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

#21 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 02:00 PM

Saudi Arabia is one coup away from becoming a major threat to everyone. As CJ mentioned an Islamic revolution there would have repurcussions that would make what happened in Iran look puny bycomparison. Here would be a radical Islamic nation with the best equipped and trained troops in the Arab world, roughly forty percent of the world's oil reserves, a trillion dollars of investments in the US, long range ballistic missiles from China and control of the holiest sites in all of Islam.  

My point about the F-16s is that the versions deployed in those nations are better than any F-16s the United States has right now. The F/A-22 is barely in service and the F-35 is years away now. It is making the case that nations do export weapons that aren't downgraded.
In the Falklands the Argentine and British troops used the same SLR(self-loading Rifle) based on the FN FAL, the same Carl Gustav antitank weapons, the same artillery pieces and those so called primitive A-4s did most of the damage to the fleet, scoring dozens of bomb hits that damaged a whole lot more ships than those Exocets(the latest version, along with the Super Etendard, from France) but didn't sink as many due to thier use of armorpiercing rather than simple HE bombs.  

and since CJ handled gsmonks so well and I've already made my case I'd just like to say that you must not have have met me because anyone who has would know that making a claim of any sort of memory loss in my case is beyond ludicris. I can recite almost every incident of fire on allied forces from 1991 to 2002 but CJ already gave the overriding evidence.
Also, such "mininukes" as you call them that recieved so much media attention don't exist. They were a paper study someone did that recieved all of maybe $15 million to see if a tiny nuclear weapon would be capable of defeating the new bunker designs with minimal fallout. They were never built. So you can't use what you don't have.
As for anything else, as Bush said in the first Gulf War and had been made perfectly clear by many American presidents if attacked using biological, chemical or nuclear weapons the US has the right to respond in kind. But Iraq never used its chemical weapons so it never came up.
As far as advances go Iraq has one of the most technically literate populations in the Middle East right after Isreal, Turkey and Iran with its own native armament industry that made such things as explosives, cluster bombs, and ammunition for its forces, upgraded the electronics and added extra armour to its tanks, built dozens of ballstic missiles and designed and built two different long range versions of the SS-1 Scud ballstic missile. To call them stone age is an insult to all Iraqis and the strength and ingenuity of the Iraqi technical base. They were even still manufecturing short-range ballstic missiles right up until the war started back in 2003.

Edited by tennyson, 05 November 2005 - 02:09 PM.

"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#22 Gaheris

Gaheris
  • Islander
  • 629 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 02:16 PM

*shakes head about comments in the first post here* such a thinking is retarded.

And thank you Zaugur and Enkanowen for your words. The war has been over for ages and we have become a proud and intelligent nation. And I'm sure some ppl in here still don't know that Hitler wasn't German and is actually dead!
So long ago, another life,
I can feel your heartbeat,
It's not a dream, remember us,
I can see it in your eyes.
We'll find a place in time, a place in time
Beyond the sun, we'll find a place in time, a place in time to go along...

#23 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 02:38 PM

Your comments show that you aren't bothering to read what has been posted and aren't actually seeing the arguement that has been brought up. Both CJ and I are historians and at least I have an IQ in the 99th percentile and are quite aware of where Germany is right now and how long Hitler has been dead and that has nothing to do with the comments that either of us made and if you have a substantive challenge then make it rather than blanketly insult people for comments they didn't make. It's a question of where the technology would be sold rather than that Germany has it. No one has had any problems with NATO allies developing weapon systems for thier own use here.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#24 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,130 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 02:58 PM

That the US-led "war" in Iraq was illegal is well-documented and proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

That the "reasons" the US concocted were unfounded lies is well-documented and proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

You did not "deal" with me. You only made fools of yourselves. My views are in accordance with the UN, including its current leader, Kofi Annan, and my views are in accordance with Hans Blix who was the chief weapons inspector in Iraq.

My views are also in accordance with most of today's world leaders and watchdog organisations, including a number of the top legal institutions who took a stand against the illegal military action carried out in Iraq.

That you would defend the US-led despicable and illegal mass-murder in Iraq speaks volumes for your mentality. There is nothing there to defend, unless it is your position that unfounded suspicion is grounds to commit mass-murder.

That certainly seems to be the case.

In plain and simple terms, George W. Bush is a thug and a mass-murderer, and by proxy so are the citizens of the United States.

If the shoe fits, wear it. Just don't try telling me mass-murder is something it's not.

The sickest thing about the US and its politicians is the manner in which it tries to hide atrocities behind rhetoric. Never is there an admission of guilt or wrongdoing. When murder is committed for false "reasons" the tactic is to put a new spin on things.

That you guys are apeing this perverted behaviour in this thread is testimony to the effectiveness of this tactic. Well done. Bravo. Look, you're dancing on the graves of innocent women and children. What heroes you are. What wonderful foreign policy the US has. It can do anything it wants to anybody, and expects everyone to kiss its ass in return and not call a lie a lie.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#25 Gaheris

Gaheris
  • Islander
  • 629 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 03:00 PM

Be calm dude, I didn't attack you. Just some comments in here piss me off. I'm just angry because some ppl still have the attitude I described above. Some comments I described weren't made here, but they are part of the still unfortunate stereotypical thinking which was expressed here. I didn't mean to attack everyone here there were also some good comments.
So long ago, another life,
I can feel your heartbeat,
It's not a dream, remember us,
I can see it in your eyes.
We'll find a place in time, a place in time
Beyond the sun, we'll find a place in time, a place in time to go along...

#26 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 03:11 PM

Quote

Be calm dude, I didn't attack you. Just some comments in here piss me off. I'm just angry because some ppl still have the attitude I described above. Some comments I described weren't made here, but they are part of the still unfortunate stereotypical thinking which was expressed here. I didn't mean to attack everyone here there were also some good comments.

Points taken and accepted. I was pointing out that the attitude wasn't represented here.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#27 Shalamar

Shalamar

    Last Star to the Left and Straight on till Morning

  • Forever Missed
  • 17,644 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 03:12 PM

GS Monks, you might want to cut out the sweeping generaliztions and insults .

And the personal attacks and insults as well.

Consider this an unofficial warning and the matter has been take to the SL.



Lol Edited 'cause I can't seem to spell today.

Edited by Shalamar, 05 November 2005 - 03:32 PM.

The three most important R's
Respect for One's Self / Respect for Others / Responsibility for One's Words & Actions.

Posted Image

#28 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,130 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 03:51 PM

Shalamar, on Nov 5 2005, 02:12 PM, said:

GS Monks, you might want to cut out the sweeping generaliztions and insults .

And the personal attacks and insults as well.

Consider this an unofficial warning and the matter has been take to the SL. Lol Edited 'cause I can't seem to spell today.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


It seems to me that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If someone insults me, they can expect to find themselves on the receiving end.

As far as your "unoffical warning" goes, I suggest you reread all of the comments made. If you find the comments directed at myself to be free of insult, then I suggest you remove your rose-coloured glasses.

What angers me most is that there seems to be a sense of entitlement where the US and its actions and policies are concerned. It seems that those who have legitimately stated that the US-led "war" is illegal can be dismissed on a mere whim by anyone who wishes to follow the tenor of the US spindoctors. This toadying climate of license has been displayed by certain people in this thread.

Go ahead- get me kicked me out of this forum. Just don't expect me to shut up or lie about mass murder and/or illegal military action. And don't ask me to take the repetition of lies on those subjects lying down. I won't do it.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#29 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 04:21 PM

I am not lying nor have I ever lied about anything I have ever posted here or anywhere nor am I a "spin doctor" nor do I have any sense of entitlement to well anything. Everything I post comes from my own understanding of the underlying evidence and not from anyone else's "talking points". I have done my defending with evidence including UN resolutions and my understanding of international law.
"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#30 eryn

eryn

    So, a baby seal walks into a club...

  • Islander
  • 1,638 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 05:18 PM

gsmonks, on Nov 5 2005, 12:58 PM, said:

That the US-led "war" in Iraq was illegal is well-documented and proven beyond any reasonable doubt.


<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Prove this with legal fact. Prove how its illegal to go to war when a cease fire had been violated.
If you watch the news and don't like it, then this is your counter program to the news.
Jon Stewart

My Flickr

#31 Godeskian

Godeskian

    You'll be seein' rainbooms

  • Islander
  • 26,839 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 05:26 PM

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

Quote

The US-led coalition’s war against Iraq is illegal, declared 31 Canadian professors of international law at 15 law faculties in an open letter issued Wednesday, just before US President Bush announced that the war had commenced.

A US attack “would be a fundamental breach of international law and would seriously threaten the integrity of the international legal order that has been in place since the end of the Second World War,” the letter stated.

The attack would violate the UN Charter, which forbids countries to wage war except in self-defense or when authorized by the UN Security Council to preserve or restore international peace.

Quote

John Currie, a University of Ottawa law school professor and one of the drafters of the letter, described these arguments as fatally flawed. The 1991 resolution stated that the Security Council “decides to remain seized of the matter and to take such further steps as may be required for the implementation of the present resolution.” The Security Council—not the United States, Britain or other council members acting on their own—must decide on further use of force, Professor Currie said.

emphasis mine

Don't forget, the UN itself has said that the US should have got approval from the security council first.

Of course, as these aren't American-goverment approved people, I doubt it will carry much weight.

Defy Gravity!


The Doctor: The universe is big. It's vast and complicated and ridiculous and sometimes, very rarely, impossible things just happen and we call them miracles... and that's a theory. Nine hundred years and I've never seen one yet, but this will do me.


#32 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,130 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 05:27 PM

tennyson, on Nov 5 2005, 03:21 PM, said:

I am not lying nor have I ever lied about anything I have ever posted here or anywhere nor am I a "spin doctor" nor do I have any sense of entitlement to well anything. Everything I post comes from my own understanding of the underlying evidence and not from anyone else's "talking points". I have done my defending with evidence including UN resolutions and my understanding of international law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Sorry for the timbre of my earlier remarks, Tennyson. One should never speak in anger.

But anyway . . . so what's your take on Hans Blix and Kofi Annan? Hans Blix was the chief weapons inspector and Kofi Annan is the head of the UN. Both said that the US had no basis to go to war. Both said there were no weapons of mass destruction. Both said the war was illegal and unsanctioned. I posted links to their comments.

Are you asking me to disbelieve them? I mean, either they're right or they're wrong. And no one on the face of this planet is in a better position to know the facts of this matter than they are.

I also posted a link to the stand taken by lawyers who are experts on international law. To a man they stated that the US/Iraq war was and remains illegal under international law. Either they are right or they are wrong. As they are experts in international law, I would saw that their chances of being right are pretty good.

What "underlying evidence" are you talking about? What "understanding of international law" are you talking about?

I personally think that the Iraq war was an excuse for the US military to try out all its fancy new toys, and to train its soldiers how to use all that fancy new hardware in real-life situations. I think that the US military was getting nervous because their military men and toys had been inactive for so long that their predicted effectiveness was pretty much theoretical.

With the US news-media cheerleading, if you recall, the US military did make a big point to show off their new toys. In that way, the makers of stealth fighters and bombers were able to see if their inventions really were stealthy and un-shootable-downable in real-life combat.

I also think that the US military wants to prolong this war in order to create and train a new generation of soldier. Historically speaking, the US hasn't won a ground war since Korea, and as modern warfare is increasingly becoming ground warfare, the US war-machine is naturally concerned about turning their fortunes around.

The irony is that since Iraq, Korea and Iran have openly taunted the US, but so far the US has only fired back with diplomacy. And both Iran and Korea have all the things the US claimed Iraq had when it built Iraq into a threat and invaded. Both are rogue nuclear states. Both have been cited for endless human-rights violations. Both did some serious sabre-rattling.

As far as stealth capable military platforms goes, it seems that every time a country comes out with a really effective weapon these days, there's a lot of shrieking and hair-pulling from the US, and petulant finger-pointing and statements like, "Oh, those nathties! They shouldn't have those weaponses!" The unwritten subtext being that only the US has a right to really effective weapons.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#33 Zaugur Anasazi

Zaugur Anasazi

    Defensor Selenae.

  • Islander
  • 257 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 05:51 PM

tennyson, on Nov 5 2005, 07:00 PM, said:

Saudi Arabia is one coup away from becoming a major threat to everyone. As CJ mentioned an Islamic revolution there would have repurcussions that would make what happened in Iran look puny bycomparison. Here would be a radical Islamic nation with the best equipped and trained troops in the Arab world, roughly forty percent of the world's oil reserves, a trillion dollars of investments in the US, long range ballistic missiles from China and control of the holiest sites in all of Islam. 

My point about the F-16s is that the versions deployed in those nations are better than any F-16s the United States has right now. The F/A-22 is barely in service and the F-35 is years away now. It is making the case that nations do export weapons that aren't downgraded.
In the Falklands the Argentine and British troops used the same SLR(self-loading Rifle) based on the FN FAL, the same Carl Gustav antitank weapons, the same artillery pieces and those so called primitive A-4s did most of the damage to the fleet, scoring dozens of bomb hits that damaged a whole lot more ships than those Exocets(the latest version, along with the Super Etendard, from France) but didn't sink as many due to thier use of armorpiercing rather than simple HE bombs. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I would fear more the Armed Forces of Jordan,the best by far in the whole Arabic World, rather than those of Saudi Arabia......A-4s made the more damage on British warships,yes,but with the cost of heavy losses.Their missions were "Kamikaze missions".If Argentina had more Super Etendards and Exocet,and they had better tactits,they would be a major factor in the conflict for the Argentinians.Yes,F-22 is barely in service but we are talking about technology here.The first F-16 prototype was constructed in the late 70's and the first Tornado prototype in the late 80's(I cannot be certain whether it was 70's or 80's,i have to look for it).F-22 is more than new technology.

Edited by Zaugur Anasazi, 05 November 2005 - 05:57 PM.

Posted Image

#34 prolog

prolog

    The Merry Programmer

  • Islander
  • 1,062 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 09:41 PM

gsmonks, on Nov 5 2005, 08:51 PM, said:

What angers me most is that there seems to be a sense of entitlement where the US and its actions and policies are concerned. It seems that those who have legitimately stated that the US-led "war" is illegal can be dismissed on a mere whim by anyone who wishes to follow the tenor of the US spindoctors. This toadying climate of license has been displayed by certain people in this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


This forum is supposed to be about reasoned, intelligent debate.  It doesn't always succeed, but with comments like the above ("toadying"?), it never will.

#35 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,130 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 10:19 PM

Epilogue

prolog, on Nov 5 2005, 08:41 PM, said:

gsmonks, on Nov 5 2005, 08:51 PM, said:

What angers me most is that there seems to be a sense of entitlement where the US and its actions and policies are concerned. It seems that those who have legitimately stated that the US-led "war" is illegal can be dismissed on a mere whim by anyone who wishes to follow the tenor of the US spindoctors. This toadying climate of license has been displayed by certain people in this thread.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


This forum is supposed to be about reasoned, intelligent debate.  It doesn't always succeed, but with comments like the above ("toadying"?), it never will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Toadying, Verb, Toady (towdee): 1. Try to gain favour by cringing or flattering.

Yes, that pretty much sums up the relationship between the US and the weaker members of the UN that curry the US's favour. Tony Blair strikes me as a toady. I might even be tempted to refer to him as a "lap-dog". A lap-dog is a yappy little cur whose bravery is "master-borrowed", to borrow an apt old English term. His "bravery" is that of the sycophant who chums up with a bully. Take the bully out of the picture, and, well, he's reduced to his true stature.

I used the term "toadying" because it saved me making long explanations like these. Wonderful tool, the English language. Chock full of apt expressions and phrases that can be used to spice up an otherwise dull and dry discussion or debate.

Edited by gsmonks, 05 November 2005 - 10:21 PM.

Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#36 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 10:21 PM

I have to say, I get really annoyed when the main justification for developing ever more advanced weapons systems is the proliferation of advanced weapons systems that we sold around the world, often to nations of dubious stability.   It would seem to suggest that better export controls might be a better long-term strategy than an ever-spiralling and hugely expensive arms race.
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#37 gsmonks

gsmonks

    Tree Psychiatrist

  • Islander
  • 5,130 posts

Posted 05 November 2005 - 10:27 PM

MuseZack, on Nov 5 2005, 09:21 PM, said:

I have to say, I get really annoyed when the main justification for developing ever more advanced weapons systems is the proliferation of advanced weapons systems that we sold around the world, often to nations of dubious stability.   It would seem to suggest that better export controls might be a better long-term strategy than an ever-spiralling and hugely expensive arms race.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I couldn't agree more. The problem, however, is that war is a business, one that relies on having the latest toys. War is also ideology-driven, so that those purchasing the toys often think they have the right to use those toys to force their own ideology down everyone else's throat.
Capitalism is a pyramid scheme run by the 1%.

#38 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 12:25 AM

Quote

Gaheris: *shakes head about comments in the first post here* such a thinking is retarded.

And thank you Zaugur and Enkanowen for your words. The war has been over for ages and we have become a proud and intelligent nation. And I'm sure some ppl in here still don't know that Hitler wasn't German and is actually dead!

I could care less if Germany has this submarine or not but exports scare me badly.

The post was not directed at Germany or the German people and it sure doesn’t have anything to do with World War II.  I would have the same concern if France, Russia or any other nation that is a little loose with their weapons exports developed an advanced submarine that could challenge a SSN or threaten a carrier strike group.  The fact is that this submarine is for export and that is what scares me.  

Germany has shown a desire along with France to get the weapons sanctions on China dropped so they can export advanced weapons.  China has military interests that threaten the United States and our allies.  I can cite the news stories to show you their latest attempt at it.  An advanced submarine like this in her hands could cut the sea-lanes and potentially kill several thousand American sailors.  You can also search back over my history and find several posts involving several countries where I have stated this or that weapons system could be a threat.  

I question why my logic is retarded when Germany has showed a vested interest in exporting weapons to a country whose military blusters at, threatens the US, and is preparing for a potential future military conflict with us.  

Quote

gsmonks: That the US-led "war" in Iraq was illegal is well-documented and proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Cite me the example of the international law and precedent that proves shows how the US led war is illegal.  I want to see this law that says declaring war without UN approval is illegal in cases where a ceasefire has been violated.  

Quote

  gsmonks: That the "reasons" the US concocted were unfounded lies is well-documented and proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

Did Iraqi Military Forces fire on US and British Aircraft enforcing the no fly zone over Iraq?  That is all the legal justification the US needed to declare the ceasefire violated and thus resume hostilities against Iraq.  Anything else is a political trapping associated with getting the people to agree with going to war to redress the ceasefire violations.  It is up to the American People to judge the administration on their reasoning not the world community.  The only justification needed from a international law angle was those Iraqi missiles launched at our UAVs and fighters.  

Quote

gsmonks: My views are in accordance with the UN, including its current leader, Kofi Annan,

Kofi Annan had a vested interest in Saddam remaining in power since his son was neck deep in the corrupt Oil for Food Program.  Saddam had the UN in his pocket from buying them off with his blood money.  Considering Annan’s own son was in the middle of this corruption I can’t see how the man can be claimed as a unbiased source.  If anything Oil for Food shows just how corrupt and totally ineffectual the UN is.  On top of that the UN has far more blood on their hands then their supporters want to claim.  Between Rwanda, the Congo, and countless other sideshows the UN in their ineffectiveness has racked up quite the death toll.  Their halls are covered with so much blood that they can never speak from any sort of high moral ground.

Quote

gsmonks: That you would defend the US-led despicable and illegal mass-murder in Iraq speaks volumes for your mentality.

My mentality is that when a country commits an act of war against the US by firing at our aircraft or military personnel enforcing an international agreement we should stomp their military out and remove their government from power.  My position is that brutal dictators who oppress, abuse, torture, and kill their people should not be left in power.  They should not be allowed to profit from the corruption of the UN through the Oil for Food program.  My position is that no one should be allowed to think that they could fire at a US military aircraft and get away with it.

Quote

Gode: Don't forget, the UN itself has said that the US should have got approval from the security council first.

While the approval of the Security Council is nice as long as they don’t expect you to operate under their command during war it isn’t needed.  There is no law on the books that says you need UN approval to go to war.  

Quote

Gsmonks: As they are experts in international law, I would saw that their chances of being right are pretty good.

Most of these international lawyers are interested in seeing the UN as the one World Government.  They pretty much say the following “the US led war against Iraq is illegal” because I say so with no evidence and without citing any law.  They make no case that it is illegal and provide no evidence by citing laws and precedence

Quote

gsmonks: I personally think that the Iraq war was an excuse for the US military to try out all its fancy new toys, and to train its soldiers how to use all that fancy new hardware in real-life situations.
.
  
I think we would have had plenty of training experience in Afghanistan by that point.  

Quote

gsmonks: Historically speaking, the US hasn't won a ground war since Korea,

What was the First Gulf War?  If that doesn’t count as a Ground War then the US hasn’t won a ground war since Korea since Vietnam was the only ground war during that time.  On top of that historically speaking the Korean War wasn’t won by the US but rather “ended” in a stalemate with an armistice.  A peace treaty has technically never ended the war.  

Quote

Gsmonks: And both Iran and Korea have all the things the US claimed Iraq had when it built Iraq into a threat and invaded. Both are rogue nuclear states. Both have been cited for endless human-rights violations. Both did some serious sabre-rattling.


North Korea already has nuclear weapons.  They have them deployed with delivery systems that might be able to reach the US or US territories.  They also have enough artillery pointed at Seoul to kill whether over a million people in the first 20 minutes of any war.  It isn’t militarily viable to take on North Korea.  Iran on the other hand is a much tougher nut to crack than Iraq was. The bases to jump off of to invade it were less accessible.  And to top it all off since then US forces have been tied down in Iraq.  

Quote

Zaugur Anasazi: I would fear more the Armed Forces of Jordan,the best by far in the whole Arabic World, rather than those of Saudi Arabia......

Jordan is offset by Israel who would squish them if they ever pushed it a little too much again.
"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

#39 tennyson

tennyson
  • Islander
  • 6,173 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 03:40 AM

The US didn't need a new war to test anything. The F-117 stealth fighter has been in service since 1983 and used in Panama, 1991 Gulf War, Bosinia, Kosovo, Afghanistan and then in Iraq. The B-2 stealth bomber has been in service since 1988 and was used in Kosovo and Afghanistan before Iraq. The US wasn't at peace and hadn't been at peace for any significant length of time since 1991, it is just that until Iraq everything was done either with aircraft and missile strikes or relatively small troop deployments. Since the 1991 Gulf War the US has sent military forces into Somalia, Haiti twice, Bosnia, Kosovo, Aghanistan not to mention the continous patroling of the two no Fly-Zones over Iraq,the stabilization forces in the Balkans, operation Desert Fox in 1998 against Iraq's military facilities and the cruise missile strikes on Afghanistan and the Sudan in the late 1990s. This was no time of peace where the weapons weren't being used. American forces were running around the world more in the 1990s than at the hieght of the Cold War. Operational deployments were at an all time high in the 1990s.    
If anything most of the weapon systems in use right now are old hat and well worn in since over 90 percent of the weapon systems in use by all the US military service branches were in service before 1995. The F-16s, F-15s, A-10s, Harriers, F/A-18 Hornets, F-117 Nighthawks, B-1B and B-52 bombers, B-2 Spirits, as well as the fleet of transport and attack helicopters were all in use before 1990. All the drone aircraft had already seen service in other areas as well. Every piece of equipment in use by the American Army from the M1A2s and Bradleys of the mechnized forces to thier M16 rifles was in service before 1992 and had been well tested every year in dozens of joint excercises with other nations.
Only two classes of ship in the entire American Navy first entered service in the 1990s and more than half of the Navy had been retired before the 1990s were out. When American forces moved into Iraq this time they did it with virtually the same equipment as in 1991 except this time thier was less of it due to the 1990s budget cuts. The GPS guided bombs had already seen service in Kosvo and aside from computer networking that was about the only truly new technology the 1990s saw enter American service. Everything else was either a continuation or an upgrade of an existing vehicle, gun or other system.
As for ground wars, even if you don't count Grenda in 1983 and Panama in 1989 since they were fought mainly by airbourne troops and Marines, the 1991 Gulf War as as classic a ground war as you are going to find, right down to the clash of heavy mechanized forces that hadn't happened on such a scale since World War II.

Edited by tennyson, 06 November 2005 - 03:44 AM.

"Only an idiot would fight a war on two fronts. Only the heir to the throne of the Kingdom of Idiots would fight a war on twelve fronts."

— Londo, "Ceremonies of Light and Dark" Babylon-5


#40 Zaugur Anasazi

Zaugur Anasazi

    Defensor Selenae.

  • Islander
  • 257 posts

Posted 06 November 2005 - 07:19 AM

tennyson, on Nov 6 2005, 08:40 AM, said:

If anything most of the weapon systems in use right now are old hat and well worn in since over 90 percent of the weapon systems in use by all the US military service branches were in service before 1995. The F-16s, F-15s, A-10s, Harriers, F/A-18 Hornets, F-117 Nighthawks, B-1B and B-52 bombers, B-2 Spirits, as well as the fleet of transport and attack helicopters were all in use before 1990. All the drone aircraft had already seen service in other areas as well. Every piece of equipment in use by the American Army from the M1A2s and Bradleys of the mechnized forces to thier M16 rifles was in service before 1992 and had been well tested every year in dozens of joint excercises with other nations.
Only two classes of ship in the entire American Navy first entered service in the 1990s and more than half of the Navy had been retired before the 1990s were out. When American forces moved into Iraq this time they did it with virtually the same equipment as in 1991 except this time thier was less of it due to the 1990s budget cuts. The GPS guided bombs had already seen service in Kosvo and aside from computer networking that was about the only truly new technology the 1990s saw enter American service. Everything else was either a continuation or an upgrade of an existing vehicle, gun or other system.
As for ground wars, even if you don't count Grenda in 1983 and Panama in 1989 since they were fought mainly by airbourne troops and Marines, the 1991 Gulf War as as classic a ground war as you are going to find, right down to the clash of heavy mechanized forces that hadn't happened on such a scale since World War II.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The F-16 has been already copied in a great degree by the Japanese F-2.Stealth technology,F-117s and B-2 and B-52H and B-1B are out of this discussion,since they will never be exported.M16 rifles,are not so much of a high tech weapon anymore since European and Russian light arms industry have produced equal if not superior rifles:G-36,Ak-101,FN2000 etc.Concerning the American Navy,most exports are for ships similar to the age and capabilities of the Spruance Class or Kidd Class .Unless they export air carriers,which will also never happen.GPS technology,is also known to the Europeans and Russians.Concerning Harriers,too expensive to work and not recommended for nations without strong economy.M1A2 Abrams,a really good tank, is neither top technology in it's field,since the Leopard 2HEl,is the by far the best tank version in the World at this moment.Not to mention that it was copied by the Chinese as Type 90-II tank.I would be more concerned from Russia's exports rather than those of US.They export air carriers(Kuznetsov Class),nuclear submarines,new anti-tank weapon series like the Kornet-E,tanks,anti-air missile guided systems with high anti-ballistic capabilities like the S-300PMU-1,S-300V Giant and S-400,Strategic interceptors like MiG-31s with the capability of also intercepting incoming missiles and the more important they offer technology to countries like China and Iran.
Posted Image



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