the tunnels, it blow up Hitlers bomb proof sub pens which were some 20 feet thick made of concrete and steel.
 
42RM said:
Everything can be destroyed, it's only a question of which method you use.

After the first attack, you will only be able to build a stone sling.
Click to expand...

Which method? you mean your nukes. well if it is, we can get two results from your comment.
first you doubt to your conventional weapons ability in a war with Iran and you scare from Iran's revenge so you select a WMD weapon.
second you can't predict the influences and consequences of using nukes, even one of them, on the International relations. Be sure the world will never be more safer for you if you even wipe out Iran by nukes and I think it will be more insecure.
 
Last edited:
The West wouldn't have to use nukes you cretin. Even if conventional weapons couldn't mange it they could borrow the Lancaster from the Battle of Britain memorial Flight, arm up the 22,000 pounder on display and drop that on your freaking head.

To be honest guys, this bloke is a moronic pillock, ignore him and he will eventually go away.
 
BritinAfrica said:
The West wouldn't have to use nukes you cretin. Even if conventional weapons couldn't mange it they could borrow the Lancaster from the Battle of Britain memorial Flight, arm up the 22,000 pounder on display and drop that on your freaking head.

To be honest guys, this bloke is a moronic pillock, ignore him and he will eventually go away.
Click to expand...

You know I can understand Western confidence in its military capabilities and I can understand that even in Iran's wildest dreams they know they can not defeat a full on US invasion however there is one thing I also have learnt through the years and that is not to underestimate your enemy.

Development of weapons goes hand in hand with development of defences and given that they have had 20 years of watching and analysing the effects of US bombs on Iraqi infrastructure I have little doubt Iran has improved its ability to withstand US ordnance.

As for the Lancaster well if you don't mind seeing your 22,000lb bomb land within 5 miles of its target and you don't have 999 more of them I am not sure it could be considered a threat any longer.
 
One question. what will happen if one country use it's nukes for first time?
well, it depended on who use it for first time and who is the first victim.

Most of countries suppose that the superpowers never use their nukes but after first nuke attack everything will be changed . First some countries who have making nuke technology but they don't have it, like japan or Germany, will make it quickly. And the others will start to achieve it. it will not be very difficult for them.
New block will be formed the same as NATO, there won't be any trust between nations and the fear of using nuke will be reduced.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
You know I can understand Western confidence in its military capabilities and I can understand that even in Iran's wildest dreams they know they can not defeat a full on US invasion however there is one thing I also have learnt through the years and that is not to underestimate your enemy.

Development of weapons goes hand in hand with development of defences and given that they have had 20 years of watching and analysing the effects of US bombs on Iraqi infrastructure I have little doubt Iran has improved its ability to withstand US ordnance.

As for the Lancaster well if you don't mind seeing your 22,000lb bomb land within 5 miles of its target and you don't have 999 more of them I am not sure it could be considered a threat any longer.
Click to expand...


While its true at the beginning of RAF raids getting within 5 miles of its target due to lack of night navigation equipment, this was not the fact later on in the war as better and more accurate equipment became available. The RAF managed to sink the Tirpitz and destroyed the Bielefeld viaduct, so your statement that 999 22,000 pounders would be required is absolute nonsense and churlish.

Besides which my statement was tongue in cheek, I should have realised kiwi's don't have any sense of humour or perhaps kiwi's fail to understand what tongue in cheek means. Just in case you don't "Tongue-in-cheek is a phrase used as a figure of speech to imply that a statement or other production is humorously or otherwise not seriously intended and it should not be taken at face value." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek
 
Last edited:
hamidreza said:
Which method? you mean your nukes. well if it is, we can get two results from your comment.
first you doubt to your conventional weapons ability in a war with Iran and you scare from Iran's revenge so you select a WMD weapon.
second you can't predict the influences and consequences of using nukes, even one of them, on the International relations. Be sure the world will never be more safer for you if you even wipe out Iran by nukes and I think it will be more insecure.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily with nukes. There are several ways to take out a bunker. The old Soviet Union had a doctrine during the Cold War on how to put NATO command bunkers out of action without the use of nukes.
 
42RM said:
Not necessarily with nukes. There are several ways to take out a bunker. The old Soviet Union had a doctrine during the Cold War on how to put NATO command bunkers out of action without the use of nukes.
Click to expand...
several ways? I brought one article about our solution against MOB from your media. now you tell me one of your several ways.
 
BritinAfrica said:
While its true at the beginning of RAF raids getting within 5 miles of its target due to lack of night navigation equipment, this was not the fact later on in the war as better and more accurate equipment became available. The RAF managed to sink the Tirpitz and destroyed the Bielefeld viaduct, so your statement that 999 22,000 pounders would be required is absolute nonsense and churlish.

Besides which my statement was tongue in cheek, I should have realised kiwi's don't have any sense of humour or perhaps kiwi's fail to understand what tongue in cheek means. Just in case you don't "Tongue-in-cheek is a phrase used as a figure of speech to imply that a statement or other production is humorously or otherwise not seriously intended and it should not be taken at face value." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek
Click to expand...

Wow that was rather a whiny response still I guess you cant remove a national trait no matter how many years you spend overseas.

What I would suggest is that you pay close attention to that "Tongue in Cheek" break down and see if you can find another post in this thread it may apply to.

Der Alte said:
If you can´t target the structure, then you target the function or the inhabitants of the bunker.
Click to expand...

I was told that these things should be looked at as a chain mesh, if you cant break one link you work on the ones that connect to it.
 
Last edited:
Yes the RAF were often far off the target in the early days of the war, yet with the bomb in this film they manged to hit the Tirpitz and smash quite a few other targets.
The fuse was in tail fins so the bomb had to enter the ground completely before it was triggered. The idea was to shake the ground like an earthquake and cause the buildings to collapse.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Mm-zFW_nA&feature=related"]Grand Slam bomb - YouTube[/ame]
 
hamidreza said:
several ways? I brought one article about our solution against MOB from your media. now you tell me one of your several ways.
Click to expand...


Let explain a fact of life to you.

The United States has the largest military reasearch and development establishment in history, fact.

Right now, there are dozens of military contractors who would be watering at the mouth to get a contract to develop a heavy bunker busting device.

Right now there are hundereds of professionals who could formulate and display for deployment such a device or weapon for review before Congress.

Right now there are tens of thousands of highly trained military personel who could be trained and equipped to field such a device.

Now here is another rain check, your bunker during this entire process is immobile, not moving. Intelligence sources from among Iran's many enemies would be prying their eyes towards such and immobile target.

While researchers and develpers know exactly where to look for what this device would be built to overcome.


What you fail to understand is that America is really really good at building death machines.
Really good....

Stuff that's proven, stuff that China' copies, stuff that Russia tries to emulate.

We may have a hard time managing our debt, we may have a hard time keeping our interstates paved.

We may have a hard time on long term diplomacy...

But we excel in every way at building destructive devices, and even more so when we allow ourselves to use them.

One object the size of a telephone pole for instance dropped from thousands of miles up in orbit could have enough destructive energy when impacting the Earth's surface to pentrate very hardened targets...

As time goes by, guidance get's better, capability expands, and gaps in ability will close.

All that's needed now is the savy businessmen of our defense establisment to throw an idea infront of a defense appropriations committee.
 
Last edited:
Yossarian said:
Let explain a fact of life to you.

The United States has the largest military reasearch and development establishment history, fact.

Right now, there are dozens of military contractors who would be watering at the mouth to get a contract to develop a heavy bunker busting device.

Right now there are hundereds of professionals who could formulate and display for deployment such a device or weapon for review before Congress.

Right now there are tens of thousands of highly trained military personel who could be trained and equipped to field such a device.

Now is another rain check, your bunker during this entire process is imobile, not moving. Intelligence sources from among Iran's many enemies would be prying their eyes towards such and imobile target.

While researchers and develpers know exactly where to look for what this device would be built to overcome.


What you fail to understand is that America is really really good at building death machines.
Really good....

Stuff that's proven, stuff that China' copies, stuff that Russia tries to emulate.

We may have a hard time managing our debt, we may have a hard time keeping our interstates paved.

We may have a hard time on long term diplomacy...

But we excel in every way at building destructive devices, and even more so when we allow ourselves to use them.

One object the size of a telephone pole for instance dropped from thousands of miles up in orbit could have enough destructive energy when impacting the Earth's surface to pentrate very hardened targets...

As time goes by, guidance get's better, capability expands, and gaps in ability will close.

All that's needed now is the savy businessmen of our defense establisment to throw an idea infront of a defense appropriations committee.
Click to expand...


That summed it up in a nut shell...sad as it may be...it's a VERY bad idea to be the enemy of the US presently.
 
brinktk said:
That summed it up in a nut shell...sad as it may be...it's a VERY bad idea to be the enemy of the US presently.
Click to expand...

It could also be argued that it is becoming a very bad idea for the US to have so many enemies because as he points out you are struggling to control debt which will invariably mean that having the "largest military reasearch and development establishment history" may not be the case in the future.

I think you have been very lucky up until now that no one has latched on to the idea that the way to defeat the US is not on the battlefield but rather in the financial field because once US debt reaches critical mass no amount of economic growth will cover the cost of that debt.

Lets be honest here a $50 Taliban fighter drops a 0.50c picture of the Golden Gate bridge in a pile of rubble outside Kabul and you spend a couple of million over the next 6 months on security, rinse and repeat until the bill gets out of hand and that is how you win a war against the USA not with bombs and bullets.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
Lets be honest here a $50 Taliban fighter drops a 0.50c picture of the Golden Gate bridge in a pile of rubble outside Kabul and you spend a couple of million over the next 6 months on security, rinse and repeat until the bill gets out of hand and that is how you win a war against the USA not with bombs and bullets.
Click to expand...

My post was more of the reality of a particular situation, not the long term world climate. One fact has endured since the dawn of recorded history, all Empires either collaspe or dwindle backwards over time. Every single one, this is certain. I think it's not due to any one particular party that this happens, but more or less these types of soceities have life spans and age almost in a very rough sense just like people do. Understand I said very rough sense.

However even if America "collaspes" tommorow, we would quickly prop ourselves up with one hand off the floor with our Arms establishment.

What would be spooky and down right Ironic would be to see the United States using the very same arms export tactics to selling to just about anybody as Russia and Eastern Europe did after the wall came down.

Virtually becoming the type of sinner it once went sought out to bring to "justice", well American Justice.

I am not saying I do not love my country, just trying to take it's pulse and place it into words.

And right now certian portions of American society can be compared to as one English Comedian puts it, "A dying smelly Gorilla taking up all the space on your couch and attempting to murder you everytime you offer it free healthcare".

But this thread idea could be sentinced to another day.

Case in point back on topic, I don't see America's capacity to build and export armaments and military technology diminishing anytime soon, further more I see an incredible change in our already massive established export qaunties should any collaspe or upheaval come.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top