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.

 

U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Capability

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 14 2005 @ 08:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
LOL, if the Americans were in Africa you'd be compplaining about it just as vehemently. Don't lie and say you wouldn't.
As for selling weapons to China, what about Russia nad Asia they selll a mssive amount of weapons to Africa. But if course as ususal you completely leave out any facts, which will taint your rant. We all know this though lol.


OOPS, I meant Africa not China.




posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
1) I know you don't understand it, but the world at large does not consider the feelings you may have when making decisions. Frankly, how you may feel is as relavent as how I may feel. In short, nations and the world can not consider every individuals personal feelings, and even if they could somehow get an accurate portrayal of every individuals feelings on every single topic, there is absolutely no way to satisfy every individuals personal feelings.

Listen AMM - I was Expressing my OPINION regarding the Nuclear security, that it is not a Tactic of PEACE - but a tactic of FEAR. No FOOL would risk a Global Nuclear Exchange, right? That's how the system of Nuclear Powers work: You have them and so do We, and we both are not Afraid to use them.



2) Despite how you may feel, history has proven thus far that nuclear weapons prevent wars, thus making the nations that possess them safer. Pre 1945, the "great powers" of the world went to war with frequence. Why? Because those in power (don't you generally dislike those elite dictators?) had nothing to fear personally. The king of England could order war on France, and millions could die...but in the end the two kings would have little to fear. Now, those elites know that not only will any power they have be taken away by nuclear weapons, but they personally and teir families stand a very good chance of getting vaporized with the rest of us.

So what happens now?

Those ELITE Few that own Nuclear Weapons can command the others what is good and what is not. Million people are still dying you know - but in certain places you don't even know exsist. Their lives are not important. Their country is not an essential Geo-Strategic Point on this Globe, so nobody cares. Who gives them the "Nuclear Weapon Assurance"?



You should be sure that I haven't been there before assuming so.

I do know what I am talking about. I was there on business and on vocation.

You were? Really?

OK - then I take it back.



No. It was about the North and it's communist government backed by the Soviets trying to invade the South, which was supported by the US

No - it was nothing else, but pure muscle flexing.

Nothing more.

And if I remember correctly the Event that STARTED the war (The Tonkin Gulf Episode) was FAKED!

Again - the US Military Complex NEEDED that War, or else they could not develop new weapon systems and sell them.



Why don't you compare the number of US foot soldiers that entered North Vietnam vs the number that entered Iraq. There is a bit of a difference.

Does not matter - it is still an Invasion.

Compare the number of Dead Civilans in 'Nam and those in Iraq.



Hitler should have been allowed to take control of all of Europe and Africa, because he would fall "sooner or later"?????

You ALWAYS take all the Credit for "Saving Europe" from Hitler - but you always FORGET who payed the BIGGEST Price for the Battle for Europe: the Russians. Hell, more Yugoslav Partisans gave their Lives then US Soldiers!



What does your grand father have to do with what you personally know? You claim that war never solved anything... Well, CLEARLY, WWII solved the evil Nazi death camps didn't it. Or do you deny that their end in Nazi Germany and it's conquered land were brought about by Germanys defeat in WWII?

Ofcourse it ended the Nazi Ruling, that is more then Obvious - but it created yet another "War Scenario" betwee the East and the West, proving just one thing; That WARS do not SOLVE anything, they just make more Borderlines and create more Fragmented Society that HATES each other.



We act in our own best intrests first, and if we can help the world at large and it is realistic then - being the great nation we are - such action is taken.

Well you nailed it here!


"YOU ACT IN YOUR OWN BEST INTERESTS FIRST!"

Yep - I could not have described it better!

So, it is in your "Best Interests" to "Liberate" the people of Iraq and to keep the People of the Middle East Under Coalition Control - but it is NOT in your Interests to Help the people of Africa.



Actualy, we halted our sales to him long ago Souljah.

When Saddam gassed the Kurds, USA was still selling him Bio and Chem derivates to create even MORE of that deadly Weapons.



Besides, is it wrong to try to fix our mistakes?

So you ADMIT that helping Saddam get to power and arming him was a MISTAKE?



posted on Dec, 15 2005 @ 04:55 PM
link   
I actually agree with Souljah on the fact that it is the tactic of fear that is the only thing that kept the world from nuclear annihalation, but why would you say they were not afraid to use them. If that were true they would have used them. At the same time, Souljah if it wasnt for that fear where would we be now. Good book about that very subject, while fiction, is Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears.

On the global perspective you are right, those lives dont mean anything. Its sad but true. If these lives dont mean anything, why all the foreign aid. Such places that we dont know exist, like say the Federated States of Micronesia, of which the US has a defense pact with. That meaning if they are ever attacked teh US will come to their defense. Its those people that dont mean anything?

It wasnt a US invasion. We didnt go into North Vietnam(with conventional forces, special forces definately) but the point being as I have stated before, the objective was to simply hold the NVA at the 17th parralell. We didnt get a chance to truly flex muscle in that war. The military was on the leash of congress, which wouldnt declare all out war. Hence restricting what was availiable to our boys.

By the time Iraq is done, US involvement in Nam will have still been twice as long. We first went in during the 50's to support France. Dont know many details on our operations during that time or how long they went, I will find the info and post it as requested.

The Russians did pay the largest price in men for defeating the Germans. But what youre not telling is that the Russians woulndt have been able to continue if it werent for war material sent to the Russians. As the German bombing runs destroyed much of their industries capabilites. Here is a link to the ammount and types of war material sent to them.
en.wikipedia.org...
Not taking anything away from them and their accomplishment but without our war material, they would have been defeated. Charging men with unloaded rifles dont do that much.

When the cold war was over, there were no major conflicts that occured as a direct result.

Sadaam got to power under his own accord, and a lot was due to his fellow Iraqis. Arming him, of course it was a mistake, no one can deny that.
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by ludaChris
I actually agree with Souljah on the fact that it is the tactic of fear that is the only thing that kept the world from nuclear annihalation, but why would you say they were not afraid to use them. If that were true they would have used them. At the same time, Souljah if it wasnt for that fear where would we be now. Good book about that very subject, while fiction, is Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears.

I wanted to say, that their "Acting" is like that - "Hey, we have Nukes and we are not afraid to use them!", you know? Like, a Threat - but launching a Nuke is like signing your own death certificate: purely suicidal. In this world we have today, built on Weapons of Mass Destruction, behind which the Politicans hide and say that they are DEMOCRATIC, just beacse they can - only ONE nuke can not be dropped. It almost always launches a retalioatory attack. There was a good movie about the nuclear question of the Cold War called Wargames - where a computer played a "Game" of each and every possible scneraio to start a nuclear war, so that the United States would win. And in the end, the computer came to the conclussion, that a nuclear war can NOT be won.

And that is IMHO very TRue.

I could end this one, with a Quote from American President Bush and his Endless Wisdom of his speeches:

"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."

Mister President - do by your definiton the United States of America not Qualify as a Free Country then?



[edit on 16/12/05 by Souljah]



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 09:52 AM
link   


"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction."

Mister President - do by your definiton the United States of America not Qualify as a Free Country then?





No, Souljah, we are THE nation. Sorry, but this is not delusion, but fact. We are the nation others look to so they can mold a Democracy and save the people of a nation. We are free to express ourselves, free to travel to not only the beautiful parts of the US, but countries all over the world who love to take our money. People hate us for what they cannot have, and damn man, you sound like just about the most-jealous SOB i have ever met.

My family has fought and lost members in WW1, WW 2 Korea and Vietnam so I can sit here now an type this.

You can call us what you want, and even I do not agree with some of the over consumption, but it is a fact fo life. MAD has kep the nuclear debate at bay, but now you have newer, more volatile members joining the group, who do not use this for protection, but for intimidation.

There is no need for Iran to build nuclear missles, or NK for that matter. If we wanted to use them we would have done it long ago. Instead, using stolen and bought technology, they are pursuing the capability.

We have the capability to strike anywhere in the globe in under an hour, and that makes me feel better at night knowing that if some over xealous religous freak decides to level San Francisco, that we could retailiate swiftly.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Listen AMM - I was Expressing my OPINION regarding the Nuclear security, that it is not a Tactic of PEACE - but a tactic of FEAR. No FOOL would risk a Global Nuclear Exchange, right? That's how the system of Nuclear Powers work: You have them and so do We, and we both are not Afraid to use them.


Who says that fear and peace are mutually exclusive Souljah? Fear is not always a bad thing. People fear all sorts of things. Why? Because they are dangerous. This fear is justified and keeps them safe. Likewise, fear of nuclear weapons is healthy and justified. This fear prevents wars. In this case, fear is the tool by which we obtain peace.



Those ELITE Few that own Nuclear Weapons can command the others what is good and what is not. Million people are still dying you know - but in certain places you don't even know exsist. Their lives are not important. Their country is not an essential Geo-Strategic Point on this Globe, so nobody cares. Who gives them the "Nuclear Weapon Assurance"?


Excuse me?

Is China telling Canada what is good and what is not? Is Russia dictating to Argentina? Is the UK dictating to Mexico? Is the US dictating to Germany? Is France dictating to Brazil?

As for "millions of people are dying" - it is a shame, unfortunately with my head firmly rooted in reality, I can say that there will always be people dying. There is no way to prevent death Souljah, and there is equally no way to prevent every travisty in the world. As much as you or I may want to save every single person from every single hardship, there is no realistic way to do it.

If nuclear weapons would help these nations achieve peace, perhaps they should invest in the technology...





You were? Really?


Yes.

Really.

It is your own ignorant views of Americans which assumes that we never travel anywhere, and have no experience in other nations.





No - it was nothing else, but pure muscle flexing.

Nothing more.


Well Souljah, I do not agree with you. I do not believe that the North just wanted to "flex it's muscles" - I think they genuinly wanted to invade the south and have a unified communist Vietnam.



Again - the US Military Complex NEEDED that War, or else they could not develop new weapon systems and sell them.


Well Souljah, again I dissagree. The difference between war time and peace time is how the money is spent. In peace time, more money goes to R&D. During war time, more goes towards procurement. The simple fact is that for every dollar made selling existing weapons for a war, they lose a dollar from cancelled weapons programs.



Does not matter - it is still an Invasion.


No Souljah, IT ISN'T.

The US NEVER INVADED the North in Vietnam. That is simple historical fact that you can not argue.



You ALWAYS take all the Credit for "Saving Europe" from Hitler - but you always FORGET who payed the BIGGEST Price for the Battle for Europe: the Russians. Hell, more Yugoslav Partisans gave their Lives then US Soldiers!


Wrong again Souljah. Do a search on my posts if you want - I always give Russia credit for taking the brunt of Hitlers war machine.

What I do argue is that without US support, Russia would never have been able to mount such a war. Again, that is simple historical fact. Even Stalin admited it.



Ofcourse it ended the Nazi Ruling, that is more then Obvious


So you admit that war DID in fact solve something?


but it created yet another "War Scenario" betwee the East and the West, proving just one thing; That WARS do not SOLVE anything, they just make more Borderlines and create more Fragmented Society that HATES each other.


Well, I don't agree. I don't HATE Germany or Japan for WWII. I don't HATE Russia for the cold war. I don't HATE Iraq for GWI and II. Wars do, however, solve things. This has been proven through out history. It's not that they always solve the problem being fought over, but they can and often do solve conflicts.



So, it is in your "Best Interests" to "Liberate" the people of Iraq and to keep the People of the Middle East Under Coalition Control - but it is NOT in your Interests to Help the people of Africa.


Yes, that is correct Souljah. African nations pose no threat to the US. Iraq had an unstable leader who represented a threat to the US.

BTW - the US DOES help the people of Africa, Souljah. Take a look at how much aid we give them. Do you remember Somolia? We sent our BEST soldiers there to help them, our most elite. Besides, I thought you didn't like the US getting involved in everyone elses business.



So you ADMIT that helping Saddam get to power and arming him was a MISTAKE?


In retrospect, ABSOLUTELY!

The thing that must be considered is the time it was done. At that moment, it seemed like the best option. Looking back, it was a poor choice, and one that the US has taken steps to correct.



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
This is freaking awesom!!!



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 06:07 PM
link   
Agreed Poison.
U.S. Command Declares Global Strike Capability reminds of those old "Reach out and touch someone" TV commericals."







seekerof



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 06:26 PM
link   
I think I would say, Nuclear weapons never start a war, but they will end a war. Horrific that may yet be. I wouldn't like to be in that country, that eventually will be statued as an example of the new policy, if not taken seriously. -Or in a neighbouring country for that matter.



posted on Dec, 19 2005 @ 06:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Who says that fear and peace are mutually exclusive Souljah? Fear is not always a bad thing. People fear all sorts of things. Why? Because they are dangerous. This fear is justified and keeps them safe. Likewise, fear of nuclear weapons is healthy and justified. This fear prevents wars. In this case, fear is the tool by which we obtain peace.

But FEAR is also GREAT for the Goverment to keep Control of their people - to keep them all rounded up, like little sheeps around a shepard, that fear the big bad wolf. When the Public FEARs something, like Terrorists, they hold the hand of the goverment strongly, because they lead them in the Dark.

Fear IS a Mind Killer.

And Fear IS a type of Control.



Is China telling Canada what is good and what is not? Is Russia dictating to Argentina? Is the UK dictating to Mexico? Is the US dictating to Germany? Is France dictating to Brazil?

No.

But is US telling North Korea?

Is US telling Iran?



As for "millions of people are dying" - it is a shame, unfortunately with my head firmly rooted in reality, I can say that there will always be people dying. There is no way to prevent death Souljah, and there is equally no way to prevent every travisty in the world. As much as you or I may want to save every single person from every single hardship, there is no realistic way to do it.

You're probably Right.

If there is no Will, there is No WAY.

I guess people are just too occupied with their own little problems and are living in their own little "box" of space on this World, that they fail to see what is going on around them. Yes, people die. And some people have the power to stop that. But they do not want to. It won't bring them any profit. They will not benefit from helping others.



It is your own ignorant views of Americans which assumes that we never travel anywhere, and have no experience in other nations.

I didn't say you never travel anywhere - I am only aware of the geological knowledge of an averege American, which thinks North Korea is in Australia, and that Somalia is somewhere near Slovenia.



Well Souljah, I do not agree with you. I do not believe that the North just wanted to "flex it's muscles" - I think they genuinly wanted to invade the south and have a unified communist Vietnam.

So - the United States would NEVER allow that to happen, right?

But, if the South invaded North, it would be OK?



Well Souljah, again I dissagree. The difference between war time and peace time is how the money is spent. In peace time, more money goes to R&D. During war time, more goes towards procurement. The simple fact is that for every dollar made selling existing weapons for a war, they lose a dollar from cancelled weapons programs.

More and More I think that PEACETIME is only a Timeout between two wars, used to regroup and rearm - just like a timeout between two rounds of boxing. Sometimes this timeout lasts 5 years, sometimes 15 and sometimes 50.



The US NEVER INVADED the North in Vietnam. That is simple historical fact that you can not argue.

SO, why did the US have to FAKE the Tonking Incident?



What I do argue is that without US support, Russia would never have been able to mount such a war. Again, that is simple historical fact. Even Stalin admited it.

I do not agree.

The Russians were maybe crazy, but not Dumb.

If you are not aware, they moved their entire Industry Complex from the West to the East - out of reach of German Bombers and Armies. It was only a matter of time, before the Mighty Soviet War Industry starts to produce enormous ammounts of War Equipment and starts sending it West via Trans-Cyberian railroad. Eventually Germans would run out of Men, Equipment and Resources - remember, Russia is BIG!



So you admit that war DID in fact solve something?

Ofcourse it Solved something - it removed the Crazy Nazis from the Throne.



Well, I don't agree. I don't HATE Germany or Japan for WWII. I don't HATE Russia for the cold war. I don't HATE Iraq for GWI and II. Wars do, however, solve things. This has been proven through out history. It's not that they always solve the problem being fought over, but they can and often do solve conflicts.

Wars today are not about solving anything or anybody.

Times we live in today have changed alot, my American Man Friend.

And with times, people also changed.

Wars today only change the Stock Market, nothing else.



Yes, that is correct Souljah. African nations pose no threat to the US. Iraq had an unstable leader who represented a threat to the US.

How did Saddam pose a Threat to the US?

Or the Taliban of Afganistan?

Did they INVADE the US?

Do they have the POWER and the MONEY to do that?

There are many Islamic Fundamentalists in Africa you know.



BTW - the US DOES help the people of Africa, Souljah. Take a look at how much aid we give them. Do you remember Somolia? We sent our BEST soldiers there to help them, our most elite. Besides, I thought you didn't like the US getting involved in everyone elses business.

So - the US went ONCE in Africa to help and it got a bitter taste of it.

BUT, they can be in Middle East for Years, and let US soldiers die on daily basis in Iraq - and that won't turn you away from it.

Somalia was a Picnic compared to Iraq.

But yet again - IF there is a WILL, there is a WAY.



The thing that must be considered is the time it was done. At that moment, it seemed like the best option. Looking back, it was a poor choice, and one that the US has taken steps to correct.

So, maybe, Liberating Iraq TODAY seems also a like the "Best Option" - but in few years time, you will see that it was actually a POOR choice?



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I once had alot of different thoughts about what we were doing in iraq. Were we there for oil? Were we there to create a puppet country where we could control the middle east? Then my step brother came home from iraq! He is a heavy machinery operator for the navy. He has pictures of mass graves that he had to dig up. Thousands of people buried their bones with the duct tape still around their wrists behind their back. Bullet holes through their head. THOUSANDS OF THEM!!! Killed by saddam....This is just one very small thing this man did. It was very sobering for me because I knew how removed from reality I had been thinking. This man was pure evil and taking his evil out on whoever he wanted. My next thoughts were how the hell can you not see how evil that is? How in the hell can you not see with saddam gone and a real democracy in place it will be better? And how can it get better unless someone does something about it? And who is going to do something about it?? Ill tell you who , people that have the guts to stand up and do the right thing even if it means being hated and spit on. Those people are the United states , United Kingdom , and their allies!! If you cannot see that iraq is better already and will continue to get better then nothing can change your mind unless it is a first hand experience with REALITY!!! Its all very simple. Iraq + Saddam = VERY BAD ... Iraq without Saddam = MUCH BETTER . There are many other factors but they shouldnt be needed to see the good of this cause. Its not a matter of "being a poor choice". Its simply a matter of good and bad right and wrong.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
But FEAR is also GREAT for the Goverment to keep Control of their people - to keep them all rounded up, like little sheeps around a shepard, that fear the big bad wolf. When the Public FEARs something, like Terrorists, they hold the hand of the goverment strongly, because they lead them in the Dark.


Souljah, firstly, the fear you describe is not the fear we are discussing. Fear of nuclear war is experienced by each individual government when they contemplate military action against a nation that has such weapons.

Secondly Souljah, you seem to FEAR nuclear war. As you said you don't "feel" safer with nukes in 9 different countries. Are you a sheep?



But is US telling North Korea?


Absolutely. We are telling Kim that starving people to the point where they have to dig up graves and eat the rotting dead is wrong. I think any human with any semblance of morals would agree with that. Don't you?


Is US telling Iran?


As a matter of fact, no, Souljah. We are not telling them how to live. We are telling them that they will not be allowed to have nuclear weapons, since their nation is a proven sponser of terrorists.



You're probably Right.

If there is no Will, there is No WAY.

I guess people are just too occupied with their own little problems and are living in their own little "box" of space on this World, that they fail to see what is going on around them. Yes, people die. And some people have the power to stop that. But they do not want to. It won't bring them any profit. They will not benefit from helping others.


Again Souljah, you are unrealistic and much to idealistic. Even if all of the "developed" nations in the world came together to help the "3rd" world, there is still no way the US could solve every problem.

Again I find it funny that when the US does try to use it's power to help people - such as your own example of NK - you criticize us. Frankly, I know your kind... Anything the US does will be bad in your eyes. If we attacked NK to stop millions from starving it would be "a war for the military industrial complex". If we go into Iraq to stop the genocide Saddam was commiting, it is a war fr oil.



I didn't say you never travel anywhere - I am only aware of the geological knowledge of an averege American, which thinks North Korea is in Australia, and that Somalia is somewhere near Slovenia.


Again Souljah, I find it funny that you think it is only Americans with bad geographic education. It extends to Europe too. The United States alone has a land mass greater then Europe - do you think the average European could name every state in our country? After all, a lot of our states are bigger then most nations Europe.



So - the United States would NEVER allow that to happen, right?

But, if the South invaded North, it would be OK?


Again Souljah, take a look at history. The US commanders WANTED to inade the north. It was the smart military move. They were not allowed to by our leadership. So obviously, it was not OK.




More and More I think that PEACETIME is only a Timeout between two wars, used to regroup and rearm - just like a timeout between two rounds of boxing. Sometimes this timeout lasts 5 years, sometimes 15 and sometimes 50.


I don't dissagree with that notion. The fact is, war is a reality. Wars happen.



SO, why did the US have to FAKE the Tonking Incident?


What ever it was, it wasn't to invade.




I do not agree.

The Russians were maybe crazy, but not Dumb.

If you are not aware, they moved their entire Industry Complex from the West to the East - out of reach of German Bombers and Armies. It was only a matter of time, before the Mighty Soviet War Industry starts to produce enormous ammounts of War Equipment and starts sending it West via Trans-Cyberian railroad. Eventually Germans would run out of Men, Equipment and Resources - remember, Russia is BIG!


Without the US lend-lease program, Russia did not stand a chance. There is no way to argue this.

Even Stalin himself said so!



Ofcourse it Solved something - it removed the Crazy Nazis from the Throne.


OK then, at least you admit you were wrong.



Wars today are not about solving anything or anybody.

Times we live in today have changed alot, my American Man Friend.

And with times, people also changed.

Wars today only change the Stock Market, nothing else.


Well, I do not agree. Let's just leave it at that.



How did Saddam pose a Threat to the US?


You're kidding, right? Did you miss GWI? Did you miss the part where he had an active nuclear weapons program?


Or the Taliban of Afganistan?


They protected OBL, the leader of 9/11.


Did they INVADE the US?

Do they have the POWER and the MONEY to do that?


No they did not, but they both did have the power to attack and hurt the US.


There are many Islamic Fundamentalists in Africa you know.


I do know. However, they are not as much of a threat as Saddam or OBL.



So - the US went ONCE in Africa to help and it got a bitter taste of it.


Do you really believe the US has only been to Africa once?



BUT, they can be in Middle East for Years, and let US soldiers die on daily basis in Iraq - and that won't turn you away from it.

Somalia was a Picnic compared to Iraq.

But yet again - IF there is a WILL, there is a WAY.



Yes, Clinton lacked the will to do what was right - I compltely agree with that.




So, maybe, Liberating Iraq TODAY seems also a like the "Best Option" - but in few years time, you will see that it was actually a POOR choice?


That is certainly a posibility. However, I do not believe it will be the case.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
You must take into consideration the immense power of the U.S. Government in all of it's capabilities. Mainly, in this case, the U.S. Naval Submarine Force provides such a mobile escort for Trident warheads, capable of maintaining a world-wide presence, undetected. That is how all of this became possible. The development of SSBN Nuclear Submarines.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Uomini
You must take into consideration the immense power of the U.S. Government in all of it's capabilities. Mainly, in this case, the U.S. Naval Submarine Force provides such a mobile escort for Trident warheads, capable of maintaining a world-wide presence, undetected. That is how all of this became possible. The development of SSBN Nuclear Submarines.


I completely agree.

Of interest though - IMHO - is the conventional attack capability.

I didn't think of it in my first post, but now I seem to remember that a few of our subs were reconfigured to carry conventional cruise missles - perhaps these are now in service.

In addition, I believe the bases we have in the "stans" would play a significant role in this as well.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:12 PM
link   
Good point about the "stans".


Also, another area of interest is the VLS (Vertical Launching System) newly commissioned on select warships. This allows warheads and the complete launching system with all components to be housed beneath the deck of the ship, thereby eliminating detection by the enemy. If you look at a ship, you can usually tell by the outline of the vessel what kinds of weapons it possesses, and it's overall capability. Not in this case. The VLS system is in the "belly of the beast", if you will, and is capable of utilizing the AEGIS system to track, detect, and target. The number and names of ships utilizing the VLS and AEGIS systems is classified, however, I can assure you that there are many.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Project Falcon is a space weapon capable of global strike. I'm sure we have it. Check out this link.

www.globalsecurity.org...



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 07:44 PM
link   



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by agwardlds
Project Falcon is a space weapon capable of global strike. I'm sure we have it.


Yup - I mentioned this a possibility in the second post of the first page.


Although, I do not believe any such system is mature enough yet to use.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 10:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
Fear IS a Mind Killer. And Fear IS a type of Control.


Truth my brother. I fearlessly await the day a man with a machine gun full of DU ammunition lights a cigarette in the darkness... the burning ember a homing beacon for my forged damascus katana.

Nuclear weapons may begin WWIII... Irradiated zealots weilding swords will end it.

Bushido,

Sri Oracle

[edit on 1-1-2006 by Sri Oracle]



posted on Jan, 2 2006 @ 04:38 AM
link   
Here's an interesting report on US conventional Minutemans.

Some defense strategists have suggested equipping a portion of the ICBM force with conventional warheads. There are rumors that the forthcoming Quadrennial Defense Review may recommend converting 50 of the 500 Minuteman missiles to conventional missions.

Although this isn't a true global capability, this is interesting none the less.

The navy appears to have dropped plans to equip its new submarine-launched intermediate-range ballistic missile (SLIRBM) with dual nuclear-conventional capability in favor of developing only conventional warheads for the weapon. Defense awarded a $9.2 million, 16-month contract to Lockheed Martin in July 2005 to demonstrate and validate solid rocket motor technologies for a two-stage SLIRBM design. The program envisions fitting multiple SLIRBMs inside each missile tube on SSGNs, adding a second conventional strike weapon to the boats' Tomahawk sea-launched cruise missiles.

www.thebulletin.org...




top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join