It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The West has lost it's military edge.......

page: 2
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:19 PM
link   
Back ON TOPIC,

The US hasnt released a new fighter because fighters will be obsolete when we release our new space/war crafts.

The turning point in technology has been made, and the rest of the countries are still playing catch up to this obsolete technology.




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

im pretty sure in your qupte of what I said, (as bad as it is) it is bad, it is not peachy... his comment was that we go in and bomb women and children. not that we weigh pros and cons to EVERY strike, and for the ones that have collateral damage it was decided, not by me mind you, that the targets were to big a threat to let them walk away. you and I both know they weren't after one person when they hit the World Trade Center, they were after MAXIMUM casualties.

theres a big difference, if you cant tell youre as bad as they are.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: PurpleDog UK




The USAF has an average of 24 yr old fighters and 34 year old bombers on its fleet.....


Only difference is that two squadrons i.e. 24 to 36 F-22s can destroy major chunks of adversary air forces in a matter of two hours at most. By major chunk I mean a third to half or even more. So matters are not that bad after all.

Media propaganda can go on to make spicy news for the audiences.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Dizrael

So if a government won't play nice with us, we will kill their women and children trying to use a hammer to swat flies?

Like i said, there would be some enormous contortions of logic that would allow one to accept the "collateral damage".



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:24 PM
link   
I apologize, I did go off topic a bit there.

the US hasn't released a new fighter because we are equipping our already top fighters with better tech, like IntastellaBurst said, other countries are still way behind.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr


The West has lost it's military edge…….

It will be aright. The "wundewaffe" (wonder weapons) are on the way.
Gianter Aircraft Carriers, Planes that cost Billions, bombs that cost millions…

They'll fix it.

And...Mark Urban is the bogeyman, a piggin' shill for anything military that is cosy with the weapon makers AKA a double shill.
Fact is all the spud guns come from the West's armaments dynasties and sold to wherever, even Russia buys stuff big time from the West...I guess Urban forgot about that.
When just one major Western politician comes back and says we will ban arms exports to elsewhere, and keep them only for our homeland protection..which is the way it should be, then is the time to start taking note.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Dizrael

As far as i am concerned there are no levels of killing innocent people that are acceptable,you may be able to define the difference in intent or collateral damage..i do not.....they killed innocent woman and children...period....nothing makes it ok



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:26 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

if a government hides terrorists and allows them to strike at us from inside their country IMO that's tantamount to an act of war by the government that's "not playing nice"... I think were using kid gloves by doing it the way we are as it is.
edit on 14-4-2015 by Dizrael because: to add this was a reply to texan

edit on 14-4-2015 by Dizrael because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
It still amazes me that we spend billions and billions on advanced weapons to kill eachother!

Its worrying that we are so primitive in thinking, but our militery technology is advancing fast. Very worrying indeed



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Jay-morris

I do agree with you, if EVERYONE worried more about saving lives/our planet/space program and NO ONE worried about weapons. we could do so much more. but there will always be a bad guy, and always a need for weapons, sadly.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:36 PM
link   
The Russians are said to be very advanced in lasers

I don't think the west has lost it's edge,the Americans still have a massive army and hyper advanced aircraft that they haven't shown the world yet -their navy is just as good if not better

The UK still is one of the best trained armed forces in the world :-/ might be lacking in numbers but there high training makes up for it

We certainly have not lost our edge in killing people in our long and bloody war on terror



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dizrael
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

you and I both know they weren't after one person when they hit the World Trade Center, they were after MAXIMUM casualties.

That's way out of line man, that's just kill, kill, kill and be damned. A drone is just another V2 once it hits the ground, surgical precision is just a sound byte to make our folks sleep easier at night.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: IntastellaBurst


Back ON TOPIC,

The US hasnt released a new fighter because fighters will be obsolete when we release our new space/war crafts.

The turning point in technology has been made, and the rest of the countries are still playing catch up to this obsolete technology.


Yep, except they might just be playing with the new technology on the same day as a few fish wives come along with box cutters and big cigar tubes.
edit on 14-4-2015 by smurfy because: Text.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Dizrael
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

you and I both know they weren't after one person when they hit the World Trade Center, they were after MAXIMUM casualties.

That's way out of line man, that's just kill, kill, kill and be damned. A drone is just another V2 once it hits the ground, surgical precision is just a sound byte to make our folks sleep easier at night.


Casualties for 9/11. The attacks resulted in the deaths of 2,996 people, including the 19 hijackers and 2,977 victims. The victims included 246 on the four planes (from which there were no survivors), 2,606 in New York City in the towers and on the ground, and 125 at the Pentagon.

that was one day...


originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greathouse
....41 were targeted, 1100 killed.


over the span of what, a few years?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dizrael

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greathouse


So why the double standard? Are those women and children less important than ours?


the double standard is the country hiding them wont give them up. if the hiding country would give them up and stop harboring KNOWN terrorists we wouldn't have to lay it down.


Although I will preface this by noting that some of these countries have given us permission to engage these "terrorists," what about national sovereignty in other cases? And, this still does not solve the problem of disproportionate collateral damage.

The US and neo-cons are always citing "national sovereignty" whenever anyone speaks against the US' violations of international law, including but not limited to overthrowing regimes, bombing many countries, and invading such countries as Iraq (which is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty).

So if Americans want to at least appear not to be one-sided bullies, using international law when it suits them and throwing it out when it doesn't, then they cannot simply violate national sovereignty and pursue, kill, or apprehend whomever they wish.

If you believe that this is legal, then you have to accept the ability for other countries to do the same in our country, such as arrest George Bush for war crimes. Are you ready for the mutual standard?
edit on 14-4-2015 by Quetzalcoatl14 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: PurpleDog UK

I wouldnt worry about it. We are going through a transition. We finally caught up with our own capabilities and can now specialize in advanced weapon platforms instead of generalizing in all branches.

I am no expert, but from what I hear, the weapons we are sitting on would make war obsolete. So we are delaying the advanced fighters....who cares. They are just a means of keeping our industry alive. We.could stop producing new weapons for a while but then we only give our enemies insight into how to counter them once they see them and realize what they can do.

Its nice to be seen as weak. Shows the other guys hand really quick.



True if we intend to go to war but, not so if we wish to maintain deterrence.

We can see how intentionally appearing weak has caused widespread uncertainty.

That said, throughout modern history, the inevitable wars have been preceded by a variety of strategies to mollify aggressors.

It isn't clear that that is necessarily a cause and effect, it could simply be the last desperate attempts to secure peace at any cost.

Not easy to judge even with the benefit of hindsight.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dizrael
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

youre talking about collateral damage (as bad as it is) and human error. his intent was that we "bomb women and children" which we don't.

you can try again if you feel the need, but you cant prove we go and bomb women and children (non-combatants).

im still waiting to see proof of us arming terrorists.




The thing though is this becomes political semantics at some point.

For example, most people seem unable to apply their same logic to that of their enemies.

People like you I bet support/accept the highly disproportionate "collateral damage" that Israel caused in Palestine, because "they had to defend Israel and kill militants."

But when it comes to Assad in Syria, who is facing a much more powerful uprising and civil war, with militants hiding in urban areas (JUST LIKE PALESTINE), most westerners and the media claim that all of that collateral damage is "war crimes" and unacceptable. You can't have it both ways and be credible.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
That was just eight years of weak leadership under Obama. Things were pretty dismal for the West when Jimmy Carter was in office too, then Reagan happened.


We are not throwing enough money at the Military Industrial Complex.
Better raises the taxes on the citizens more to police their Unconstitutional Globalist Utopia.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Dizrael

Feel free to try to parse out intent. Reality is: we killed women and children with bombs. Calling them "collateral damage" doesn't mean we didn't kill them with bombs. And, if we are being honest, it isn't like we don't know that there is going to be "collateral damage". Which means: we knowingly kill women and children.

Unless you would like for me to believe that the military is completely oblivious to the civilians in the general vicinity of those bombs. Because, you know....killing 1100 to get 41.....the contortions of logic it requires to accept that.....


im still waiting to see proof of us arming terrorists.


???

That wasn't part of the discussion.....

but since you asked


"Collateral Damage", "Preemptive War", "Spreading Democracy", "Liberating Countries" are all propaganda slogans to fool the masses.

The propaganda we put out would make the empires of the past blush. Imagine if they had used the same slogans in those days.

I'll be those that support it would scream bloody murder if another country tried that on us.

We do not have "Democracy" in the USA but they would sure scream bloody murder if another country tried to "spread" it on our shores.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: Dizrael

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Greathouse


So why the double standard? Are those women and children less important than ours?


the double standard is the country hiding them wont give them up. if the hiding country would give them up and stop harboring KNOWN terrorists we wouldn't have to lay it down.


Although I will preface this by noting that some of these countries have given us permission to engage these "terrorists," what about national sovereignty in other cases? And, this still does not solve the problem of disproportionate collateral damage.

The US and neo-cons are always citing "national sovereignty" whenever anyone speaks against the US' violations of international law, including but not limited to overthrowing regimes, bombing many countries, and invading such countries as Iraq (which is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty).

So if Americans want to at least appear not to be one-sided bullies, using international law when it suits them and throwing it out when it doesn't, then they cannot simply violate national sovereignty and pursue, kill, or apprehend whomever they wish.

If you believe that this is legal, then you have to accept the ability for other countries to do the same in our country, such as arrest George Bush for war crimes. Are you ready for the mutual standard?


simply, yes. I am ready for that. but that means the other countries are required to give up their war criminals (terrorists) I don't even care if they only stand international court, not US. they have wronged more than the US, they need to be held accountable for everything.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join