PAC-3 Missile, page 2
Pages: <<  1    2  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 4-7-2004 @ 04:16 PM by The Vagabond
Originally posted by WestPoint23
British are where America was 10-15 years ago


In what capacity West Point? Our allies in Britain don't have the defense budget that we do (in fact US defense spending makes up about half of the global sum) but they are not to be underestimated.

The fact is that much of the world is very close together in de-classified technology. America's production power, which is owed to its size and population, is the main thing keeping America ahead.

America gets the job done on the battlefield, but a large part of why it looks so easy for us is because of who we're fighting. As powerful as America is, I honestly do not believe we could successfully invade the UK. I know that hurts you, but relax, because they're old friends of ours anyway.

Not everyone has to be America's bitch all the time. America thrived as a mediocre power from 1776 to 1945, so why are we so obsessed with the need to be unquestionably on top now? I can't help pointing out that there were fewer wars and better causes before we came to our new station in the world.
We fought for independence, we fought because we were being punked on the open seas and had British troops hanging out in our territory still, we fought over slavery, we fought two wars against ruthless nationalists, Then we inserted ourselves into somebody else's civil war, We STARTED somebody else's civil war against the will of 95% of Vietnam, we fought a proxy-war with the USSR (by supporting Iraq during the 1980-88 war with Iran), then we had to go destroy the monster we created, but we didn't do it right so we had to go do it AGAIN.

If America were just a tad less powerful, there would be No Korean War, No Vietnam war, No Korean Nuclear Crisis, and we'd still be every bit as safe as our other NATO allies, most of whom haven't fired a shot in anger since 1953.

I love my country, and if somebody has to be in charge I'm glad its us. I just wish we didn't know our own strength (or at least that politicians didn't) so that they'd have to weigh their violent impulses against potential consequences.
For example: George Bush wouldn't take a swing at me because I'd knock his goofy little head off. I wish he had the same worries about war. NOT BECAUSE I DONT WANT IT TO HAPPEN, but because I want to know there's a good reason.


reply posted on 4-7-2004 @ 04:22 PM by American Mad Man
Originally posted by weirdo
I suggest you start research European policy on the plans to join millitary forces.Then start looking between the lines.Why would America need a large Millitary?.Why would Europe need a large Millitary?.Who do we need to defend ourselves from with such a large millitary force some small African or middle east country?

WAKE UP TO NEW POSSIBILITES REMEMBER THE COLD WAR.

wHY YOU ON THIS SITE IF YOU ARE SO SURE OF YOURSELF


Believe me, I know whats going on in the world, esp. w/ in Europe.

I suggest you start doing a little research. Do really think that Europe - a continent full of countries that have never been able to get along with each other for extended periods of time - will be able to come up with a centralized leadership for Germany, France, England, Russia, Spain ect ect ect that they all can agree on?

For instance, do you really think that the Russians are going to let Germany tell them what to do? Get real man. I could see the surrender monkeys (AKA French) and Germany get together but thats about it.

You say "remember the cold war." Well here is what I remember - Russia building thousands upon thousands of tanks to roll through Germany with. France building a nuclear deterent for Russia. The US having to occupy West Germany so that the Soviets wouldn't come marching through. So what does this have to do with coming together in a millitary alliance?

To tell you why I am on this site, I am here for the discussion of conspiracy based topics, and apparently now, to help you "deny ignorance."


reply posted on 7-7-2004 @ 10:09 AM by weirdo
Originally posted by American Mad Man
Originally posted by weirdo
I suggest you start research European policy on the plans to join millitary forces.Then start looking between the lines.Why would America need a large Millitary?.Why would Europe need a large Millitary?.Who do we need to defend ourselves from with such a large millitary force some small African or middle east country?

WAKE UP TO NEW POSSIBILITES REMEMBER THE COLD WAR.

wHY YOU ON THIS SITE IF YOU ARE SO SURE OF YOURSELF


Believe me, I know whats going on in the world, esp. w/ in Europe.

I suggest you start doing a little research. Do really think that Europe - a continent full of countries that have never been able to get along with each other for extended periods of time - will be able to come up with a centralized leadership for Germany, France, England, Russia, Spain ect ect ect that they all can agree on?

For instance, do you really think that the Russians are going to let Germany tell them what to do? Get real man. I could see the surrender monkeys (AKA French) and Germany get together but thats about it.

You say "remember the cold war." Well here is what I remember - Russia building thousands upon thousands of tanks to roll through Germany with. France building a nuclear deterent for Russia. The US having to occupy West Germany so that the Soviets wouldn't come marching through. So what does this have to do with coming together in a millitary alliance?

To tell you why I am on this site, I am here for the discussion of conspiracy based topics, and apparently now, to help you "deny ignorance."



Honestly i don`t believe Europe will come together and agree on everything mostly the individual economics will cause a divide.Can you honestly say that every country around the world is totally behind its goverment and agree on all policys?.No more than a united europe would,but if there plans are agreed militarily and an organisation formed similar to NATO but without the US could be formed without to much disagreement.Would this form a threat to US only if American leadership was to become a threat.I believe that europe sees China as the biggesr deciding factor when it comes to economics and millitary strength.It is said that at the moment China poses enough workers (900,000,000) to produce every single item on Earth that we use in everyday life.This posses a huge economic threat to the whole of the world and to survive we have to become stronger.


reply posted on 15-7-2004 @ 05:44 AM by Bravon03
Interesting digression into Euro-scorn, but getting back to the whole PAC-3 thing during the recent Iraq War, it shot down an RAF Tornado and a US Navy F-18 with the loss of all crew, good work there. The system tried to shoot down another jet but that jet destroyed the Patriot's radar with an anti-radiation missile. The system, as it is, does seem to have some trouble discerning between friend and foe, and as it is an automatic system, pretty much doesn't give a rubber duck who it shoots down as long as all the binary adds up. Good luck sorting it out. LINK

UK sensitivity to friendly fire incidents of this sort basically comes from the fact that the largest single occurrance of UK combat casualties in the Gulf War was caused by fire from US Aircraft. Apparrently the A-10 pilot thought he was 10 kilometres further east than he actually was when he started raining Mavericks on the ACVs below. Later in the war UK tanks were engaged by US tanks, luckily with only damage to the UK tanks and injured crew. During the Gulf War 50% of UK combat casualties were caused by American fire. UK armour was again attacked by US aircraft during the Iraq war resulting in loss of life, and the only loss of a UK fixed wing aircraft was by a US Patriot battery. While considering the scope of these operations and the lethality of the weapons used you might argue that blue on blue incidents are actually very low and only stand out so starkly because total combat casualties are also incredibly low, the perception of some is that UK forces need to keep one eye on the enemy and one eye on their trigger happy allies.

Having said all that, two UK soldiers died when their Challenger II tank was hit druing night fighting near Basra. The culprit? Another Challenger II.


reply posted on 21-7-2004 @ 04:29 AM by E_T
Here's good data:
www.globalsecurity.org...
www.globalsecurity.org...


And it's direct hit weapon, it doesn't have explosive warhead.



[edit on 21-7-2004 by E_T]
Pages: <<  1    2  >>    ^^TOP^^



Amazing video of 747 lifting in place in extreme wind conditions
  Posted 1 days ago with 11 member flags
Eerie Second World War RAF fighter plane discovered in the Sahara
  Posted 17 days ago with 8 member flags
Stealth chopper based in Nevada
  Posted 16 days ago with 4 member flags
HIFiRE Scramjet Research Flight Will Advance Hypersonic Technology
  Posted 15 days ago with 2 member flags