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.

 

France to launch new "SNLE" submarine before 2005.

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 04:24 PM
link   
For all the snarky comments about the French, word I hear is that they regularly clean the clocks of most western forces when they participate in joint exercises.

BTW, anybody remember a guy named Napoleon?




posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:26 AM
link   
The entire concept of basing a country's current or future capabilities on their actions and choices made decades, or centuries ago is ludicrous at best. Different people, generally a different government, and the world's military has changed dramatically every few years since the first world war.

Following that:

a. Yes, France and Germany both opposed the war by-and-large due to the enormous debt, payed through oil, owed by Iraq. At this moment, for instance, the United States is attempting to have many countries eliminate or reduce that debt -- specifically Kuwait.

b. To an extent, the complaints made against the French are correct. Their military, in the past century or so, has failed to produce any victories of global consequence -- [And in a world turning to globalization, that is all that matters of course!] -- and the strongest memory of France's involvement in any U.S.-involved conflict would be World War II, where unfortunately, the French Government didn't quite perform as expected.

Saying this -- Instead of complaining, or insulting / joking, how about discussing the issue?

Instead of saying, 'Ha! French military sucks! It always has!'

Ask why it is suddenly.. 'Not sucking'.

French technology sucks!

Then discuss what technology is going into this new hardware, and how it relates to its brethren tech from other countries.

There is sometimes a thin line between intelligent discussion, and ignorant blathering.

Try to find the right side.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 04:24 AM
link   
My thoughts on this are the same as those I have on replacing The Trident Subs. For countries like The UK and France, Strategic Nuclear Subs are a ludicrously expensive way of maintaining a deterrent. The Royal Navy is going through a considerable transformation at present, from an anti-submarine force to one much more capable of supporting expeditionary campaigns. The Albion class landing platforms, The Type 45's, The Astute class subs, The new Carriers and support ships are all evidence of this. It would be tragic if these changes suffered as a result expenditure on a 'Gold-plated Deterrent'. I know that The Admiralty considers that being custodians of The Uk's Strategic Deterrent keeps the Navy at the Top Table, particularly at a time when the Army refers to The Senior Service as "Our Taxi Service". But I do think these weapons systems are just too expensive for the likes of the UK and France.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fang
But I do think these weapons systems are just too expensive for the likes of the UK and France.

Not really, we've managed to maintain it and frankly its vital to our defence. Without a nuclear deterrant whats to stop any country from bullying us? Our naval power is weak, our army is under funded and under strength, our air force has no legs and frankly if we did scrap our nuclear deterrant for more ships and subs whats to stop people nuking those forces without fear of retalitation?



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 09:26 AM
link   
I wasn't making a point about about Nuclear deterrence per se. I reluctantly agree we need it. I just think that Trident is a hugely expensive piece of over capacity. Give me a fleet of Nuclear Cruise armed Astutes any day



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 01:24 PM
link   
I'd disagree that the UK's naval power is "weak".

Compared to the navies of most countries of comparable size, the RN is still quite a respectable force.

Compared to it's status in the first part of the 20th century, sure, it's far smaller, but frankly considering there is no longer an Empire to look after, it's more than adequate.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 05:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cloak and Dagger
[Canada is one of the biggest players in the uranium mining industry, maybe the biggest.


Actually, Australia has the largest reserves of uranium in the world.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Maybe because frankly america has not had its country become a battle ground, has not been occupied and has not fought a defensive war. But never mind, after all its france right? That weak little country with no forces? Who is the me arogant? Those who are stubburn or those who just ignorant.


Actually, British forces blockaded and even captured Detroit during the War of 1812 (known in Great Britain as the American War of 1812, the first time the U.S was made a battleground since it's fight for independence), and landed troops in both Washington, D.C. and New Orleans.

In May 1846, Mexico, upset about losing Texas in 1836 and Texas' joining the US in Feb. 1846, invaded the US near Matamoros and killed 11 US soldiers starting the Mexican War. But Mexico made no further inroads to US territory.

To date those are the only two instance of incursion or occupation of US soil by a foreign power.

-Papa "Historical Anecdote" Homer



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by PapaHomer
Actually, British forces blockaded and even captured Detroit during the War of 1812 (known in Great Britain as the American War of 1812, the first time the U.S was made a battleground since it's fight for independence), and landed troops in both Washington, D.C. and New Orleans.

In May 1846, Mexico, upset about losing Texas in 1836 and Texas' joining the US in Feb. 1846, invaded the US near Matamoros and killed 11 US soldiers starting the Mexican War. But Mexico made no further inroads to US territory.

To date those are the only two instance of incursion or occupation of US soil by a foreign power.

-Papa "Historical Anecdote" Homer

Actually the US (as it is now) hs never fought a defensive war. The US (past and present) has fought several as you have pointed out but none in the last 100 years, as such america does not know what it feels like to have its country turn into a battle ground. The war of 1812 was almost 200 years ago, you going to tell that you have people that remember it?



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 12:57 PM
link   
And pray tell, how many people seventy-five years old and upwards -- So that they would actually remember something -- live in Europe? I'd imagine thousands, perhaps even tens of thousands -- But very little of those have anything to do with current policy today. Much like how America has not fought a war on its soil in many years, we're getting to the point where it's starting to leave Europe's memory. [Though I will not debate that there will be scars for a much longer time afterward.]

I'd request we stop insulting countries -- This is an international board, therefore with an international community, and this is in no way a board to conflict , only to inform.

That France's military and navy have historically done poorly and are now redoubling efforts is a fact. There is no need to go further on that topic, but to discuss it only, and discuss why.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
For all the snarky comments about the French, word I hear is that they regularly clean the clocks of most western forces when they participate in joint exercises.

BTW, anybody remember a guy named Napoleon?


Er... I'd like to hear some examples of the French cleaning anyones clocks, even in an exercise. As for Napoleon, he was more Italian than French.

P.S.The Italians were the ones who taught the French how to cook.



posted on Jun, 30 2007 @ 08:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iblis
That France's military and navy have historically done poorly and are now redoubling efforts is a fact. There is no need to go further on that topic, but to discuss it only, and discuss why.

Actually that is a misconception. They have only been beat when european nations joined together or by pure flukes, Take waterloo or nelsons battle of trafalgar. Waterloo was a coalition and Nelsons plan was a pure fluke of strategy, true nelsons was fantastic but it was still a fluke.

The french military have done well for thier capability and in the face of the most technological and most advanced military might of the 20th century.


Originally posted by Fang
Er... I'd like to hear some examples of the French cleaning anyones clocks, even in an exercise. As for Napoleon, he was more Italian than French.

P.S.The Italians were the ones who taught the French how to cook.

How about world war 1 mate? 3/4ths of the line was held by the french if you didnt know and they done a damm good job against the best army in the world. Not to mention world war 2 where there resitiance saved hundreds of british airmen and servicemens lives. Dunkirk anyone?


[edit on 26/02/2005 by devilwasp]



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 03:13 AM
link   
I was responding to the original reference to recent military joint exercises. Yep they did well in WW1 on the Western Front and their Officer corp was undoubtedly superior to ours. But they were playing at home. As for Trafalgar, they were the ones who were in a 'coalition' with the Spanish.



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 04:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Fang
As for Trafalgar, they were the ones who were in a 'coalition' with the Spanish.

Yeah hence why I said it was a fluke that thier armada was beaten, as for up to date events, well I suggest you look because thier bound to be out there. How about the actions of the french army in GW1? Is that not up to date enough?



posted on Jul, 1 2007 @ 05:57 AM
link   
The original assertion was that they regularly "Clean the Clocks" of western forces in joint exercises.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join