China launches new type of sub, American intelligence "suprised"

what about the cold war?
now you cant say you weretn out gunned there, 10-1 fighter ratio is outgunned son.

Uhh... Cold War we never went to war so you cant say we were outgunned son.
And WTF are you talking about the 10-1 fighter ratio care to explain?

so you deem the pentagon not important ?
or nelis AFB?
or guantanimo bay?

The pentagon is 5x bigger underground that it is aboveground and they probably have back up places they can go to serve as a temporary pentagon incase of an all out nuclear war. The important bases are the ones that are essential to the retaliations and the ones that need to survive the aftermath of a nuclear war. Military bases are important in times or war, but when it comes to an all out nuclear war not all bases are important.

Originally posted by WestPoint23


Uhh... Cold War we never went to war so you cant say we were outgunned son.
And WTF are you talking about the 10-1 fighter ratio care to explain?

how cant i ? you were almost at war and frankly it was your rival so i would say you were outgunned dont get technical.
also that ratio was the ratio over europe dureing the cold war check the figures if you want!

The pentagon is 5x bigger underground that it is aboveground and they probably have back up places they can go to serve as a temporary pentagon incase of an all out nuclear war. The important bases are the ones that are essential to the retaliations and the ones that need to survive the aftermath of a nuclear war. Military bases are important in times or war, but when it comes to an all out nuclear war not all bases are important.

dude in nuclear war every base is important how you gona be able to move troops + supplies,creat a coms network,actually have a BOP in the area.
also yes it is 5x bigger underground so what? one nuke and it will still not only fry the electrics but make a load of radiation so no troops comeoing out.
also you have it wrong
bases like that are designed to keep leaders safe and let them be protected while the ground troops will die i know its bad news for the regualr grunt but hey your generals are ok. and thier designed to be able to fire more nukes at other countries. why else would they make them nuke proof?

[edit on 14-8-2004 by devilwasp]

how cant i ? you were almost at war and frankly it was your rival so i would say you were outgunned dont get technical.
also that ratio was the ratio over europe dureing the cold war check the figures if you want!

You cant say that for sure. If we had gone to war with the soviets and get beat we would have been outgunned, but we never did so you don't know what would have happened so you cant say we were outgunned.
Ratio over Europe again WTF are you talking about,? I don't remembered the US having air battles during the cold war over Europe with the soviets care to provide links or something?

Most Military bases which serve a purpose of only stating troops and weapons would not survive a nuclear war only. The ones that are built to house important members/people, communications and ICBM�s those are the most important ones when it come to Nuclear War.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
What is your point that the US shouldn't have used nukes in WWII?

- Probably not (but given the politics - as opposed to the military situation re Japan/USA - regarding Stalin's Russia that possibility does remain).

It's just that when we're considering who is going to give us second thoughts or major worries on the subject, those who've already used them surely spring to mind first, hmmm?

'Course if the situation were reversed you wouldn't be saying similar would you? Yeah right.

And ask Tibet about china not invading countries for the purpose of taking them over not for the purpose of taking a dictator out.

- Not sure what you mean here. I'd rather countries didn't treat each other in this kind of manner too (re China/Tibet) but Tibet is another example where China can point to maps thousands of years old showing Tibet a part of China.

If California declared itself independant I bet the rest of the USA wouldn't be too happy regardless what the californians themselves thought, hmmm?

Bush has always said china can have Taiwan as long as it does it diplomatically to me this is a diplomatic solution and not as you claim a threat by our President.

- Bush (like many on the US right wing) knows zip about anything beyond US shores.

What kind of idiot listens to a know-nothing jerk like that as if they had a clue?

Originally posted by WestPoint23

You cant say that for sure. If we had gone to war with the soviets and get beat we would have been outgunned, but we never did so you don't know what would have happened so you cant say we were outgunned.
Ratio over Europe again WTF are you talking about,? I don't remembered the US having air battles during the cold war over Europe with the soviets care to provide links or something?

actually i can say so considering they had more than twice the number of aircraft than you.
and the russians had that area full of weapons unlike america wichhad a few bases.
also air ratio's i mean by number of aircraft on each side where you getting the ideas about battle's or is that the american high command paranioa kicking in.
no thier is no links only words from high ranking american military officers.
try looking around and you will see.
also if your saying that america had more planes i would like proof.

Most Military bases which serve a purpose of only stating troops and weapons would not survive a nuclear war only. The ones that are built to house important members/people, communications and ICBM�s those are the most important ones when it come to Nuclear War.

"most important ones when it comes to nuclear war" wow you read that right outa the manual?
no seriosly what makes you imporatant. also i dont know why they build nuclear launching bases to be nuke proof?
your only gona make sure every one is dead.

[edit on 15-8-2004 by devilwasp]

In the early 1940�s the US knew it had a big bomb that went boom, they did not know it had radiation or any other fallout not even the scientist were sure how powerful it was. The US was preparing to launch an invasion after they had dropped a couple of nukes in JAPAN, cuz they did not know that our troops were going to suffer from radiation. At that time the bomb was just treated as just another bomb. We had to drop it because all the Japanese people would of been killed taking the mainland and you would have millions of casualties on both sides.

What ever this is just some Chinese BS saying its on a 2000 year old map OMFG. How retarded is that , man what�s even more funny is china decides after all this time to take it back. Like it was theirs on the first place.

Bush has a very good policy toward Taiwan. Not to aggressive not to soft just the right balance.

Devil who cares how many aircraft they had, we had better quality jets and better trained crew
IMO. And they had the are full of weapons kool no threat the US. Who cares if they roll right over Europe and take Britain France and Germany, the US would not care but we protected your arse for 40 years (with our few bases).

Originally posted by WestPoint23


Devil who cares how many aircraft they had, we had better quality jets and better trained crew
IMO. And they had the are full of weapons kool no threat the US. Who cares if they roll right over Europe and take Britain France and Germany, the US would not care but we protected your arse for 40 years (with our few bases).

dude you can NOT say that.
i mean come on an ace f-15 pilot cant defeat 5 migs. now thats about the kinda numbers pilots would face. now i know the aircraft arnt from the period but thats the kinda situation it would be in.
yes you protected us in the battle of britain. the glorious UASF flew over our country and faught the mighty hun single handedly.....B-U-L-L S-*-*-T get your head out a**. i dont mind americans but frankly its people like you who give america a bad reputation.
you protected feck all. you protected your own intrests nothing more.
everything else was just a bonus.
also i think america would care if britain got invaded since we were and still are your only real friends. dont forget that.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
In the early 1940�s the US knew it had a big bomb that went boom, they did not know it had radiation or any other fallout not even the scientist were sure how powerful it was.

- True, (just as with the H - bomb) some thought that once the chain reaction started it wouldn't stop.

.....and they did it anyway. Good job they were wrong, huh?

The US was preparing to launch an invasion after they had dropped a couple of nukes in JAPAN, cuz they did not know that our troops were going to suffer from radiation. At that time the bomb was just treated as just another bomb.

- That's not quite right Westy.

The military saw it like any other bomb.

The scientists, who didn't, were ignored once they had come up with the goods.

We had to drop it because all the Japanese people would of been killed taking the mainland and you would have millions of casualties on both sides.

- That rational is just great of you go along with the idea that an invasion was necessary and that a policy of containment until surrender wouldn't have worked.

What ever this is just some Chinese BS saying its on a 2000 year old map OMFG. How retarded is that

- I would suggest the really retarded thing is when people dismiss that 6000yr old culture/history as meaningless.....

.....particularly cocky know-alls from a culture still in it's diapers where the tendancy is noteable (and growing) - in all but a very few - to know absolutely nothing about anything outside of ones' own national borders.

These ancient maps exist, they are not some excuse or tall story just 'found' by the Chinese, don't be ridiculous.

man what�s even more funny is china decides after all this time to take it back. Like it was theirs on the first place.

- No, it's not particularly funny or unusual. Countries, in the sense we know of them today, are a fairly recent invention - 'island nations', for obvious reasons, apart.

Even amongst the so-called first world developed nations Germany and Italy, for instance, only formed as formal countries during the last 150yrs - 200yrs - pretty similarly to the USA. It's not like the concept hasn't caused enormous trouble close to home now is it?

There was a time, not that long ago, when regions didn't have to formally be a part of a 'country'.

They, the Chinese, do, in all seriousness, believe Tibet to have been 'theirs' .....and as I said ancient maps exist to show this is so (the British museum has one for instance).

Bush has a very good policy toward Taiwan. Not to aggressive not to soft just the right balance.

- Yeah, why should anyone get twitchy about a couple of carrier battle groups in the area in a time of elevated tension? It's meant to help, right? LMAO.

......and it's not like the USA ever launches unprovoked attacks on anyone, ever, right?

....oh.

Devil who cares how many aircraft they had, we had better quality jets and better trained crew
IMO. And they had the are full of weapons kool no threat the US. Who cares if they roll right over Europe and take Britain France and Germany, the US would not care but we protected your arse for 40 years (with our few bases).

- Westy do you think the USA fought WW2 for the europeans?

Do you really think the USA was in europe post war for the europeans?

The USA protected it's own 'arse' doing this. Pure self-interest. That's OK, we all understand this but please stop making out there was charity involved in it.

The USA did what it did to protect herself militarily and her economy and living standards through trade with european export markets.

Wise up.

...and stop pretending China getting a few old designs of sub from the Russians is suddenly tipping the balance of anything.



[edit on 16-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

you protected feck all. you protected your own intrests nothing more.
everything else was just a bonus.

Even if it was in our self interest it still kept you safe from the Soviets for over 40 years courtesy of the American tax payers.

That's not quite right Westy.

Yes it is the Military had an invasion all planned out if Japan did not surrender they would invade after drooping the nukes. And at first not even the scientist know how powerful it was the scientists only begin to grasp it full power after Hiroshima.

That rational is just great of you go along with the idea that an invasion was necessary and that a policy of containment until surrender wouldn't have worked.

That was the military plan at the time don't balm me for anything that was what our leaders saw was the best way to get an unconventional surrender. Containment would be the same we would cut off all outside ties to Japan and we would have continued bombing them. Which would have caused their propel to starve to death due to lack of supplies and food, dose that sound better to you? Not to mention the secret jets of Japan that we discovered after the war. Some jets were only a couple of months from production and these jets were advanced and would have cost the US more casualties.

.....particularly cocky know-alls from a culture still in it's diapers where the tendancy is noteable (and growing) - in all but a very few - to know absolutely nothing about anything outside of ones' own national borders.

Our culture has its roots in ancient Greece and Europe, and Europe is very old. what you could have said was that our nation is still young even though it has risen more in 250 years than china could in 6000+.

Yeah, why should anyone get twitchy about a couple of carrier battle groups in the area in a time of elevated tension? It's meant to help, right? LMAO.

......and it's not like the USA ever launches unprovoked attacks on anyone, ever, right?

No the US does not launch sneaky attacks unprovoked in a situation like this. You think the US would do a pearl harbor type of attack? It would never happen it. Our carriers are only there to make china think twice before trying to invade Taiwan any action that the Us might take will be triggered by the Chinese that is out policy.

No matter who the Us was fighting for in the European theater is still help the British and French out. Damn French!

...and stop pretending China getting a few old designs of sub from the Russians is suddenly tipping the balance of anything.

No but when you add AL-qada the middle east countries Iran Syria, then you add North Korea, then you add the technology coming out of France and Germany. You add Russia You also add the Chinese threatening to go to war against Taiwan. When you ad all of that, its pretty clear what the situation is.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
That was the military plan at the time don't balm me for anything that was what our leaders saw was the best way to get an unconventional surrender. Containment would be the same we would cut off all outside ties to Japan and we would have continued bombing them. Which would have caused their propel to starve to death due to lack of supplies and food, dose that sound better to you? Not to mention the secret jets of Japan that we discovered after the war. Some jets were only a couple of months from production and these jets were advanced and would have cost the US more casualties.

- This 'secret weapon' thinking is such a crock.

By the end of WW2 Japan, like Germany, had almost no resources left.

There never could be nor never were going to be hoardes of jets, rockets or anything else. They couldn't even build their latest piston engined designs in any quantity never mind highly technical items like jet engines or rocket engines.

....and like Germany they had almost no fuel (for anything) left.

Our culture has its roots in ancient Greece and Europe, and Europe is very old. what you could have said was that our nation is still young even though it has risen more in 250 years than china could in 6000+.

- Does it? I mean in theory OK but it certainly doesn't demonstrate any of those 'qualities' to any noticable degree.

When you have a few more centuries under your belt we'll talk about 'success' and 'rising' in comparison to China or Europe.

No the US does not launch sneaky attacks unprovoked in a situation like this. You think the US would do a pearl harbor type of attack? It would never happen it.

- Really? I think you'll find the US has gotten itself into quite a few fights on the most flimsy of 'reasons'

Our carriers are only there to make china think twice before trying to invade Taiwan any action that the Us might take will be triggered by the Chinese that is out policy.

- If that is so then why elevate the 'temperature' by sending so many carrier groups out that way?

No matter who the Us was fighting for in the European theater is still help the British and French out. Damn French!

- I don't understand this bit. What is your problem with the French? Does everyone have to agree with you lot all the time to be your friends or something? I mean, it's not like France hasn't played such an important role in US history, is it?

No but when you add AL-qada the middle east countries Iran Syria, then you add North Korea, then you add the technology coming out of France and Germany. You add Russia You also add the Chinese threatening to go to war against Taiwan. When you ad all of that, its pretty clear what the situation is.

- OMG so France and Germany are part of the 'threat' now are they?! LMAO!

So, assumoing this is actually happening, who can afford to be buying and deploying vast amounts of this amazing German and French tech?

No one.

Al Quada are not an army by any conventional measure.

The USA has no reason to involve itself alone against either Syria or Iran.....or China for that matter.

Taiwan is Chinese and will ultimately return to China, burning the world to a crisp on the back of their bickering and arguement is absurd.

None of these so-called 'threats' justifies the 'sky falling in' attitude of the war-pervs in the USA.

Not one of these things is actually a serious threat to the USA, it's all just justification for the so-called 'defence' industry to ultimately gouge the US taxpayers further......and create instability in the international economy as the US doesn't actually have the money it's paying to these war/fear mongers.....

.....and no doubt they'll express their 'gratitude' with several seats on the board for the politicians concerned after a 'decent' interval.

Originally posted by WestPoint23


Even if it was in our self interest it still kept you safe from the Soviets for over 40 years courtesy of the American tax payers.

no it didnt you thought it did but it didnt there was no attack no near attack so we werent under threat from the USSR and WE also paid if you remember.
WE were on the front lines. WE were the first line of defesne if a war started YES OR NO? while you sat in safety hundreds of miles away from the action WE stayed under constant threat. so DONT you DARE try and say that we didnt do anything we dont a hell of alot more things than you hel we got the KGB chief in london to be our mole. did you manage that? YES OR NO?we were the only hope for the atlantic you would have taken ages for your fleets to get here WE would have held off the russian bear whiel you took your time !

This 'secret weapon' thinking is such a crock.

No it is not they had the potential to develop them. And containment would have dragged the war on more and starved their people to death wow sounds much better than dropping two nukes to end the war.

Does it? I mean in theory OK but it certainly doesn't demonstrate any of those 'qualities' to any noticable degree.

When you have a few more centuries under your belt we'll talk about 'success' and 'rising' in comparison to China or Europe.

In theory? What do you call our system of laws and our democracy the same as ancient Greece and ancient Europe. Sure we are still young but we have risen a very noticeable amount in our 250 years. No other country has wielded this much power in so little time maybe ancient Rome but they took a long time to gain their �power�.

Really? I think you'll find the US has gotten itself into quite a few fights on the most flimsy of 'reasons'

What does this have to do with sneaky or preemptive strikes without a declaration of war? Going to war on faulty Intel is much different than staging a pearl harbor style attack.

If that is so then why elevate the 'temperature' by sending so many carrier groups out that way?

Elevate the Tension we are simply making sure nothing happens to Taiwan. Like I said china has nothing to worry about unless they attack first, the US will not launch a preemptive strike without a declaration of war or without an attack by china. SO unless china is planning to attack, than maybe this is why they are agitated.

I don't understand this bit. What is your problem with the French? Does everyone have to agree with you lot all the time to be your friends or something? I mean, it's not like France hasn't played such an important role in US history, is it?

Oh the fact that they try to make it as difficult as they can for the US. Stalling and slowing down sending troops to Afghanistan. slowing down the process or training Iraqi troops. And of course taking illegal money form saddam while they vetoed the war in Iraq.

OMG so France and Germany are part of the 'threat' now are they?! LMAO!

Who said they were part of the threat? I just said they are making some good tech and if we want o stay number one we have to make even better tech which costs money.

The USA has no reason to involve itself alone against either Syria or Iran.....or China for that matter.

Only if Syria harbors terrorists and cooperates with them, And no reason to br involved in Iran? Are you insane? Iran is repeatedly refusing and breaking its treaty that it signed and saying they will use their nuclear material for their military. AKA Nukes. this cannot be allowed especially in this day and age and not Iran of all places.

Devil what ultimately caused the USSR not to roll over Europe? You think they were afraid of you few tanks and posts in the borders. Hell no they were afraid of the Retaliation of the US. They would have talked Europe easy if the US did not keep the pressure on them.

WHAT!
so your saying europe would be a push over huh?
considering we have most of the very elite SF and best trained armies in it. and most of the well equipped armies never mind one of the best information gathering services in the world in europe.
dont doubt our "few tanks" we actually had a formidibale force. we had a fine airforce and navy thank you very f***ing much. we had and still have the most elite marine fighting force invented. no offence to other marine forces because marines are great but frankly the royals are the very elite.
and dont doubt france they are still a good force. they had and still have the a very good special forces team ,thier paratroopers. considered very good.
also the german army may have been small but they were well trained. they are still small but still are good. not to mention the itallions they have an OK force.
also lay off france we've slagged them too often we've taken the slagging a bit far. they are ok.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Ahh...the chine subs will be sunk before they know what hit them, the US has surface ships nuclear subs and patrol aircraft. When you have this much cover going after a sub which has to surface it will be caught at one point or another.

So? You forget, If they get within torpedo range of a carrier, game over for the carrier. Losing a few diesel submarines is a fair swap for a Nimitz and it's air group. Perhaps why the UK and the US spent so much time and money blocking the G-I-UK gap during the Cold War, which also goes to explain why the UK has such ASW capability.

We have Nimrods (the only jet-powered ASW plane) Sea Kings, flotillas of ASW frigates, and we sometimes fail to stop the occasional Italian/German SSK on NATO exercises. War is an art, not a science. It's not simply a matter of "oh we have better/more stuf therefore we will definately win".

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Devil what ultimately caused the USSR not to roll over Europe? You think they were afraid of you few tanks and posts in the borders. Hell no they were afraid of the Retaliation of the US. They would have talked Europe easy if the US did not keep the pressure on them.

Are you joking? The one country that Russia truely fears to fight on the battlefield is the Germans.

I can't speak as a watcher of history, but from what I read, the main fear of the Russian army was the Germans doing constant incessant hit-and-run tactics with their entire army. They are literally the masters at tank warfare. Why do you think we were going to delegate most of the British army to the germans had NATO called?

Originally posted by Deadallready
America is never out gunned. That is why the red team uses low grade tatics to win every war game at the war college. You cannot ever defeat us head to head.

War is no longer about standing in a field lining up neatly against each other. I would have thought Vietnam taught you that..

Originally posted by WestPoint23
No other country has wielded this much power in so little time.

The Nazis maybe..

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]

[edit on 17-8-2004 by Cjwinnit]

China just leaked the news that Chinese intermediate missile successfully destroyed moving target with high speed and high accuracy.

If you can read Chinese, follow the link:
www.wforum.com...

China humbly tell US that China has the capability to destroy large target like Carriers if the occasion arises, as a way to deter US intervention in Taiwan strait.

[edit on 17-8-2004 by zcheng]

Originally posted by zcheng
China just leaked the news that Chinese intermediate missile successfully destroyed moving target with high speed and high accuracy.

Well, if it's anything like a Silkworm, all the US need is one allied destroyer less than fourty years old nearby to shoot it down

Originally posted by Cjwinnit

Originally posted by zcheng
China just leaked the news that Chinese intermediate missile successfully destroyed moving target with high speed and high accuracy.

Well, if it's anything like a Silkworm, all the US need is one allied destroyer less than fourty years old nearby to shoot it down

You seems only know Silkworm. It was in the eighties, now is 21 century already. Of course, you can just disregard those inidications from China, just like before the Korean War.

No other country has wielded this much power in so little time

the Nazis........ and look what happened to them Westy, pushed everyone a little too far... and got pasted.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
No it is not they had the potential to develop them.

- A handful of interesting prototypes does not a war win...ask Hitler about that one!

There were no materials or fuel to build or operate significant numbers (see the Me 262 story, nearly 1500 built most never flew) and no resources to train the pilots either.....even if they had been able.

And containment would have dragged the war on more and starved their people to death wow sounds much better than dropping two nukes to end the war.

- well we'll never know but I'm sure those thousands and thousands of innocents toasted (and in the later decades poisoned) by the original a-bombs might agree.

Why do you always assume the opponent is incapable of seeing and realising their position? Japan was already putting out 'peace feelers' before the a-bombs so why assume things would have gone on so long and several hundred thousand would have starved to death due to a containment policy?

In theory? What do you call our system of laws and our democracy the same as ancient Greece and ancient Europe.

- What ever you guys have become - especially lately -you are not like and do not operate like europe. Sorry to puncture your little fantasy.

Sure we are still young but we have risen a very noticeable amount in our 250 years. No other country has wielded this much power in so little time maybe ancient Rome but they took a long time to gain their �power�.

- Go back to school Westy, that's plain wrong.

What does this have to do with sneaky or preemptive strikes without a declaration of war? Going to war on faulty Intel is much different than staging a pearl harbor style attack.

- The decoration around the fact may change but the fact of the matter remains. Unjustified war is unjustified war.

Hmmmm, and what an interesting choice of phrase that is...... considering Bush and friends are on record (long before their selection to office) talking about the desirability of a 'new Pearl Harbour moment' to energise their plans (for world domination).

Elevate the Tension we are simply making sure nothing happens to Taiwan.

- Several; carrier groups converging on an area known for it's already elevated tensions is to make matters worse. Don't be silly.

Like I said china has nothing to worry about unless they attack first, the US will not launch a preemptive strike without a declaration of war or without an attack by china. SO unless china is planning to attack, than maybe this is why they are agitated.

- Maybe you think international relations are best served by a bald 'do as we tell you' but most of the international community don't. It's very dangerous and unnecessary.

Oh the fact that they try to make it as difficult as they can for the US. Stalling and slowing down sending troops to Afghanistan. slowing down the process or training Iraqi troops. And of course taking illegal money form saddam while they vetoed the war in Iraq.

- Like I said, why does France have to agree with you guys in every instance?

Clearly France has her own contrary view on these matters, she does not support these wars.....you should be grateful for the help you are getting from them - particularly in view of the amount of infantile crass bad-mouthing Americans have served out to them.

As for the "illegal money!?" LMAO. Where do you dredge this garbage up from?

Look up the whole of the Iran-Contra-Iraq affair. Even Reagan & Co knew they couldn't be seen to be obviously heavily backing both sides.

Your St Reagan supplied Iraq with enormous amounts of credits with the expressed intent that it be used to buy weaponry, much of it French, during the Iran-Iraq war.

Iraq is not (or at least was not) a poor country, had debts and France expected them paid. Iraq also ran up debts with France after gulf war mk1 - and what? Did you expect Iraq to trade with the USA or something?!

What is in the slightest bit "illegal" about that!? Everyone (particularly the UN) knew about it.

Only if Syria harbors terrorists and cooperates with them

- Yeah, no doubt a similar level of 'proof' of this will apply as did with the supposed Iraq-AQ 'links'. LMAO!

And no reason to br involved in Iran? Are you insane? Iran is repeatedly refusing and breaking its treaty that it signed and saying they will use their nuclear material for their military. AKA Nukes. this cannot be allowed especially in this day and age and not Iran of all places.

- There is absolutely no evidence of this at all. Indeed the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report now says the particles of enriched uranium that caused all the fuss is contamination from Pakistan - and nothing to do with Iran attempting to 'get nukes'.

Iran is not repeatedly refusing or breaking it's agreements.....but the one way to get them to do so is to continually ignore or deny the IAEA findings, keep up the threatening accusations and treat them in such a hostile manner. They'll quickly get the message and work out that maybe they need a few nukes for their security.

Are you lot really that blind?

Devil what ultimately caused the USSR not to roll over Europe?

- How about that they had no intention of doing so in the first place?

You think they were afraid of you few tanks and posts in the borders. Hell no they were afraid of the Retaliation of the US.

- Complete rubbish Westy. You seriously expect us (or the Russians) to believe the USA would have lost New York for Paris or L A for London?!

If they were 'afraid' of anything it was retaliation by British and French nuclear weapons.

They would have talked Europe easy if the US did not keep the pressure on them.

- This is just pure blinkered revisionist garbage Westy, I'm saddened to say.

[edit on 18-8-2004 by sminkeypinkey]

No the US does not launch sneaky attacks unprovoked in a situation like this. You think the US would do a pearl harbor type of attack? It would never happen it. Our carriers are only there to make china think twice before trying to invade Taiwan any action that the Us might take will be triggered by the Chinese that is out policy. - Westpoint

Greetings,
This is where you are sadly wrong, the attack at pearl harbour was conducted by Japanese Naval Forces, while at the same time working on a peaceful solution, without declaring war.

Modern Day: The US Navy forces start the the War on Iraq after giving Saddam a final 48 hours. US Tomahawk missiles strike targets in an attempt to cut the head off the iraqi command structure.

Hey thats interesting, no warning of a strike, attacking a nation where they have not declared war on, during a period where they had given them 48 hours to get out

Westpoint, I suggest reading up your history before commenting, I thought US ARMY Doctine includes Military History for Officer training? Have you reached that point or... well you know what I mean.

- Phil