Concentration of Forces
Firstly, as a matter of military theory and practice, concentration of forces is key to success in warfare.
Bringing all the Jews together in a relatively small area makes us stronger not weaker.
Incorrect in the modern theater of war - this is a pre nuclear logic.
Actually concentration of forces is still a key military principle. Even with nukes its applicable as nukes have a limited range and armoured forces are well protected against them. Tactical nukes have a quite small blast radius and would only directly take out a few tanks or APCs spaced 100m apart. Most infantry inside armoured vehicles with the protection from blast, heat and radiation that provides.
Even in a conflict involving WMDs forces still need to concentrate in the offense. https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/army/fm3-100/CH10.PDF Missile defence systems like Israel has negate the need to disperse forces as they can take out the WMDs.
It is really important to study the physical effects of nuclear weapons: heat, blast and radiation. Each decreases rapidly with distance from detonation point and can be blocked effectively by reinforced concrete structures, or the armour of a tank.
A nuke that can kill an unshielded human 1000m away will be survivable in a properly reinforced vehicle or structure 100m away.
Also read the research of actual test results and studies of the effect of the bombs on Japan.
Japanese cities of the time were made almost entirely out of flimsy wooden structures. These were earthquake resistant but obviously burnt up in a the heat of a nuclear blast.
Nukes are not some magic super bomb that destroys everything like in Hollywood.
No because concentration allows cost effective Defence. There is no way the US can afford to give its population the same level of 5 layer missile defense that Israel has.
I come from Australia and served in the Army there. Large countries are much harder and more expensive to defend.
I don't think you're intentionally moving away from the point of the conversation - but you are.
Concentrated populations are easier eradicate than ones spread out thinly across all areas of the globe.
'Defense costs 'and defense capabilities are based on a war - that was never in my dark theory as a scenario.
It was about concentrating populations to make them easier eradicate.
If you wish to argue that this is not the case, then I can refer to you a dozen military and civilian situations , where this happened
( Dresden bombing -200,000k? deaths).
IF they dropped the same tonnage of bombs they used in Dresden - in the outback - I can guarantee you that there would not be the same causality rate!
If you’re not talking about war re concentration then what other method of killing populations are you taking about?
If you are (and your Dresden example is obviously war) then modern guided weapons make it just as easy to kill everyone in 100 isolated villages as the same people concentrated in a city.
But modern defensive systems can defend the city cost effectively but not the 100 isolated villages.
Equally a large country’s infrastructure is much more expensive and harder to protect. This is why the Israeli electricity grid is protected against EMP attack but US is not!
Civilian casualties in concentrated areas are higher than in spread out ares..
I never mentioned the military once....
...if you disagree with that theory fine.
..but I find it difficult to imagine that you can give me any example to the contrary of that theory - where sparse population zones will receive more casualties than densely populated zones..
See what I mean?
...this post has nothing to do with military deployment.
Casualties from what? I’m not understanding how there are any casualties without war.
In Australia at least motor vehicle casualties are much higher in rural areas that the cities.
Incorrect in the modern theater of war - this is a pre nuclear logic.
Cheers for the perspective though!
Actually concentration of forces is still a key military principle. Even with nukes its applicable as nukes have a limited range and armoured forces are well protected against them. Tactical nukes have a quite small blast radius and would only directly take out a few tanks or APCs spaced 100m apart. Most infantry inside armoured vehicles with the protection from blast, heat and radiation that provides.
A massed concentration of forces was still a key military principle back in 1913, in Europe
But from 1914 to 1918, their old military logic was proved to be woefully incorrect due to firepower.(new technology)
Nuke firepower (new technology) trumps any other firepower available, and to a massive degree..
....do you think that's an incorrect perspective? If so , how?
Concentration of force is still a key military doctrine. http://www.defencesynergia.co.uk/british-principles-of-war-are-they-applied-in-21st-century-uk-defence-policy-and-planning/
We are moving away from the point, I think...
Even in a conflict involving WMDs forces still need to concentrate in the offense. https://fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/doctrine/army/fm3-100/CH10.PDF Missile defence systems like Israel has negate the need to disperse forces as they can take out the WMDs.
...what if they're designed to fail..?
It is really important to study the physical effects of nuclear weapons: heat, blast and radiation. Each decreases rapidly with distance from detonation point and can be blocked effectively by reinforced concrete structures, or the armour of a tank.
A nuke that can kill an unshielded human 1000m away will be survivable in a properly reinforced vehicle or structure 100m away.
Also read the research of actual test results and studies of the effect of the bombs on Japan.
Japanese cities of the time were made almost entirely out of flimsy wooden structures. These were earthquake resistant but obviously burnt up in a the heat of a nuclear blast.
Nukes are not some magic super bomb that destroys everything like in Hollywood.
Well, lets hope we never find out....
I believe I'm correct.
Concentrated populations make for more casualties, than less concentrated populations... (or do you disagree?)
Especially in nuclear environments.
No because concentration allows cost effective Defence. There is no way the US can afford to give its population the same level of 5 layer missile defense that Israel has.
I come from Australia and served in the Army there. Large countries are much harder and more expensive to defend.
Posted using Partiko iOS
I don't think you're intentionally moving away from the point of the conversation - but you are.
Concentrated populations are easier eradicate than ones spread out thinly across all areas of the globe.
'Defense costs 'and defense capabilities are based on a war - that was never in my dark theory as a scenario.
It was about concentrating populations to make them easier eradicate.
If you wish to argue that this is not the case, then I can refer to you a dozen military and civilian situations , where this happened
( Dresden bombing -200,000k? deaths).
IF they dropped the same tonnage of bombs they used in Dresden - in the outback - I can guarantee you that there would not be the same causality rate!
Concentrated populations = more deaths.
If you’re not talking about war re concentration then what other method of killing populations are you taking about?
If you are (and your Dresden example is obviously war) then modern guided weapons make it just as easy to kill everyone in 100 isolated villages as the same people concentrated in a city.
But modern defensive systems can defend the city cost effectively but not the 100 isolated villages.
Equally a large country’s infrastructure is much more expensive and harder to protect. This is why the Israeli electricity grid is protected against EMP attack but US is not!
Civilian casualties in concentrated areas are higher than in spread out ares..
I never mentioned the military once....
...if you disagree with that theory fine.
..but I find it difficult to imagine that you can give me any example to the contrary of that theory - where sparse population zones will receive more casualties than densely populated zones..
See what I mean?
...this post has nothing to do with military deployment.
Casualties from what? I’m not understanding how there are any casualties without war.
In Australia at least motor vehicle casualties are much higher in rural areas that the cities.
Posted using Partiko iOS