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.
Uzbekistan indicated Thursday that it was reconsidering the future of a U.S. air base it hosts, threatening a key support base for the U.S.-led efforts in neighboring Afghanistan.
The move, which throws into doubt the American military presence in the Central Asian nation, follows an increasing chill in relations between Washington and the authoritarian Uzbek leader Islam Karimov.
The Foreign Ministry said the air base at Karshi-Khanabad, which U.S. forces use to support operations and supply humanitarian aid to Afghanistan, was only intended for combat operations in Afghanistan during the overthrow of the Taliban regime after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
Originally posted by xmotex
Not that I think this is necessarily a bad thing. With AQ's bases of operation removed from Afghanistan, the US has little reason to be sticking it's nose into Central Asia anyway.
So it's Russia and Chinas "backyard", it's also not their territory anymore.
Originally posted by xmotex
[OK, remember that if the PLA & Russia start building big military bases in our backyard...
[edit on 7/7/05 by xmotex]
Originally posted by xmotex
[OK, remember that if the PLA & Russia start building big military bases in our backyard...
Cuba anyone? Did we go to war over it? No.
So having those bases there was NOT to go after the Taliban, which we're still doing may I add, it was to get closer to Russia?
Why?
There is little or no tension between the two countries right now, or any sign of any building between them.
Originally posted by xmotex
So what makes you think the second and thrid most powerful nations on the plnet are going to tolerate it. The "invincible shield of American machismo" I mentioned above? I don't think so, then again it's been a while since I was in kindergarten...
Now, again, tackle this hypothetical: it's 2008, Canada and Mexico hate us, for whatever reason. They invite the Chinese and Russians to come set up military bases near their borders with the US.
The may not have tactical parity with us (yet, but the Chinese in particular are starting to catch up), but they do have enough ICBM's to reduce most of the good ole USA to ash, should it come to that.
PAC-3 can take out SCUDs, not ICBMs.
Ditto for the SM-3's. ("agies" is a C3I system, synthesizing data from sensors and platforms, NOT a missile)
OK, I'm not responding to you anymore, at least not till you graduate junior high...
Originally posted by IAF101
No we nuke them first and destabilize them permanently aka glass their .....
Also the Us can effectively nuke out all probable nuclear sites and have a wall of agies and PAC-3 and the eventual missile sheid to fend off what ever pitifull attempt they call reataliation!
Originally posted by IAF101
All we lose is cheap DVD players, toys and $1 shirts! That aint much, we can make them all at home but guess who aint laughing much when it is done ?
Originally posted by IAF101
If attitude reflects fact then so be it! It is better to understand reality than to play the fiddle of condescension!
Originally posted by thaei
To IAF101:
It is impossible to totally nuke out every nuclear arsenal of both countries as they have mobile launchers and slbm nukes. Satellites also will not be able to keep track of all mobile launchers given the HUGE land area of both countries, they could be everywhere. Satellites may be able to detect a missile once it is launched but nuking it out at that moment will be too late.
SSBNs are much more difficult to detect.
America's missile shield is still far from being complete. if this nuclear exchange would occur NOW, that missile shield will not protect you entirely. Most missiles will still reach their target.
Lastly, what you are saying is that America is launching a first strike using nukes, are you serious?! As you are saying that the idea that "Canada and Mexico will be hosting chinese or russian bases" is based on ignorance of world geopolitics, so is your claim of a nuclear first strike by america.
along with "throwaway" chinese goods in your later post. Do you have something against the chinese? Is it fueling your desire to see their country turned to glass?
Can it destroy them without even suffering a single "pitiful" retaliatory response (as you were saying), NO.
Attitude based on facts results to arrogance (at least you have something to back them up). Attitude based on fallacies is .....Never mind.
Originally posted by xmotex
So it's Russia and Chinas "backyard", it's also not their territory anymore.
OK, remember that if the PLA & Russia start building big military bases in our backyard...
[edit on 7/7/05 by xmotex]
Originally posted by SiberianTiger
What Renoun Russian enefficiantcy, your mistaking that with USA Patriot Missile sheild, Rus SAM's are the ones that shot down over 3000 US planes in Vietnam man en.wikipedia.org...-wing_losses
The Gulf War has demonstrated yet again the central importance of electronic warfare to the conduct of a modern air war. So overwhelming was the weight of the initial attack, that the Iraqi IADS (integrated air defence system) collapsed in hours, never to regain anything approaching a semblance of functionality.
Originally posted by SiberianTiger
Now with Russia's new S-400 and S-500/600 (which have been built, Rus Military will keep saying thier under development just for DIS-information sake) U.S. wouldn't stand more than a week with Rus.