Comments by "" (@TheArklyte) on "Soviet Chemical Bomber That Miserably Failed" video.

  1. ​ @beyondrecall9446  it's a long range chemical bomber. It's not suited for wartime use aginst enemy troops. Slow, flimsy, lacks proper bombload and precision capability, no armor or defensive armaments, no way to support it by fighter escorts. You got what I'm saying, eh? It's a first strike weapon against civilian population that would be sent on one way trip BEFORE declaration of war. Ie 1930's WMD designed to kill millions of "enemy" civilians without any declaration of war. Back before radar interception was a thing. Now tell me, is it a war crime? It's not retaliatory weapon, it's not mutually assured destruction and it sure as heck isn't a combat worthy one. Come on, give me a justification why it won't be an act of planned ideologically and nationality driven genocide? I want to hear it.
    4
  2. It's a LONG RANGE bomber. This one wasn't aimed at soldiers in the trenches. And civilians don't have gasmasks and especially full HAZMAT suits ready. Mind you, this is also before radar early warning and interception was a thing, not to mention widespread. So the goal was to use said ANT-36 as first strike WMDs, sending a dozen if not more planes per city without declaration of war to kill millions of unprepared civilians. Gives me some All Nightmare Long by Metallica vibes.
    4
  3.  @JoeRogansForehead  oh hey, a two months profile. Will you exist in two months?
    3
  4.  @Komat0zz  oh hey, another volunteer. I guess you'll be the one to answer? Sorry in advance for reposting my own comment. It's a long range chemical bomber. It's not suited for wartime use against enemy troops. Slow, flimsy, lacks proper bomb bay and precision capability, no armor or defensive armaments, no way to support it by fighter escorts. You got what I'm saying, eh? It's a first strike weapon against civilian population that would be sent on one way trip BEFORE declaration of war. Ie 1930's WMD designed to kill millions of "enemy" civilians without any declaration of war. Back before radar interception was a thing. Now tell me, is it a war crime? It's not retaliatory weapon, it's not mutually assured destruction and it sure as heck isn't a combat worthy one, neither for offense, nor for defense as you like to call it. Come on, give me a justification why it won't be an act of planned ideologically and nationality driven genocide? I want to hear it.
    2
  5.  @JoeRogansForehead  >We russians are very resourceful >Paid 400rub for VPN
    2
  6.  @JoeRogansForehead  >You're so clueless >Tries to derail conversation from the fact that he payed for VPN
    2
  7.  @Komat0zz  ah yes, derailment into Tuhachevsky. Classic. So, no answer?
    2
  8.  @anzaca1  do you have any idea about the meaning of the word "except"? Shot down by whom? This is an era BEFORE radars. There would be NO early warning. Chemical attack without declaration of war can't be countered and only threat of mass retaliation would be holding it back. Threat that falls apart if the attacker uses thousands of bombers to attack and if you can't match their range to bomb them back.
    1
  9. It's a LONG RANGE bomber. This one wasn't aimed at soldiers in the trenches. And civilians don't have gasmasks and especially full HAZMAT suits ready. Mind you, this is also before radar early warning and interception was a thing, not to mention widespread. So the goal was to use said ANT-36 as first strike WMDs, sending a dozen if not more planes per city without declaration of war to kill millions of unprepared civilians.
    1