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.

 

How would the US fare in the next world war?

page: 16
4
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite
That was the plan
. Im not to sure of your knowledge of the korean war so ill fill you in. MacArthur was planning to put 14 nukes on the chinese border filled with colbalt so the chinese infantry couldn't go over the mountain.


Cobalt nukes?

Dream on.. and don't forget to gloat while you're at it..



The amount of munitions the indian planes could ahve dropped per day


Which is how much? I don't want sentence reconstructions. You said that they would dropped less per soldier than what was dropped in Korea. Prove it.


Its all about the terrain in this case. In the open moving troops are vulnearble as hell.




The agreement with britain and tibet was illegal as my post above stated.
And could you provide those international maps or understanding?

And if these lands were in indian control why was the need for forward deployment that nehru implmented?. Or how about that massive freeway passing though askin chin that india only knew about after it was actually built?. Good administering.


Kashmir is in India's control. No forward deployment there?

Good administering? You bet. Compare land on China's side and that on India's side. Its easy to see where the deployment is: today and in 1962.
The international maps are those printed by the allies post WWII and post Indian Independance. Both Aksai Chin and NEFA as you call it were shown as a part of India.

www.himalmag.com...
If you can see the aksai chin border was decided AFTER 1962. Before that it was a part of India but it wasn't administered by India. It was DEFEINITELY not with China.
AP was with India all along.



Your lack of understanding about this issue is quite laughble. Not to offend but the land rights issues with askin chin and AP should be common knowledge to anyone which sudies the border conflict
Here is a brieft summary
India claims Askin chin and AP
China claims Askin chin and AP or NEFA
China was willing to give up its claim to NEFA if india gave up its claim for Askin chin. Chinese forces went out of the NEFA as a gesture of good will to india so india would go back to the negotiating table


Lack of understanding?
back to the negotiating table it seems. Do you know that the post 62 era (until this millenium) was a total freeze in Indo-China relations?What negotiating table?




posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by yuanshao101
I was, not making a point of the USA against the world, I was just mearly pointing out the fact that alot of my fellow americans seem to always rekon that when the age old argument of Britain vs USA, we would just steam roll over the United Kingdom, in my opinion that is what would happen if we tried . . . .


Hmm between just the US and and the UK, they probably would steam roller over them, no doubt. I suggest you do a little more reading on teh order of battles and weapons both sides employ.



As to the IC argument, the factories are already there, for everything except Military uses, then again how do we know the chinese are not rolling out 100 tanks a day ???,


You can't prodice guns from a factory which makes shoes or TV's, teh factory has to be completely retooled. I assume the US with it's 100+ military surveillance factories know lmost exactly what is coming out of Chinese factories. It's not that hard.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by yuanshao101
I was, not making a point of the USA against the world, I was just mearly pointing out the fact that alot of my fellow americans seem to always rekon that when the age old argument of Britain vs USA, we would just steam roll over the United Kingdom, in my opinion that is what would happen if we tried . . . .


Hmm between just the US and and the UK, they probably would steam roller over them, no doubt. I suggest you do a little more reading on teh order of battles and weapons both sides employ.



As to the IC argument, the factories are already there, for everything except Military uses, then again how do we know the chinese are not rolling out 100 tanks a day ???,


You can't prodice guns from a factory which makes shoes or TV's, teh factory has to be completely retooled. I assume the US with it's 100+ military surveillance factories know lmost exactly what is coming out of Chinese factories. It's not that hard.


are you chinese ???

if not and you happen to be American, how many times do I have to say we are NOT invincible, our army, really isn't up to a standard of some other nations, mainly the Europeans. People were saying, that we would roll over the British Isles, so I made my opinion on what would happen if we tried, it ISN'T FACT, nor is it based entirely on facts, but I am sure quite a few other people would agree with me when I say the British would hammer us, maybe not on their own, but with their political out reach and support for our nation already at nothing they would easily repel us ??

and its all good an well argueing about the Idustrial capacity of the Chinese, but you cannot possibly dismiss the rest of the argument as pure bull# ?? I have fought in the gulf, I flew MH-60s. So I had a pretty good view of just how ermmm whats the word "under experienced" out forces really are, and I LOVE MY COUNTRY just as much as the next man, but seriously dude you need to open your eyes the United States are not the best army in the world, sure we are the most powefull in terms of firepower but in terms of actually battlefield, man to man we arn't all that good compare to other nations, that have been happily hammering away at each other in an age where no one gave two #s about went on across that big pond called the Atlantic.

Yuan



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 09:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by yuanshao101
are you chinese ???


I live in China though, so I have a good idea about what goes on here.



if not and you happen to be American, how many times do I have to say we are NOT invincible, our army, really isn't up to a standard of some other nations, mainly the Europeans. People were saying, that we would roll over the British Isles, so I made my opinion on what would happen if we tried, it ISN'T FACT, nor is it based entirely on facts, but I am sure quite a few other people would agree with me when I say the British would hammer us, maybe not on their own, but with their political out reach and support for our nation already at nothing they would easily repel us ??


The US military could stand off and destroy the Brit military, simple as that. They wouldn't invade Britain, why would they bother. As for other countries supporting Britain how the hell would you know, the circumstances would be pretty dire if an attack on Britain was necessary, you can't say countries would come to Britains aid, without knowing the geo-political situation.


I LOVE MY COUNTRY just as much as the next man, but seriously dude you need to open your eyes the United States are not the best army in the world, sure we are the most powefull in terms of firepower but in terms of actually battlefield, man to man we arn't all that good compare to other nations,


What ahs man to man have to do with it. If the US plays its cards right most of the enemy would be obliterated from afar, using brilliant weapons. This isn't WWII you know, where soldiers slug it out on amassive scale.

So you fought in teh gulf war, or should I say flew a transport helicopter, for inexpereinced soldiers they sure had a good result.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:13 AM
link   
blahh not this again!!


america could not invade the UK, why?

because the UK is the 2nd most advanced military (technolgical wise), even if they do defeat our military, they could not control the people - 60 million people live here!!

how is the possible 200,000 american troops going to control 60 million people? - make out they have come to free our country from an evil government and stick the american flag over buckingham palace (like they did with the saddam statue)!!


we are not dumb in this country, we don't believe in all that *cough* 'war for oil' stuff, woops! i mean 'war on terrorism'


yes america is the most powerful military in the world, but it certainly doesn't have the best troops though, but does having the most POWERFUL military always guarantee victory? (erm vietnam)!!
- a country that is soooo poor they live in huts and was using WW1 rifles.

also when your talking about 2 established nations at war, your also talking about a nuclear war.

technology doesn't mean f-all then, its just bye-bye to both countrys


[edit on 19-6-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 01:26 PM
link   
haha

The UK isn't 2nd tech wise, you guys have the same # we do, for instance our armor isnt as good as urs, where as our planes are better than yours, so all this our tech would just obliterate the UK goes out the window.

As far as the Geo political scale goes, im pretty sure the vast majority knows that the reason the Brits need us is because of our finances etc, we need them because without them we would suddenly be islolate from the Major nations, as the second gulf war, the coalition was led by us, and we had Nations like Panama and other places no one even new existed untill the United Kingdom joined, and along with them came the other majr players in the coalition.

Britain is our bridge with the other major nations and we are its bridge with economic stability, don't say we are not, billions of pounds were wiped from the FTSE 100 over the last few weeks because people were scared of the USA and its interest rates.

So who do u think the french would choose to support, the British ?? or the Americans ?? the germans ?? same as the french. the rest of the Europeans ?? yeah Britain, that how we get our support fro mthe British, they provide us with the political scale, beacuase no one would give two #s aobut what we said if the UK wasnt with us take the second gulf war, support from other nations bombed, if the UK hadn't of supported us, do you honestly think we would of carried on ?? adn the other nations would of joined our o so great coalition of the willing ??? no #in way lol.

and where do you get your crap about the US military being the Most sophisticated ?? we are the most powerful because of the sheer weight of weapons we can put forth into a battle zone, don't forget the British and us pretty much share technology so we are about equal, only difference is they have a 10th of what we have in terms of man power and have noware near the same equipment numbers.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 06:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by yuanshao101
and where do you get your crap about the US military being the Most sophisticated ?? we are the most powerful because of the sheer weight of weapons we can put forth into a battle zone, don't forget the British and us pretty much share technology so we are about equal, only difference is they have a 10th of what we have in terms of man power and have noware near the same equipment numbers.



ONce again do some more reading. You don't see the British flying F-117, B-2's or F-22's, do you
Also their measly 64 Tomahawks they have don't even rate agains the 1000+ the Americans can field. As said befor ethe US could wipe out the British military, no one is saying anything about invasion, all the ignorants always talk about invasion.
Also who could give to sheets abut the Europeans supporting England, they can barely project ny power outside their borders let alone take teh fight to the S mainland, hahaha.U



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Daedalus3
Cobalt nukes?

Dream on.. and don't forget to gloat while you're at it..


Its the truth isn't it


You asked a question and i gave you an answer. Or do you wish to deny it?


Which is how much? I don't want sentence reconstructions. You said that they would dropped less per soldier than what was dropped in Korea. Prove it.


You can do the maths

The amount of indian planes that could be deployed againest roughly 200,000+ chinese soldiers. Compared with the US airforce againest (you can subsitute the figure you came up with) and you get a grand sum of more tons per soldier from the US airforce than india could have provided



Kashmir is in India's control. No forward deployment there?


And how about the areas under pakistani control or chinese control?. Do you even know what forward deployment policy is/was?


The international maps are those printed by the allies post WWII and post Indian Independance. Both Aksai Chin and NEFA as you call it were shown as a part of India.


Allies or the british?

China was one of the big four countries and would never have agreed to that map. The KMT government in china still claims outer mongolia



If you can see the aksai chin border was decided AFTER 1962. Before that it was a part of India but it wasn't administered by India.


Are you aware how this war even started?. The indian military attacked the chinese forces in askin chin that were building the highway which cuts askin chin in half. It was in chinese control and not indian because they didn't even have a clue about a 1000 mile highway crossing right though "their" terrioty


It was DEFEINITELY not with China.
AP was with India all along.


Ill take a quote from wikipedia because it sums it up best


For the first two decades after the Simla Conference, the Survey of India did not show the McMahon Line as the border between British India and Tibet either; only in 1937 did they publish a map showing it as the official boundary; in 1938 the Survey of India published a map showing Tawang as a part of Tibet. In 1944, Britain established administrations in the area, from Dirang Dzong in the west to Walong in the east. The situation developed further as India became independent and the People's Republic of China was established in the late 1940s: with the PRC poised to take over Tibet, India unilaterally declared the McMahon Line to be the boundary in November 1950, and forced the Tibetan administration out of the Tawang area in 1951, despite Tibetan and PRC protests

en.wikipedia.org...

And you must know where Tawang is and how the tibetans were adminstating the area until 1950. The british never even made a effort to adminstrate the AP region and never stationed officals there


Lack of understanding?


I mean lack of knowledge



Do you know that the post 62 era (until this millenium) was a total freeze in Indo-China relations?What negotiating table?


I never said they did negotiate but the chinese pulled back as a gesture of goodwill so india might accept it



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 08:31 PM
link   
"It's been proven time again that the U.S. doesn't fare well in that kind of war" (In reference to guerilla warfare)

Are you joking? Do you even have ANY background with U.S. military history?

The U.S. perfected guerilla warfare. (See American Revolution, circa 1700's)

In fact, because of the U.S., the Napoleonic style of warfare ENDED. That statement is such a joke I don't even know what to say.

In fact, the U.S. still perfects it day in and day out. Please, don't cite Iraq as your example. Don't cite the casualties as an example either. The U.S. could DESTROY that country if we wanted to, but that isn't the goal.

There are casualties in Iraq for one simple reason.

America's goal is to stabilize the region, whereas the insurgency's goal is to do all they can to not let that happen.

Our task is MUCH more difficult. The U.S. has some of the best guerilla fighters in the world, not to mention that the U.S. is allied with the other top notch guerilla forces.

Detachment DELTA and the SEALs. I need go no further, but I will. Not to mention Force Recon, Army SF, and Combat Controllers. Also at allied disposal are the British SAS, Australian SAS, and maybe most importanly, Mossad.

Please, think before you post things like the U.S. has a history of being beaten in guerilla warfare. One last thing. Don't cite 'Nam. There were casualties there because it was a political agenda. The U.S. came close to winning that straight away, but Washington took over and let politicians command. That's never a smart idea.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by chinawhite

Its the truth isn't it


You asked a question and i gave you an answer. Or do you wish to deny it?



I wish to state that you are overestimating the ability of the chinese infantry in those days, esp the infantry that was in Tibet.IT definitely wasn't as well supplied as the one in Korea and/or the one that skirmished with the soviets.
No, I don't deny it;I don't know if its true or not, but its possible since the soviets threatened the use of the same.



You can do the maths
The amount of indian planes that could be deployed againest roughly 200,000+ chinese soldiers. Compared with the US airforce againest (you can subsitute the figure you came up with) and you get a grand sum of more tons per soldier from the US airforce than india could have provided


200,000?
I am unaware of such figures. My sources put chinese troops involved in the war of 62 to more or less 50000. That still out numbered Indian troops bya ratio of 5:1. AAnyways the math is your job.Not mine! You came up with the comparision and I contested it. Also we need to finalise the wildly varying figure of the number of PLA troops in the war of 62 with multiple sources. Really, I could bet it couldn't be more than 50000. The annexation of Tibet itself involved some 35000-40000 troops only!




And how about the areas under pakistani control or chinese control?. Do you even know what forward deployment policy is/was?

huh?
Maybe u didn't get what i was saying.Forward deployment is what India maintains at Siachen and Kashmir even today. I doesn't mean that India's on a war footing.Anyways the deployment employed in the build-up to 62 was a move to assert the Indian version of the border between the countries, not an act of war. Since this obviously conflicted with the chinese, they view it as an act of war. The Indians view the attack on the posts as the act of war.
Bottomline is Aksai Chin in reality was 'no-mans land' in terms of administration before 62. Both sides assumed the land to be theirs and also more tragically assumed that the other side didn't care much about it. Thats the cause of the war of 62. Lets move beyond that now.





Allies or the british?
China was one of the big four countries and would never have agreed to that map. The KMT government in china still claims outer mongolia


Funny.. I thought the Allies and the British were the same thing. Another reason for why the chinese withdrew in 62: Major military support from both the USSR and the USA had been finalised towards the end, seeing the poor situation India was in. They were 'allied' as per WWII definitions



Are you aware how this war even started?. The indian military attacked the chinese forces in askin chin that were building the highway which cuts askin chin in half. It was in chinese control and not indian because they didn't even have a clue about a 1000 mile highway crossing right though "their" terrioty


The region wasn't administered. That doesn't mean you go and build a highway through it. Why, the Russians could go and sit in Northern Canada using the same logic. It isn't administered/patrolled by military forces! Infact that's exactly what the Pakistani insurgents did in Kargil. You expect (esp being chinese) a ountry to patrol every inch of their territory round the clock even today? Forget 1962!

I am aware of how the war started. It just doesn't match with your version.





For the first two decades after the Simla Conference, the Survey of India did not show the McMahon Line as the border between British India and Tibet either; only in 1937 did they publish a map showing it as the official boundary; in 1938 the Survey of India published a map showing Tawang as a part of Tibet. In 1944, Britain established administrations in the area, from Dirang Dzong in the west to Walong in the east. The situation developed further as India became independent and the People's Republic of China was established in the late 1940s: with the PRC poised to take over Tibet, India unilaterally declared the McMahon Line to be the boundary in November 1950, and forced the Tibetan administration out of the Tawang area in 1951, despite Tibetan and PRC protests

en.wikipedia.org...



Firstly:
Wikipedia as a source for politically sensitive information?!!
You should know better than that!

Secondly:

It is true that tibetian authority prevailed in Tawang during British Rule. But The boundaries of the MacMohan Line clearly demarcated all of the Tawang tract as a part of British India. The tibetians had NO problem whatsoever with the Mac-Mohan Line or the fact that the Tawang tract was a part of British India. Infact the only body that had a problem were the Chinese! What's more they even rejected the tibetian ability to take a stance on such decisions without prior chinese consultation! So the feuding was clearly independant of British India!
The final demarcation came during WWII when the British finally took total authority of the Tawang tract with troops et all, fearing the unabated Japanese advance. At independance the Tawang Tract/AP was clearly an administered part of independant India.India re-affirmed its commitment to the area when China simultaneously waltzed into Tibet and Korea.
Now extending 'Tibetian claims' as 'chinese claims' by annexing Tibet itself is a strawman arguement at best for such expansionist policies will never cease. Its almost like Nazi expansionist policies in Europe during WWII.
Furthermore considering the fact that almost ALL of the Tibetian resistances,govts in exile and refugees now reside and operate from India itself, all their claims into Indian territory are deemed void as they obviously accept the boundaries of the country they seek refuge/political asylum in. If Tibet regains independance then those claims may bear actual weight.





I mean lack of knowledge


What lack of knowledge?! Just because I don't see eye to eye with chinese interpretations of the events that unfolded in 1962, doesn't mean I have a 'lack of knowledge'.




I never said they did negotiate but the chinese pulled back as a gesture of goodwill so india might accept it


Again that is debateable and the Indians do not see the withdrawal as one of goodwill. They see it as an objective attained(Aksai Chin) and a quick cessation of hostilities before the Americans and Soviets could get their hands into the situation.
Infact a whole USN carrier fleet was ordered into the Bay of Bengal towards the end of the war. Now whether the cease fire offer by the chinese was presented before this pledge of force assistance by the US and/or USSR, is not clear.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 03:10 AM
link   
Also their measly 64 Tomahawks they have don't even rate agains the 1000+ the Americans can field. As said befor ethe US could wipe out the British military, no one is saying anything about invasion, all the ignorants always talk about invasion.
Also who could give to sheets abut the Europeans supporting England, they can barely project ny power outside their borders let alone take teh fight to the S mainland, hahaha.


Once again your talking about pwer and how we rock, when u just contradicted your self with ur sentence about tomahawks, your not arguing any case, your just saying what I stated in the last sentence that we have more tomahawks than they do ?? whic his what I said, but then again their challenger easily hammers our M1A variations ??

S o we and the brits goto war, they then simply take over and annex our many many RADOMES etc ?? aswell as the coulpe of Airfields we use ??? so now they have the intelligence capabilities that we do, except for the fact that theirs is already alot better than ours lol. dude sont just keep statign that we have more weapons BECAUSE NO ONE IS DENYING THAT, but dont go on about how we own them with all over technology owning there and then say something stupid like "but we have more tomahawks than then" lol.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by yuanshao101
Once again your talking about pwer and how we rock, when u just contradicted your self with ur sentence about tomahawks, your not arguing any case, your just saying what I stated in the last sentence that we have more tomahawks than they do ?? whic his what I said, but then again their challenger easily hammers our M1A variations ??


I think you nedd to look up the meaing of contradiction, I haven't contradicted myself in anyway. The US has more advanced and destructive weapons than the UK does, easily dwarfing it in firepower. Not to mention the stuff Britain doesn't have ie. F-22, B-2 etc. Not sure if Britain fields the JSOW or JASSM whether with thier advanced CL-20 and AFX-757 HE warheads.

In what way does the Challenger hammer the M1 ? The Abrams is faster, teh Challenger may hvae slughtly heavier armour, but the US SABOT rounds would pierce a Challenger at roughly the same distance a Challenger CHARM-III round would pierce an Abrams, except the Abrams is faster.


So we and the brits goto war, they then simply take over and annex our many many RADOMES etc ?? aswell as the coulpe of Airfields we use ??? so now they have the intelligence capabilities that we do, except for the fact that theirs is already alot better than ours lol.


Erm right, saying their ELINT is better ( as you talk of radomes ) than the US is complete BS. If there was a war, the US would destroy those radomes, quite easily - your point is moot.


dude sont just keep statign that we have more weapons BECAUSE NO ONE IS DENYING THAT, but dont go on about how we own them with all over technology owning there and then say something stupid like "but we have more tomahawks than then" lol.


LOL, right so having more weapons and firepower doesn't make any difference, did you say you were in teh army - I am beginnning to doubt this. How is it a stupid statement, hvaing more of everything has always helped a military win a war, I'd say it is essential

Name one weapon system the UK has which is more advanced than the US ? I beleive their most advanced weapons are bought from the US. So please, stop making yourself look stupid.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   
@ rogue,

i just want to say this,

1) 'officially' we have the 2nd highest defence budget in the world.

2) 'officially' we are the worlds 2nd highest funders into military research and development.

3) typhoon vs f-22, theres many websites comparing these 2 aircraft, whilst i agree the f-22 is probably better - the typhoon is 4 times cheaper than the f-22 and the typhoon can do 90% of what the raptor can do.

the TornadoGr4 is also one of the best ALLROUND aircrafts in the world

4) after next year the US won't have the greatest warship when the first of the type45's are launched.

5) astute class submarines, id bet this sub can rival any the US have, ive done some reading up about this and bae say the astute class subs are "more complex than a space shuttle".

6) we've got 2 new carriers in development, also which websites tell me is the most 'advanced' carriers ever built.

7) f-35 in the making (something shared with america),

8) the challenger2 tanks, many people say its either the british challenger2 tanks or german leopard which is the worlds best 'allround' tank.

9) our troops, (not even debatable in my opinion), i also think many americans will agree that the british troops are the best trained troops in the world.

10) special forces - SAS, most high profile forces unit in the world

11) and as the dude above said 'intellgence sharing' with the US (ie:- ucav's/ that new nuclear warhead thing etc)

(summary) us brits have everything, the only thing we lack is 'numbers' compared to america, which we now do not need now since the british empire ended 60 years ago...never the less no country as a better military record than ours (70 years ago we owned 25% of the world)!!


over the years our puny island as kicked/and still kicks (falklands) some major arse













[edit on 20-6-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o


3) typhoon vs f-22, theres many websites comparing these 2 aircraft, whilst i agree the f-22 is probably better - the typhoon is 4 times cheaper than the f-22 and the typhoon can do 90% of what the raptor can do.


Once again I ask, who cares about cost? Cost is irrelevent on the battlefield, it either works or it doesn't. No one ever won a battle because of the cost of their equipment.











[edit on 20-6-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by White Chapel

Once again I ask, who cares about cost? Cost is irrelevent on the battlefield, it either works or it doesn't. No one ever won a battle because of the cost of their equipment.


yeah but it can still do just about everything the f-22 can do!!

besides i can argue the fact that the raptor is 'unproven'.

in dog-fights there's been articles about how the two f-15's figher jets were chasing the typhoon in a 'mock' dogfight,

the typhoon suprised both american piots, managed to outmanoeuvr both and get into a shooting position!!

scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com...

i compare this to a 'mock' dogfight the f-22 as taken part in with an f-18

www.abovetopsecret.com...

people talk about the raptor like it has some type of klingon cloaking device











[edit on 20-6-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
3) typhoon vs f-22, theres many websites comparing these 2 aircraft, whilst i agree the f-22 is probably better - the typhoon is 4 times cheaper than the f-22 and the typhoon can do 90% of what the raptor can do.


The typhoon is incomparable with an F-22. It doesn't even rate.



4) after next year the US won't have the greatest warship when the first of the type45's are launched.


Well that's really debatle especially since it uses an inferior mechanical radar rather than the much more advanced phased arrays, used on American ships.


5) astute class submarines, id bet this sub can rival any the US have, ive done some reading up about this and bae say the astute class subs are "more complex than a space shuttle".


It is still inferior to a Virginia class sub and probably a Seawolf Class.


6) we've got 2 new carriers in development, also which websites tell me is the most 'advanced' carriers ever built.


The us also has a new carrier in development.



8) the challenger2 tanks, many people say its either the british challenger2 tanks or german leopard which is the worlds best 'allround' tank.


Some people say it isn't
Considering the Leopard 2 of CHallenger have never really seen combat, it's pretty silly to use inuendo.



10) special forces - SAS, most high profile forces unit in the world


Erm yes, tehy are, seems every second SAS trooper writes a book. However the best units ar ethose which keep a low profile. US Delta and SEALS are easily just as capable as the Brit SAS, although inferior to the Australian SASR.



(summary) us brits have everything, the only thing we lack is 'numbers' compared to america, which we now do not need now since the british empire ended 60 years ago...never the less no country as a better military record than ours (70 years ago we owned 25% of the world)!!


LOL, if you say so. The difference is now, one mistake and its all over the news, back in teh days of British military power, they could massacre people wihtout any public scrutiny. Just look at the British handling of WW1, completely woeful, tehn of course there's Singapore in WW@, lol. Cone t think of it, it's the former colonial troops which saved your bacon many times ie, the Australians at Tobruk.


over the years our puny island as kicked/and still kicks (falklands) some major arse


LOL, you're lucky teh Argies dropped so many incorectly fused bombs on their A-4's otherwise half the British fleet would have been sunk. I think they had more strikes with dummy bombs than properly fused ones.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
yeah but it can still do just about everything the f-22 can do!!


LOL, yeah right.


besides i can argue the fact that the raptor is 'unproven'.

in dog-fights there's been articles about how the two f-15's figher jets were chasing the typhoon in a 'mock' dogfight,

the typhoon suprised both american piots, managed to outmanoeuvr both and get into a shooting position!!


And since when has the Typhoon been proven. If it had been a real dogfight the F-15's would hvae used missiles and blown it away. I find this story fancifiul at best.



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

The typhoon is incomparable with an F-22. It doesn't even rate.



ohhh i think it compares to it!!

afterall the typhoon is the 2nd best fighter in the world (to the f-22) so its the only 'current' aircraft you can compare it to


but ive already admitted the f-22 is the better aircraft.

*end of subject*



Well that's really debatle especially since it uses an inferior mechanical radar rather than the much more advanced phased arrays, used on American ships.


just do a search on google dude





It is still inferior to a Virginia class sub and probably a Seawolf Class.



niceone


is this your 'opinion' though or 'fact' - links please




The us also has a new carrier in development.


ah right ive not looked into it, so can't comment on the project




Some people say it isn't
Considering the Leopard 2 of CHallenger have never really seen combat, it's pretty silly to use inuendo.



iraq/afghanistan




Erm yes, tehy are, seems every second SAS trooper writes a book. However the best units ar ethose which keep a low profile. US Delta and SEALS are easily just as capable as the Brit SAS, although inferior to the Australian SASR.


oh yeah i forgot about 'the delta force', its not that low profile though because i'm sure i seen a film with chuck norris in




LOL, if you say so. The difference is now, one mistake and its all over the news, back in teh days of British military power, they could massacre people wihtout any public scrutiny. Just look at the British handling of WW1, completely woeful, tehn of course there's Singapore in WW@, lol. Cone t think of it, it's the former colonial troops which saved your bacon many times ie, the Australians at Tobruk.


what you mean like all the rape storys you heard about american soilders did during the 'vitenam war?'

or this:-

www.cbsnews.com...

this

www.thememoryhole.org...

this

www.thememoryhole.org...

and this

electroniciraq.net...

but yes we forgot how the old british empire burned people in churches and things like that, we've all seen hollywoods 'patriot'




LOL, you're lucky teh Argies dropped so many incorectly fused bombs on their A-4's otherwise half the British fleet would have been sunk. I think they had more strikes with dummy bombs than properly fused ones.


lady luck is always on our side my friend 'the sun never sets on britain' (still we did it in 6 weeks though)!!


RULE BRITAININA


what happened in vietnam though
oh thats right, politics even though you dropped more explosives than the WHOLE of WW2 put together, americans like to put down the loss to vietnamese to politics

it makes ya laugh - i like to put it down to you never had british help though











[edit on 20-6-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:02 PM
link   


And since when has the Typhoon been proven. If it had been a real dogfight the F-15's would hvae used missiles and blown it away. I find this story fancifiul at best.



eek,

your the first person ive actually heard whos said the f-15 is better aircraft than the typhoon!!

do a search on ats dude or on google because i think you live on 'planet america'.






[edit on 20-6-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 12:36 PM
link   
I don't know about the F-15 n all but :
The Grippen's gonna be better that the Typhoon tonite for sure!!

get my drift?


Damn Argentina don't get to play England unless the both mkae it past the pre quarters!!



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 13  14  15    17  18  19 >>

log in

join