Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Germany's new U-Boat more silent than a SSN

Military Germany U-Boats Silent running

  • Please log in to reply
53 replies to this topic

#1 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 03 November 2005 - 10:22 PM

The American Nightmare Undergoes Sea Trials

Quote

These are special boats, as they possess fuel cells (for AIP, or Air Independent Propulsion) , which enable them to quietly operate underwater for weeks at a time. They still have diesel propulsion, but this is only used for surface travel. The 212’s are also very quiet, quieter than most nuclear boats in service. This makes them an even match for a current nuclear boat equipped with better sensors.

These suckers are going to be scary if the Germans export them into the wrong hands.

The newer diesel boats have always been quieter then nuclear boats because they don’t have the noise of the cooling pumps and other accessories of a nuclear reactor.  That said they have always had to snort to recharge their diesels and that makes noise that you can use to find them.  When they run on batteries their range and speed is limited making them sort of a mobile minefield.  

This boat changes the equation because with the fuel cells recharging the battery there is no need for it to come up and snort.  The problem here is the Type 212 won’t be vulnerable to detection during this time like most diesel boats.  So she can lay in wait or move around slowly to setup for a attack and your first warning might be when she starts shooting.  

That said this article plays her up a bit too much.  The fuel cells from what I know can’t recharge a battery any faster than the diesels.  So sprinting at speed or extended combat at high speed is still out of the picture for a Type 212.  So in any type of upfront fight a 688I or more advanced USN submarine would have a massive power advantage over her.  On top of this the fuel cells aren’t going to have the range or endurance of a nuke that can stay under for weeks and sail around the world without refueling.  Plus the nuke boats have more hull to cram more advanced sensors and weapons into.    

So while the Type 212 is going to be very dangerous in close in littoral water and any type of confined situation she won’t be a match for a 688I, SSN-21, or Virginia Class in open water.  

That said give China about three of these little subs and she could be a serious thorn in the side of a carrier strike group.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#2 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 03 November 2005 - 10:42 PM

Sounds like the Germans have really come up with something here.  I'd hate to imagine three or four of these things working in a wolfpack situation like WWII.  Sounds like they might be able do enough damage to justify the loss of one or two of them before someone could take them out.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#3 Grandtheftcow

Grandtheftcow

    Imploder

  • Dead account
  • 532 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 08:51 AM

You Americans always crack me up. I guess its that cold war attitude of OMG how will this thingy kill us!?!?!

Here’s some extra info on the Type 212 and 214 class of subs. The page mentions the Italian, Greek, and South Korean navies as export countries.

And this page has a pretty chart listing German submarine exports since the sixties up to 2004.

Posted Image


#4 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 09:18 AM

Stealth anything can be taken out. They're just stealty to low-tech countries that don't have access to reams of high-tech gear.

For example, a stealth fighter or bomber has a profile that's as unobtrusive as a flock of birds.

But they still appear on conventional radar, and a high-end radar setup can be set up to recognise that flocks of birds don't travel at speeds of 450-750 mph, and Sidewinder missiles can likewise be set up to go after a smaller, more elusive profile. It's just a software issue.

Stealth military vehicles are not invisible. They work by (a) having a small profile, (b) are made up of angular shapes that better (but not completely) reflect radar, and © are coated with a relatively soft substance that absorbs radar. That said, they still appear on radar. The US tracks its own stealth planes and experimental water craft using radar. If faced with the prospect, they could take out their own stealth hardware.

You have to remember that when the US goes after a low-tech country like Iraq, they're not just using stealth aircraft. They work first by dominating the air-space, then by using that air-space to send over aircraft that blast out blanket signals that interfere with radar and communications, so that the "enemy" is rendered completely blind. At that point, stealth fighters and bombers are really redundant. The US even has an e-bomb now that can send out a huge pulse of electromagnetic radiation and fry every unshielded appliance within range. Their own electronics are protected because they use shielded cable, etc.

Guitar players are familiar with shielded cable. Guitar cords are shielded cable.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#5 Zaugur Anasazi

Zaugur Anasazi

    Defensor Selenae.

  • Islander
  • 257 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 11:20 AM

Indeed,the Greek Navy in order to renew it's weaponry,ordered submarines of Type 214.We already have Type 209 subs.Concerning the comment "wrong hands",we are talking about Germany here, member of EU and a democratic state,not Russia.I do not believe that Germans are so stupid to export such technology.If they do it,then the sub will certainly have inferior electronics than the original one.

Edited by Zaugur Anasazi, 04 November 2005 - 11:22 AM.

Posted Image

#6 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 12:11 PM

It's a fine line whether a country is a threat, or a joke. Canada falls into the latter category with its British-made second-hand subs.

Q- How do you sink a Canadian sub?

A- Put it in water.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#7 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,167 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 01:52 PM

The comments about stealth aircraft have no relevance to developments in submarines which use completely different techniques and methods of detection. Radar is not involved at all. Otherwise the post seems reasonably accurate although detection isn't simply a "software problem" considering the very physical solutions used for detection like bistatic radar and the like require changes to the hardware involved as well. Not to mention that all current stealth aircraft are also designed in such a way as too minimize infared signiture as well. Physical seeker heads had to be developed with the required sensitivity combined with the software to detect specific profiles to defeat them.My school optic physics lab developed some of the seeker "windows" used on them. The battle between measure and countermeasure is an ever evolving one.  
The point of this consteration as far as I'm concerned isn't the specific allied countries that the specific submarines are going to now but that this is not an isolated development. Air Independent Propulsion systems and thier underlying fuel cell technology are reaching a point where it is seeing service in several navies and could be sold as a unit to upgrade existing submarines or be incorporated into new designs from a nation such as China. While the chance is low that say Germany or Sweden would sell a whole submarine to China if the EU ban on military hardware were rescinded then say a German company could sell the technology to China resulting in a massive upgrade to thier submarine fleet.

#8 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 04 November 2005 - 07:11 PM

Quote

Q- How do you sink a Canadian sub?

A- Put it in water.

:howling:  

Never heard that one.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."


#9 Enkanowen

Enkanowen
  • Islander
  • 1,533 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 12:08 AM

Thank you Zaugur.

I too was going to comment on how ridiculous the whole "oh no what if Germany...". We're well past the whole World War thing. So Germany develops awesome technology. It's always been right up there when it comes to developing war tech. The nuclear bomb was developed by Germans, only they were in the US at the time.

#10 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,167 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 01:57 AM

Germany or other NATO allies having this technology isn't the issue at all. It is where the technology could go from them that the worry.

Edited by tennyson, 05 November 2005 - 01:58 AM.


#11 Zaugur Anasazi

Zaugur Anasazi

    Defensor Selenae.

  • Islander
  • 257 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 02:53 AM

Then,every country of the Western World should be feared for it's weaponry exports:UK,France,Italy,Spain,Sweden,Canada which in a way it's crazy.Every country has developed specific technologies in a field where others have not.The term "export version" is not random.When  you export to a country,you make sure your interests are secured.USSR did that,NATO countries did and continue to do that.So,you have right to worry,but with measure.
Posted Image

#12 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,167 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 03:14 AM

Thier is no way to "down grade" an AIP, either you have it or you don't. So it's not like the Russians loading a Mig-21 radar into a Mig-29 and selling it to the Iraqis.
Canada doesn't export weapons, it barely has enough technical infrastructure to maintain its own forces.
Sweden has some of the most strict weapons export laws in the world, which is why its development of this technology hasn't caused the same sort of worry as with Germany. They've also never exported a submarine while Germany is a major submarine exporter to the world.
Thier have been many cases of countries selling just as advanced weapons to other nations, even in some cases before thier own forces have them. The UK sold Tornadoes  to Saudi Arabia that were even more advanced than the ones in RAF service at the time. And the UK had to fight many of its own weapons systems when it fought Argentina in 1982. Just recently the US has sold an F-16 fighter variant to the UAE and Poland that is better than any F-16 that the US is planning to deploy. Even with the USSR they didn't always make sure thier interests were secured. The Chinese got the then latest Mig-21s before thier relations with the USSR soured and didn't bother with things like liscencing agreements and started mass producing them.
Many nations today will not accept a downgraded variant of the vehicle or system in question. Neither Finland or Switzerland did when they bought American F/A-18 Hornets, and the very latest Su-27 variants are now being coproduced in China.
I'm not greatly worried about Germany in this specific case but I am saying it is something that should be thought about and considered.

#13 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 03:23 AM

It worries me that a dangerous, unpredictable, renegade nation like the US has weapons of mass destruction. They really should be invaded for the world's safety and disarmed. Shrub junior suggested using nukes in Iraq. The "war" in Iraq was illegal. Shrub should be arrested, tried and executed for crimes against humanity and war crimes. Fair is fair.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#14 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,167 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 03:41 AM

If you think what I said has any sort of mirror with what you said then we have nothing further to discuss but let's break it down shall we,

Quote

Shrub junior suggested using nukes in Iraq.
No the American President George W Bush did not suggest using nuclear weapons in Iraq at any time or place. I know not of this "Shrub Junior" you speak of.

Quote

The "war" in Iraq was illegal.
Lots of running around and shooting does a war make, by definition. Which one are you refering to, 1991 or 2003. 1991 was taken under a UN manate voted on by the  full sitting council and ratified by Congress, it doesn't get any more legal than that. 2003 was fully legal since the 1991 war ended in a ceasefire, not a peace treaty either side could legally resume hostilities after fair warning had been given or on violation of the ceasefire by any party to it. Iraq violated the ceasefire hundreds of times every time it shot at an American, British or French plane in the No-Fly Zone.

Quote

Shrub should be arrested, tried and executed for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
I know not of this "Shrub" you speak of but American president George H.W. Bush has done nothing that meets the war crime critera of either International Criminal Court or the World Court or any of the statutes of the Geneva convention so nothing is there to try.
And all of this has nothing to do with the topic at hand and I would request that you engage the thread on its own terms.

Edited by tennyson, 05 November 2005 - 03:42 AM.


#15 Zaugur Anasazi

Zaugur Anasazi

    Defensor Selenae.

  • Islander
  • 257 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 06:30 AM

tennyson, on Nov 5 2005, 08:14 AM, said:

Thier is no way to "down grade" an AIP, either you have it or you don't. So it's not like the Russians loading a Mig-21 radar into a Mig-29 and selling it to the Iraqis.
Canada doesn't export weapons, it barely has enough technical infrastructure to maintain its own forces.
Sweden has some of the most strict weapons export laws in the world, which is why its development of this technology hasn't caused the same sort of worry as with Germany. They've also never exported a submarine while Germany is a major submarine exporter to the world.
Thier have been many cases of countries selling just as advanced weapons to other nations, even in some cases before thier own forces have them. The UK sold Tornadoes  to Saudi Arabia that were even more advanced than the ones in RAF service at the time. And the UK had to fight many of its own weapons systems when it fought Argentina in 1982. Just recently the US has sold an F-16 fighter variant to the UAE and Poland that is better than any F-16 that the US is planning to deploy. Even with the USSR they didn't always make sure thier interests were secured. The Chinese got the then latest Mig-21s before thier relations with the USSR soured and didn't bother with things like liscencing agreements and started mass producing them.
Many nations today will not accept a downgraded variant of the vehicle or system in question. Neither Finland or Switzerland did when they bought American F/A-18 Hornets, and the very latest Su-27 variants are now being coproduced in China.
I'm not greatly worried about Germany in this specific case but I am saying it is something that should be thought about and considered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Saudi Arabia currently is not a dangerous state nor it will be.Too dependant from the West.Concerning F-16's,USA is already developing new generations of dog fighters such as F-22 and F-35 and UCAVs.The F-16 is kinda old,since it's a 3rd generation fighter.After all Poland ,is poor,but not an idiot.It is also dependant for ther US since it want to enter NATO.UAE go in the same category with Saudi Arabia.Concerning the War in Folklands,most Argentian weapon systems where old,A-4s,Daggers,General Belgrano warship.Only Super Etertand with the Exocet missiles were giving some kind of danger.
Posted Image

#16 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 09:48 AM

tennyson, on Nov 5 2005, 08:14 AM, said:

Canada doesn't export weapons, it barely has enough technical infrastructure to maintain its own forces.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Generally correct, though Canada has exported the C7/8 to a number of armed forces around the world (Denmark, Netherlands, and the British SAS come to mind).

#17 Darkside_1

Darkside_1

    Your friendly Neighborhood Moderator.

  • Moderator
  • 3,079 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 10:45 AM

gsmonks, on Nov 4 2005, 01:11 PM, said:

It's a fine line whether a country is a threat, or a joke. Canada falls into the latter category with its British-made second-hand subs.

Q- How do you sink a Canadian sub?

A- Put it in water.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


LOL...


"Nah, they just left the screen doors open ;)  

Reminds me of another submarine joke...

Two Italians were standing over a cliff looking across the ocean during WWII when they spot a German U Boat.  One asks: "Hey, is thata u boat?"  The other one says: "It's notta mine!!"  (ba dum bum  (Rimshot))

"Harry S. Truman said that he felt like a bale of hay fell on him.

I feel like I got the whole damn barn."

Darren "Condor" McGavin - "By Dawn's Early Light"

HBO TV Movie - 1990


*** (Click here to view my signature) ***

Posted Image

"A pound of supplies taken from your enemy is worth 10 pounds of your own supplies"
Sun Tzu "The Art of War"


#18 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 4,850 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 11:13 AM

tennyson, on Nov 5 2005, 02:41 AM, said:

If you think what I said has any sort of mirror with what you said then we have nothing further to discuss but let's break it down shall we,

Quote

Shrub junior suggested using nukes in Iraq.

Quote

No the American President George W Bush did not suggest using nuclear weapons in Iraq at any time or place. I know not of this "Shrub Junior" you speak of.

Bush Sr is Shrub Sr. Bush Jr is Son of Shrub, Shrub Jr, etc.

Quote

The "war" in Iraq was illegal.

Quote

Lots of running around and shooting does a war make, by definition. Which one are you refering to, 1991 or 2003. 1991 was taken under a UN manate voted on by the  full sitting council and ratified by Congress, it doesn't get any more legal than that. 2003 was fully legal since the 1991 war ended in a ceasefire, not a peace treaty either side could legally resume hostilities after fair warning had been given or on violation of the ceasefire by any party to it. Iraq violated the ceasefire hundreds of times every time it shot at an American, British or French plane in the No-Fly Zone.

The war in Iraq was illegal. It was not sanctioned by the UN, nor was it a continuation of the Gulf War. That was a ploy by the US to justify its illegal and unsupported actions. The US did not garner legal support to attack Iraq. It garnered accomplices. That is not the same thing.

Quote

Shrub should be arrested, tried and executed for crimes against humanity and war crimes.
I know not of this "Shrub" you speak of but American president George H.W. Bush has done nothing that meets the war crime critera of either International Criminal Court or the World Court or any of the statutes of the Geneva convention so nothing is there to try. And all of this has nothing to do with the topic at hand and I would request that you engage the thread on its own terms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Shrub is guilty of the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, people who were murdered as the result of an illegal war that was not sanctioned by the UN. Shrub is also guilty of the deaths and maimings of thousands of unwitting US soldiers.

Here in Canada we like all sane, reasonable countries were against the US and its accomplices going to war with a country as technologically advanced as the Flintstones. The excuse the US used was that "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction". Hans Blix, the chief weapons inspector, said this was a lie, after the "war" it was further proved to be a lie (the weapons inspectors had already proven this to the satisfaction of the international community), and no amount of rhetoric or empty propagandic assertions by yourself or anyone else will make this lie the truth.

Shrub did toy with the idea of using "mini-nukes" in Iraq, as did Donald Rumsfeld. I heard them on my own television with my own ears. You seem to be suffering from short-term memory loss. Here's a little reminder. You want more? I'll post a few hundred links, if you like.

http://www.zmag.org/...=11&ItemID=5824

http://www.cbsnews.c...ain567131.shtml

http://www.commondre...s03/1116-11.htm

http://72.14.207.104...ini nukes&hl=en

http://www.ens-newsw...03-09-17-09.asp

http://www.wagingpea..._armageddon.htm

http://72.14.207.104...ini nukes&hl=en

http://www.basicint....int-2002feb.htm

http://www.crisispap...ear-weapons.htm


Here's a sampling of why the "war" in Iraq was illegal:

http://www2.rnw.nl/r...e/uk030305.html

http://news.bbc.co.u...ast/3661134.stm

http://www.timesonli...1650822,00.html

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/

http://www.lawyersagainstthewar.org/

http://www2.wcc-coe....12?OpenDocument

http://www.theglobea.../BNStory/Front/

http://www.globalpol...ck/lawindex.htm

http://www.counterpu...ey03222005.html

http://en.wikipedia....nd_the_Iraq_war

http://www.dailytime...2-3-2003_pg7_15

http://www.spectrezi...r/Addington.htm

http://www.worldtribunal.org/main/?

http://www.tvnewslie.../iraq_lies.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.../site/newsweek/

http://www.wsws.org/.../lawy-m22.shtml

http://www.lawyersag...es/hinchey.html

http://www.serendipity.li/iraqwar.htm

http://www.commondre...s04/0305-01.htm <=Here's what Hans Blix himself had to say on the subject.

http://www.globaliss...leEast/Iraq.asp

What has this to do with the present thread? Well, the US used "stealth technology". This is where sane, reasonable young men were fed drugs that helped turned them into slavering mass-murderers. Yes, the pilots of US fighters are fed drugs that get them all hyped up to murder and kill. For them, slaughtering innocent people was like playing video games, pumped up on 200 cups of coffee:

http://www.globalsec...20801-speed.htm

http://www.commondre...s02/0801-06.htm

http://www.workingfo...fm?ItemID=13655

http://www.csmonitor...01s04-usmi.html

http://www.truth-now...lotsondrugs.htm

http://www.stopthedr.../uspilots.shtml

http://bbsnews.net/bw2003-01-29a.html

http://www.cannabisn...read13695.shtml

http://nootropics.co...s/pipeline.html

http://www.cognitive...le_march04.html

http://www.partyvibe...e_readiness.TXT

http://www.nature.co...ll/7400109.html

http://home.austarne...aTheDruggie.htm

http://www.heartandm...26refcorner.asp

http://www.plausible...4733-6696a.html

http://www.cleartest...mphetamines.htm

So, there you go. Your US Stealth fighter pilots are a bunch of drugged-up murderous freaks.

Edited by gsmonks, 05 November 2005 - 11:20 AM.

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#19 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 01:27 PM

Quote

gsmonks: Here in Canada we like all sane, reasonable countries were against the US and its accomplices going to war with a country as technologically advanced as the Flintstones.
If you sat Iraq and Canada side by side geographically prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom I would have put my money on Iraq in the fight.  Sure their military was on the verge of breaking and antiquated.  Yet Iraq actually had weapons and plenty of ordnance.  They also had tanks and a few divisions worth of troops.  The only thing that could tip the balance was the CF-18s and the last time I checked the Canadian Air Force didn’t even have enough ordnance for training much less a war.  In other words against a country like Canada that third rate military power of Iraq would have had a fair chance of stomping you guys into the ground.  

Which is sad since many of the Canadian people aren’t willing to support a military establishment that until recently has a history of exemplary service and a combat record equal to the US military on a smaller scale.  That military is still professional they just have nothing.  I’ll never be disappointed in the Canadian Military if they continue their present level of professionalism, just the people in Canada who refuse to support those who go and stick out their necks so many can sit in their ivory towers.    

The only aspect of the Flintstones when it came to Iraq was that one country was the sole remaining military hyperpower whereas the other was third rate.  Iraq though against many countries would have been far from declawed.  

Quote

gsmonks: When you export to a country,you make sure your interests are secured.USSR did that,NATO countries did and continue to do that.So,you have right to worry,but with measure.
Germany and France have been looking to get the ban on exporting weapons to China lifted for sometime.  This is so they can sell advanced weapons and technology to China.  China has tons of cash on hand and plenty of money to buy a sub like this one.  

Quote

gsmonks: Shrub is guilty of the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, people who were murdered as the result of an illegal war that was not sanctioned by the UN.
As Tennyson stated the war is not illegal and it never will be under current international law.  This attempt to paint it as illegal comes from a severe misunderstanding on the matter of international law.  It also comes from the desire of some antiwar supporters to turn a debate over the whether the war was moral or not into a legal debate with no shades of gray.  The simple fact is that this war was totally legal and nothing is going to change that.

The US as a signatory on the First Gulf War ceasefire has the option of resuming hostilities if the terms of the ceasefire were broken.  Iraq clearly violated these terms by firing on US/British planes enforcing the no fly zones, by violating the terms of the no fly zones, and by obstructing the weapons inspectors countless times over the past decade.  Any of those violations allow the US to step in and take Iraq out.  

Now if you want to cite that this war is illegal then show us the International Law and the precedent to go with it.  Otherwise it all comes to a debate of morality in shades of gray.
  

Quote

gsmonks: Shrub is also guilty of the deaths and maimings of thousands of unwitting US soldiers.
Those soldiers signed up for that duty and to call them unwitting is an insult to their intelligence.  Now there have been countless times they haven’t got the support, the equipment, or the numbers they needed from both sides of the political spectrum.  I’ll be the first to point out those instances.  That said calling them unwitting is an insult to every one of them.    

Quote

gsmonk: Shrub did toy with the idea of using "mini-nukes" in Iraq, as did Donald Rumsfeld. I heard them on my own television with my own ears.
The US has “toyed” with or more accurately studied the potential use of nuclear weapons for every conflict we have been in since the first thing were first developed.  This is hardly a new thing.  We have hundred of contingency plans for god only knows what type of unlikely situations.  I guarantee somewhere we have a plan sitting catching dust in a drawer for a nuclear attack on Canada just in case or just as a exercise to keep planners sharp.  The Canadian Military probably has similar old plans for attacking the US sitting somewhere.  Every military does it.

Quote

gsmonks: You seem to be suffering from short-term memory loss. Here's a little reminder.
Cite the International Law and the precedent that says this war is illegal.  I don’t mean some opinion piece by such and such person in the anti-war crowd doing the usual this war is illegal rant.  I’d love to see the real cold hard legal case.  .    

Quote

gsmonks: Yes, the pilots of US fighters are fed drugs that get them all hyped up to murder and kill. For them, slaughtering innocent people was like playing video games, pumped up on 200 cups of coffee:
I assume you are citing Tarnak Farm.  The US pilots were aggressive but that aggression wouldn’t have led anywhere if Canadian Troops were following proper procedure.  They failed to follow proper IFF procedures that would have alerted US forces that they were friendly and they didn’t even know what those procedures were.  If the Canadian Government and the voting bloc of Canadians more interested in health care then a stable military actually supported their military it wouldn’t have happened.  They’d have systems like Blue Force Tracker that would have alerted the pilots that they were friendly.  

There is plenty of blame to go around on both sides.  Our fighter pilots were a little too aggressive but you want aggressive fighter pilots.  That is why you have IFF procedures so they know what they are shooting at.  Tarnak Farms was a tragic mistake on both sides and a brutal look at the reality of war and friendly fire.

Quote

gsmonks: Saudi Arabia currently is not a dangerous state nor it will be.Too dependant from the West.
Tell that to the hardliners and fanatics.  Saudi Arabia is a ticking time bomb that no one has the capability to deal with because they are sitting on a critical amount of our oil.  Saudi Arabia when she comes apart will make the Iranian Revolution look tame.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 05 November 2005 - 01:33 PM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#20 The Oncoming Storm

The Oncoming Storm

    Water's wet; sky's blue; and Satan Clause is out there.

  • Islander
  • 3,351 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 01:57 PM

gsmonks, on Nov 5 2005, 10:13 AM, said:

Shrub is also guilty of the deaths and maimings of thousands of unwitting US soldiers. 


Soldiers are the first to understand the nature of their business.  To quote a famous American Civil War General (who rose through the ranks):

"War means fightin' and fightin' means killin'."  

Can't be put more succinctly than that.  To infer that our nations soldiers are "unwitting" is a blatant insult to their drive to defend your right to call them stupid, if you will.  Remember Voltaire?  "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. "

Edited by Lost Cause, 05 November 2005 - 02:00 PM.

Rose: [disgusted] Oh, look at what the cat dragged in: "The Oncoming Storm."

"Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday." -- John Wayne


Sometimes the best causes worth fighting for are lost causes. -- Me.

Formerly Known as "Lost Cause."




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Military, Germany, U-Boats, Silent running

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users