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: 4
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:19 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


No most of the deaths were fighters in hideouts. There is some civilian casualties listed. The reality is though human rights groups havnt a clue of US targets. What I will say is the closest we can get is a Pakistan report. By the way over 300 strikes total If you look you'll see the pattern. They were attacks against groups out of control of pakistan. Don't think they are all US droans strikes either. Realize it's better for Pakistan to blame the US even when they go after terrorists.

The reality no way to know the true numbers and It's shear speculation on actual casualties they are estimates since even Pakistan can't get access to these villages.

But take a look at the Pakistan official report much of this is based off of.
www.thebureauinvestigates.com...




posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Dizrael

Using a euphemism you're basically saying; "We're certainly killing women and children, but we're not really killing women and children."

What led you down that completely contradictory train of thought? And how did it make sense to you?



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dizrael
a reply to: CJCrawley

it is almost scary quite in any manner of response (or lack there of) to Russias saber rattling. maybe that's all it is though, just a show from Russia and we know better now?

maybe we are waiting for them to cross a very specific line?



Everyone knows were that line is don't think Putin wasn't told. Even got a warning from NATO about Russians use of a secular warfare against a NATO member. Right now I think the west is just working on a containment principle if this is the right move depends on what happens next.



posted on Apr, 14 2015 @ 11:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Dizrael

What exactly should be done? Russia is being careful to stay on the right side of international law. The only real complaint is in how they intercept our aircraft, and that's technically a treaty violation.


Russia has thrown most of the treaties it's signed out the window. They violated the Budapest memorandum than there is the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty and the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) And of course Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Partnership between Ukraine and the Russian Federation. Than of course we have various countries that Russia has been harassing by air as you mentioned with again treaties to prevent this behavior.
edit on 4/15/15 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 12:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: anonentity

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



That's the trouble with war, you have to kill the women and children, or in a few years they will come for you . You are dammed if you do and dammed if you don't. The whole point of foreign policy is to secure a safe future. How can collateral damage be doing this?. If a village wants a water pump and you supply one, its a far better policy . Not only have you made a future friend, but have improved someone's life. Its a future investment.


This is often a case of damned if you do and damned of you don't sometimes all there is left is bad choices. Kill a terrorist making plans against you creating a martyr which in turn breeds more terrorists. Everyone wishes there is a better solution but when dealing with groups like ISIS there really isn't. Look at Syria the US could support Assad but he is indeed trying to purge his population. Can't blame him really that's the way it's been done in the middle east for centuries. Problem is the West can't support it even if it brings stability.

So this leaves very bad options they can arm the resistance option and hope they can change things.Bad because some of the people will take the supplies and give them to ISIS. Reality even if Syrian rebels win they can't change things , they will do the same things if they take power. Option B do nothing can't do that because with out pieces in the game you can't control the outcome. And without control this could easily set off the entire middle east into war,were starting to see that happening now. And than option C send in troops to the middle east problem is no one wants to support this option most Amaricans are tired of decades of war.

Sometimes all there is is bad choices you pick one and see where it leads. I think it's going to come down to letting the middle east start and try to contain the fire I don't think we're going to stop the Arab league from taking on Iran. And in this game it will be winner take all.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 12:55 AM
link   
The most vulnerable America has ever been was in the mid to late 90s. Hard to beat that...



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 01:48 AM
link   
I always get a chuckle when reading articles decrying the US cuts in military spending. Can anyone point out where the cuts are as the amount the Pentagon budgets for and spends - just the direct approved budget - seems to be as vast as ever.

I also thought it was a bit rich of Obama and, if I remember correctly, that arsehole Breedlove at NATO, telling the Europeans that they need to increase their military spending. That was a glaring case of creating the perceived problem, then offering the solution, as in "look at all the shiny new weapons we can sell you"!


I have also had a big problem with what is termed the "Defence" industry, as the money always seems to get spent on "Offence" and NOT "Defence". There's a big difference.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:30 AM
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


In a perfect world, a target would stand very still in the middle of a field/desert all alone and refuse to move for a couple hours, but a perfect world it is not. The reality is that we cant control where a target will be, or where they are going, and the only thing we have most often is intel pertaining to the here and now and that they are "on the move".



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Jay-morris
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


That's the way the world is. People can choose to live like the world is perfect hoping it rubs off on others and hide themselves away from all the bad, but the rest of the world will not. Only when the whole world down to every man woman and child screams for peace, whether its from war or crime, will there be peace.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 04:34 AM
link   
A US of military budget of 600 billion?

F-35 on its way out?
Next gen bomber about to be released?
And the crap ton of black projects?

What does Russia have? A aging navy that sinks on its own and POS aircraft that seem to be swatted like flys when ever NATO jets go up against them and a 5th Gen fighter so bad that India wants to drop it..
edit on 15-4-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: Dizrael
a reply to: superman2012

no its not. I guess youre wrong on two counts.


Sorry about that. As it was common knowledge for myself and most everyone else I have met in my lifetime, I assumed it would be for everyone. As you were.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 11:45 AM
link   
a reply to: victor7

Right on Victor& & nwtrucker.

Add the new ADVENT engines to the larger aircraft. A whole host of other technologies and the range of our new aircraft will be far better than ever before. The US has worked real hard in the last decade or so to be able to penetrate deep into heartlands of foreign hostile nations without relying on forward air bases to stage from. We can reach them, they can't reach us is the idea.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok




a 5th Gen fighter so bad that India wants to drop it..


That's not right, India has reduced the French Rafale deal from $20B to $5B. I think they want to focus on Super-Sukhois which are much cheaper and thus provide higher numbers to IAF to be able to attend both Pak and Chinese theaters.

I also suspect that recent western sanctions on Russia have to do with this reduction in deal as India wants to help out Russian industries in a counter sanction type move. Su-30MKIs have been top class in their group of legacy fighter bombers for more than a decade now and Super-Sukhois should throw a meaner punch yet.

Regarding PAK-FA, India does not want to drop it but requests Russia to speed up the production and availability. With PAK-FA, I think Indians want to focus on Chinese J-30/31s instead of F-22s.

I suspect F-22sF-35s have some secret technologies like use of Quantum computing which allows it to throw off the missile lock from the adversary radar even within the visual range. One pilot in EU fighter reported this inability despite being right behind the Raptor. Rumor or truth, that I don't know. Raptors also have ability to burn off adversary radar from a long distances and corrupt the programming by sneaking in virus codes. Programs like Suter do that to the radars.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7

Russian and Indias fighters can use Optical Lock on instead of IR.

Russia is also developing AESA radars on their air to air missiles.

thediplomat.com...


It wont be easy being NATO F-16, F-18 or F-15 fighter pilot if they go head on With Russia. Their missile range.... out range anything NATO have on their jets. And moste of the NATO jets are not even stealthy.

The other thing we often over look is that Russia have built their airforce and military based on numbers and great range. So in practice not even a F-22 will have much effect against a SU 27, SU 35 or the New MIG or the PACK FA.

Russia can attack Our bases from a range where the F-22s or other NATO jest would have to refule to have effect. And in practice non of them would have enough time to refule because of the speed and range the Russians have built in to their fighter concepts. This is a great weakness of NATO airforce. Even the F-22 have to be in range to take out a Russian fighter. But a Russian fight can use its missile on air, sea and land targets before they are within NATO range.

This is also a weakness when it comes to the Patriot missile system. It lack range. Each system also have to be reloaded after 4 missiles.
So if one shoots 5 missiles at the Patriot system and it only has 4 missiles to defend. It dosent take scientist to figure out that the patriot system is going to be taken out.

IF you have 2 Patriot system With 4 missiles each. You fire 10 missiles at it and its gone for good.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:42 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7

India is altering the Rafael deal because they're going to purchase government to government, instead of going through the usual contact negotiations. It saves them money, and let's them buy aircraft that are already completed.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

The Patriot PAC-3 mounts 16 missiles per launcher, not 4.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dizrael
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan


originally posted by: Helious
Bombing women and children and arming terrorists must make people soft.


this where it was brought up.

and as to us "arming terrorists" they weren't terrorists at the time they were armed by us, they were armed because theyre goals at the time were aligned with ours. they later used terrorism but that came later.

anything else?



You have Stockholm Syndrome.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66




The other thing we often over look is that Russia have built their airforce and military based on numbers and great range. So in practice not even a F-22 will have much effect against a SU 27, SU 35 or the New MIG or the PACK FA.


What Russian numbers are you talking about. All in all they are outmatched 5 to 1 and in terms of quality they are behind by 10 to 1 in terms of air force planes.

F-22s will make the hole in then air defenses and only then regular F-15/16s will fly through. Do not believe F-22s will in trouble against Su-27 types. Su-35s can give them good fight and probably work them up heavy at best. PAK-FA is still in works so do not know its complete potencies.

Regarding the "range" issues and ability of RuAF to bomb from distances..........if that was true then USAF would have gone into a "paranoid" mode and rectified the situation by pouring in 100s of billion on this topic alone.

Do not know about optical but I think some jammers are being developed against the IRST tool. On the otherhand counter jammers and increased range of IRSTs are also being worked upon.

Russians are also pretty advanced in Lasers so PAK-FA/Su-35s/Legacy others killing off incoming missiles from F-22s by using the lasers can even up the playing field. F-22s will have to leave the theater when run out of the missiles. On the otherhand F-22s can also be armed with lasers to kill off the missiles.

Seems we come the full circle here with WWI type cannon kills being the main option left to score victory over the other flyer. This might lead us to "invisibility" features being developed on the planes. Guess technology race keeps going on.



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 04:12 PM
link   
a reply to: victor7

There is a difference between whats in servise and whats in Storage when it comes to numbers. Russia have a hell of a lot more assets than wiki is telling you that they have in service. The only thing we can practically Count and be sure of are ships.


The other thing is. The F-22 cant be every where at once and it cant fight everything at once.... in great numbers.


The F-22 is only good in the airspace it is.... and against a target that is within its range. But the thing is the F-22 would probably be doing Counter manuevering Russian missiles before it can engage the Russian jets, because the F-22 is not in range to fire its own missile at its target. The F-22 can see their targets on radar but what good is that if the F-22 missile lack range to hit..... And the F-22 are probably going to have to Chase its targets heading back to reload and Waste fule doing so.

And at some point the F-22 must Return to refule and then Return to base to re arm. That is when the second batch of Russian fighter show up on radar going full speed.

This is how this will go until the F-22 are all gone. At some point the F-22 wont be able to keep up any more.
There will be a shot and run senario for the Russians. And try and Catch up han shoot for the F-22s.
edit on 27.06.08 by spy66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 15 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: spy66

They have to see it to shoot it. And they're not going to send every F-22 at once. They're going to operate in waves too. And the Russian fighters are going to be at more of a disadvantage if they're fighting in Europe. They have fewer tankers to support them, and less training.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join