I take it you just found out about these weapons and are trying to quickly bring yourself up to speed?
You take a lot of things. You should put them back if they don't belong to you.
Again, I fully understand.
Nope.
If you fully understood, you wouldn't have claimed that because more neutrons are needed that a bigger blast is needed.
That pretty much proves you don't know squat.
Even at 1/10th of the power, the damage at the epicenter will be immense as well the damage caused by the shockwave. And the way you are arguing to use them requires a large number of them. That effectively means that large areas of the US will be completely leveled.
...
You also ignore the purpose of the weapons: to eliminate soviet tanks columns without having to irradiate the land. It was never about keeping the civilian structures in tact. It was about stopping armor.
So, which is it, a land destroying supermegatonnage bomb as you claim in the first part, or an armor destroying non-irradiating weapon, as you claimed in the second?
Can you pick one argument and lose with that instead of picking two self-contradictory arguments and losing twice?
You know, the whole messiah crap turns people off
So?
and makes you look stupid.
But no where near as stupid as the people that voted for him.
Very little in your second post is worth even discussing as it's more of a hyperpartisan rant with little ties to reality.
Yes, I hear that's one of the re-programming phrases from the DNC for people who need to follow orders. "hyperpartisan". Cool. What I think is means is that the people who voted for Obama burned out their hyperdrives.
And you did in fact ignore the logistics problem that both Rathi and I discussed.
No.
I stated they weren't important.
If you're going to say I ignored it, you have to addres the fact the I didn't ignore it.
Nowhere did you even talk about it. In fact some of us made jokes about how China is even going to get here with sufficiently large numbers of assets.
Alaska. Ya ever hear of the place? Are you aware that it was an important strategic issue in WWII?
There's this country called "Mexico", too. For some reason I can't imagine why you people are pretending Mexico doesn't exist.
And we didn't have technological superiority when it came to WWII.
Depends on what you're discussing. The Japanese didn't advance technically.
The Germans had cool little toys, and their impact on the war was just as important as little kids playing with toys.
The Chinese are working on technical superiority, though. But y'all can ignore that if you wish.
But we still won. Having a giant based called England helped.
"We" won because "we" had factories the enemy couldn't reach and because, and only because, the funny little man in Berlin made the mistake of attacking the USSR before securing his western front first.
That's the only reason Hitler lost the war.