Friday, June 12, 2015

Russians Build The Tank That Will Win In World War 3

Whilst here in Australia, our military argues over what high heels are permissible for on-duty soldiers, Russian engineers have built a tank straight out of a science fiction film that will be unstoppable in a ground war even in a theatre where tactical nuclear weapons are common.

Australia's military is trying to find a way to keep their diesel-powered submarines from the 1970's running on 286SX computers while Russian research has perfected thought control interfaces.

If detonating a nuclear weapon was a complex affair that could only be accomplished with precise machinery and incredibly advanced technology then it might be ridiculous to suggest this had all happened before, many times. Creating a nuclear weapon is as simple as firing two pieces of refined uranium at each other in a pipe. It is quite easy to imagine ancient nuclear wars that took place in cities built of mud brick where people did not even have flush toilets. Once discovered, the principle of such a weapon would spread quickly and anyone anywhere could construct one with access to uranium stores. It is insight when you realize there is nothing new under the Sun. It is foolishness when you think the dilemmas of your generation are unique to your generation. They never are. All of this has happened before, many, many times. Do you know a lot of us are descended from people who built vaults in the past? Of course we are. This is so our own descendants can survive similar crises in the future. This is why we carry genes that compel us to these habits. To guess at the ancient past, many of us need only look inside at our own character and ask how we came to be that way. We are the children of people who survived previously when many around them said any attempt to survive would be futile. Turns out, they were wrong.


njartist said...

Don't worry folks, our intrepid and glorious generals will win any confrontation the old fashioned way, as in the Civil War, WWI, and WWII: sending masses of men and material to be killed and destroyed; they will expend a dozen American tanks and crews just to take out one Armata.

styrac1 said...

Ave said...

>> they will expend a dozen American tanks and crews just to take out one Armata.

You mean they will gladly expend five Shermans against a Tiger tank ? Now where did I read that... ?

njartist said...

Yes, Ave, I had that in mind as one example.

Kona Commuter said...

In the autobiography "About Face: The Odyssey of an American Warrior”. Col Hackworth recounts a story where, at the end of WWII, he was guarding German POW’s. He was making fun of them. One German soldier had enough so he said (paraphrased) “Do you want to know why I am in here as your prisoner? We were being attacked by American tanks. I destroyed one, another, then a third. When the fourth showed up I was out of anti-tank rockets and surrendered. So I’m your prisoner because America had more tanks than I had anti-tank rockets"

Ave said...

@ Kona Commuter

Interesting story indeed.

The soldier tells it from his point of view, but the thing is that they had anti-tank rockets because the US air force destroyed nearly all the refineries, or tanks would have been used instead.

The US military was well aware of the effects of strategic bombing : the raid on Schweinfurt in 1943 (ball-bearing production) provided them with an excellent modelisation of such disruption (which they still use, for instance during the Second Gulf War or the attack on Serbia).

They could have crippled the german war machine a year prior, and thus shorten the war by that amount of time, but then :
- the soviets would have had the possibility of reaching the atlantic (less likely)
- there would have been no photogenic D-Day and french villages sporting the US flag (more likely)