Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Octavius on December 11, 2001, 11:41:00 PM
-
Bush to Abandon Arms Control Treaty (http://my.aol.com/news/news_story.psp?type=1&cat=0100&id=0112120028530765)
Do you feel this is a wise move? What could go wrong? What could go right?
input welcomed
oct out.
[ 12-11-2001: Message edited by: Octavius ]
-
As American Indians know very well the government of the United States speaks with forked-tongue with regards to treaties.
The whole concept of a missile defense is absurd and it only serves to escalate tension in the world.
The bottom line is that this is really nothing more than corporate welfare - spending billions of hard earned tax payers money for a system that many say won’t work and is not needed anyway.
-
yep blur is right, bush jr is the anti-christ :)
the treaty is dated .. end of story
-
"and is not needed anyway. "
Nobody will be saying that once some shady entity launches a missle at us. Then they'll want to know why we were powerless to stop it. A defense is only unnecessary until somebody attacks.
J_A_B
-
Defense from orbital incomming objects makes damn good sense.
Not developing the technology is about as smart as farming rocks.
I dunno about you; but I'd like to see our civilization survive and move outward into space; and this is but a step along that path.
-
Actually, JAB, don't be confused. The so called missle shield WILL NOT shield major U.S. Cities from attack. At least under a massive strike. It really is corporate welfare and an excuse to pour money into R&D (Which I would be OK with me if half it reached the commercial sector in a timely fashion). As for a rogue nation shooting a nuke at us, they don't have to. All they have to do is get it on airliner or Fed Ex it in. Osama Bin Laden has already proven you don't need missles to strike the U.S.
What I really want to know is what they are really trying to build this for. So far the excuses don't match the system. Perhaps one day we will get the truth, but I'm not holding my breath.
-
I agree with blur. My gov't is so imperialistic it makes me wanna bl-, er, throw up. Bush is pure evil (evil evil evil). We need a socialist president like Ralp Nader or something. Yeah baby, Nader rulez!
-
I think of China in the year 2020 when I think of a missile defense system...a start with basic R@D could be a life saver 20 years from now...think future, people, think future.
-
I know perfectly well that the proposed system would not shield against a massive attack. That's not the point. MAD is still an effective deterrant to a large nation, be it Russia or China. They won't attack us because in doing so they'd be killing themselves.
MAD is utterly no deterrant to a small rogue state or terrorist organization. They don't CARE if they get "martyred" if it means killing a lot of Americans. We need something that can stop a missle or two, which is what the proposed system will do.
Of course, after Las Angeles gets nuked I'm sure you'll agree with me. It isn't possible quite yet, but in 5 or 10 years it could happen.
J_A_B
-
Give all that money to NASA, put a colony on the moon and mars.
And give me a one way ticket there dammit! :D
-
money this money that. it all comes down to money and greed, thats what makes today's world go round. Why cant this be like Star Trek where there IS no currency? We could strive to better ourselves... and have mrfish be captain picard on the starship enterprise :D
-
Send Hangtime to mars on a ballistic missilie!
;)
-
Hrm, you seriously think that because this treaty is no longer valid China and Russia might think that they can nuke us without retaliation?
And people say Bush is dense....
-
It's better to have a gun and not need it than to need a gun and not have it...
-
Send Hangtime to mars on a ballistic missilie!
Heh. I'm still trying to find out where they towed the mother-ship. Fargin NYC parking restrictions...
Foolish humans, when I find my ride; I shall orgasimicize the entire tri-state area. :D
-
Originally posted by blur:
As American Indians know very well the government of the United States speaks with forked-tongue with regards to treaties.
What does ancient history has to do with anything currently discussed? The ABM threaty contains provision for any side to dissolve it upon a few month notice. No broken promises here.
It is no more immoral then prepaying a loan.
miko
-
It's no more then another "we don't give a flying f@#$" propaganda issue.
Interesting. They withdraw from treaty that prohibits deploying of an large-scale ABM system, when US didn't yet develop and test even a working local ABM system. They are 40 years behind former USSR in this field. 20-30 years later, when they will probably catch up - the treaty will really be obsolete.
The program is simply ridiculous. 110 ABMs to protecty the entire US. How many warheads they will intercept? No more then 55. 5 modern ICBMS.
What Blur said. Military-Industrial complex welfare. Good idea to increase fundings to cold-war level.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
They are 40 years behind former USSR in this field. 20-30 years later, when they will probably catch up - the treaty will really be obsolete.
:rolleyes: Oh boy, here we go again. I almost forgot how far behind the USSR we were technologically. Must be why all our sophisticated weapons systems were a generation ahead of anything the Soviets had.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
It's no more then another "we don't give a flying f@#$" propaganda issue.
Interesting. They withdraw from treaty that prohibits deploying of an large-scale ABM system, when US didn't yet develop and test even a working local ABM system. They are 40 years behind former USSR in this field. 20-30 years later, when they will probably catch up - the treaty will really be obsolete.
The program is simply ridiculous. 110 ABMs to protecty the entire US. How many warheads they will intercept? No more then 55. 5 modern ICBMS.
What Blur said. Military-Industrial complex welfare. Good idea to increase fundings to cold-war level.
HEHEHE you crack me up Boroda. I guess the reason we gave your country er... mafia all the wellfair we did in the 90's was because of that big powerful technicly superior military of yours.
Same technology that got you to the moon and won the space race for ya? :D
-
I think what Boroda is saying is the USSR was developing and testing an ABM system since the 1960's. I see it as being possible, but I don't think it'd take the USA 20 years to make up the gap.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by J_A_B:
I think what Boroda is saying is the USSR was developing and testing an ABM system since the 1960's. I see it as being possible, but I don't think it'd take the USA 20 years to make up the gap.
J_A_B
Hmmm I wonder if they tested it after '72 if they had one? I take what ever Boroda says worth a grain of salt. I have come to realize that he is the drunk pissed off commie that others call him in this forum. Russia more technologicaly advanced than the US? LOL
At least it answers my question on whether or not the Russians really believed the propaganda the USSR fed them.
-
"At least it answers my question on whether or not the Russians really believed the propaganda the USSR fed them."
Bah. He's as much a product of his upbringing as we are of ours. The truth is somewhere in between what our respective governments said (or do you think the USA always had an unbiased opinion regarding the USSR?). Both the USSR and the USA spent decades pointing out each other's shortcommings. He might have much good to say about the USA, but think about it--how much good do you know about the USSR/Russia?
J_A_B
-
In some areas Russia is more advanced. I mean, they do have a rocket torpedo. Anyone else got one of those? And their ABM system is more advanced than that of the US. And it is deployed. Do I think that it will take 20-30 yrs for the US to catch up? Nope.
Most people seem to be ignoring a point that's being made here, in favour of sarcasm. An ABM system will be extremely costly to create and deploy. And it probably won't protect the US a whit from nuclear weapons. Why would a rogue state go through the expense, time and energy of making a missle when it can just walk in a nuke. For that matter why would a super power? Corporate wellfare? Sounds like it to me.
As far as using the ABM to blow away space debris. I think NASA would come up with a better system for that then the military industrial complex. Yet NASA's budget is getting raped and the military industrial complex is getting subsidised.
This is a pretty diffinitive example of where the current US government is coming from right now. Corporate pork verus putting money into space exploration and research. They also cut funds for the international space station recently.
[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Thrawn ]
-
Boroda you need to read up a bit. US had a functional, tested, deployed ABM system 25 years ago. Spartan and Sprint were excellent missiles. But the system's scope was limited by treaty and it was shut down for political reasons.
[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
we need to get rid of all nuclear weapons and develop defensive devices.
if every nation is banned from making nukes (any nukes any amount!) they'll have to make them clandestinely -
they might produce enough to destroy a city but not enough to end civilization.
and if they do get 1 or 2 nukes off there is no advantage because breaking a staggeringly progressive world treaty like that will mean the world will support us disassembling their culture in retaliation and using conventional weapons to make them a memory. there's no place for that stupidity anymore - time to grow up as a species and stop playing with atoms in an irresponsible way...
retired general westmoreland (yes the same vietnam era hawk) has written some stunning work on this if you're interested.
we need to get rid of all nukes period and now not later. they are old and messy and extremely dangerous. times change, get over it.
this weapon of the 50's has no place in an evolving world.
[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: mrfish ]
-
Originally posted by funkedup:
Boroda you need to read up a bit. US had a functional, tested, deployed ABM system 30 years ago, but it was shut down for political reasons.
I'm ignorant on the scope of the ABM treaty. We had a treaty but both countries had ABM systems? What's all the fuss about then? seriously no sarcasm here, somebody edjumacate me here please...
-
but Mrfish....what will we use when the aliens come? ;)
-
simple raub....john edwards of 'crossing over' will be sent to irritate them to death....i've thought of everything...
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
They are 40 years behind former USSR in this field.
You really think that Patriot missles (the most advanced missle-interceptor US has deployed today) use vacuum tubes for hardware and magnetic cores for memory?
My experience was that any solid-state devices (chips, sensors, etc.) USSR had before 1990 were carbon-copy rip-offs from US samples (except inferior quality).
In the 80s T-72 was way superior to western tanks mechanically but its electronics sucked:
- atrocious radio
- inaccurate positioning device (command tanks) that was supposed to track your coordinates on the map
- fire-control sucked, adjusting the gun stabiliser was analogous to adjusting analog joystick drift on 386 computer - lot of wisardry was required and then it would stard drift anyway. Tanks in defencive positions had to keep the stabilisers off - otherwise you would shortly find your turret pointing backward.
- night-vision sight was worse then worsless - it's operation required turning on a huge infrared projector - probably visible from the moon to the western night sighths (that did not require illumination).
How many decades were USSR behind US in fighter plane fly-by-wire technology?
I mean, everybody knows that russians discovered steam engine, railroads, radio and many other neat things, but with missle interceptors you are probably off the mark.
miko
-
Good overview of US Army programs for defense against nuclear attack, with focus on ABM: http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/vigilant/intro.html (http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/vigilant/intro.html)
[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Well, I already told you that the first ICBM interception was performed in 1963. Guess where?
In 1972 USSR had a complete functional ABM system ready for deployment. Now we have a second-generation ABM system around Moscow, built in mid-80s. All according to the treaty.
USSR was far behind the West in "consumer goods" technologies. But, until the "destroyka" in late-80s Soviet weapon systems were at the same level or more advanced then American competitors.
As for the "space race" - tell it to your grandma and don't waste time nessesary to read it on this board.
All my pro-Soviet rhethorics are a result of a frustration and disappointment about the "free world" in the last 10 years. And the picture of Russians that I get from Hangtime and others (don't mean to offend Hangtime, a person that I really respect). Unfortunately, the propaganda slogans picked up from dr. Goebbels helped US to win the cold war. I don't care about what you are told there, but I hate this crap spread here in Russia.
This days I can be extremely cynic. I am reading "Goebbels: the Devil's Advocate" by Curt Riess. A great book. In the current context I can call it a "Requiem for the pro-Western idealism".
I want to ask you to refrain from further discussing propaganda in this thread. If you wish to flame about it (and I don't see any other way of discussing that topic) - please start another thread.
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
But, until the "destroyka" in late-80s Soviet weapon systems were at the same level or more advanced then American competitors.
FALSE
Unfortunately, the propaganda slogans picked up from dr. Goebbels helped US to win the cold war.
WTF are you talking about?
I want to ask you to refrain from further discussing propaganda in this thread.
Huh? You just posted an entire thread of propaganda. I've been in the military since the 80's. Guess what? Our weapons blow the Soviet crap away. I saw how great Soviet military technology was first hand. It was worthless to the Iraqis. Most of their tanks were destroyed before they even realised they were under attack. Now, I know they might not have been the latest and greatest Soviet tech, but even our M60A-3s that deployed to Desert Storm kicked their ass.
I feel sorry for you dude.
-
I don't understand. You don't want any propaganda but you deny existence of functional, tested, US ABM systems in mid-1970's and you ignore the first ICBM intercept made by Nike Zeus at Kwajalein in July 1962. Boroda either you are joking with us or you are so brainwashed by propaganda that I can not communicate with you.
[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Sorry, have to say that 20-30 years is certainly an exaggeration. With modern design technologies and other goodies US will probably build an analog to a Soviet local ABM system in maybe 5-10 years, depends on fundings. It's my own humble opinion. No offences for American engineers.
If US wanted a result, not a process - they should turn to Russian design bureaus.
-
Now you are talking sense man. I would say more like 5 years. Depends on who's in office though. Look at how the ATF program got screwed.
-
"Why would a rogue state go through the expense, time and energy of making a missle when it can just walk in a nuke"
Uh, how are they going to "walk in" a 4 or 5 ton piece of complex radioactive machinery? I know our customs is bad, but it isn't THAT bad!
If you think they'll ever have a "suitcase" nuke or similar high-tech nuclear weapon, you're sadly mistaken. Nuclear weapons are nowhere near as simple as high-school textbooks suggest, and downsizing them is even more shockingly complicated. An ICBM would be the easiest, most efficient way for a rogue state to deliver any warhead it managed to build. Accuracy wouldn't matter; landing one in the general area of New York or Los Angeles would do a tremendous amount of damage.
J_A_B
-
Raubvogel, you have been in the military. You had to believe you are superior. If you didn't - you were a bad soldier.
Does US have any planes comparable to Tu-160 now? Or to Su-27? Answer - no.
I don't mention many other fields like artillery systems, large-caliber mortars etc. Not speaking about SAMs - your Patriot is obsolete, and was obsolete when it was designed.
Funked, what you said really makes me wonder that I missed something, but I can't reach any link from .mil domain. You know, we are still considered "Asian bolshevik barbarians". Anyway - Nike Zeus ABM interception sounds almost as funny as a Redstone space launch vehicle.
Can you send that materials to me by mail, or maybe we can ask Toad to find some other links? ;) Seriously.
-
J_A_B - I have told this many times, but people here believe their school physics textbooks rather then some barbarian supposed-to-be weapon engineer like me.
-
I forgot about the .mil thing. :(
Here is something about the Zeus: http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-49.html (http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-49.html)
As for the 1970's system do a search for the following words: Spartan, Sprint, Sentinel, Safeguard.
And if you say USA doesn't have planes as good or better than Su-27 or Tu-160 you are kidding again. :)
PS You know me, I have lived with, worked with, been friends with several Russians who moved to the US. I'm sure the ones who didn't come over here are slightly less bright than my friends, but I doubt they are barbarians. :)
[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: funkedup ]
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Raubvogel, you have been in the military. You had to believe you are superior. If you didn't - you were a bad soldier.
Not true. We were well informed about the threats that the Soviet weapons systems imposed and what advantages and disadvantages our weapons had versus them.
Does US have any planes comparable to Tu-160 now? Or to Su-27? Answer - no.
B-2...B-1...F-117...F-22...even F-15 and F-16. The Su27 is a fine plane, but its avionics are not up to par with our electronic suites. In these days a flying turd with great avionics is better than a awesome aircraft with Radio Shack electronics.
I don't mention many other fields like artillery systems, large-caliber mortars etc. Not speaking about SAMs - your Patriot is obsolete, and was obsolete when it was designed.
I guess you are forgetting or have never heard of the MLRS system, or the Paladin SP howitzer, or the THAAD missile system.
I am still in the military btw, and I can tell you that it wasn't until after the Cold War that we realized just how big of an advantage our equipment had versus Soviet equipment. During the Cold War we truly feared many of your weapons, but in hindsight we held a considerable edge. This isn't from 'propaganda', this is from studying Soviet equipment after it was available.
-
Hey I found a good one that I think you can reach: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/complete.htm (http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/complete.htm)
-
I hereby rename Boroda CHEKOV
..the chubby cute, lovable & harmless russian ensign on the bridge of Enterprise who was constantly correcting the Federation Propaganda on who invented what, and when.
I laffed my bellybutton off when Kahn put a bug in his ear. :D
Boroda, I hope you get a chance to 'come west' some day; and see with eyes un-shuttered.
<S!>
-
Damn disconnection had eaten my last post!!!
Hang, I have been to the US in 1989. Great impressions. Beautiful country. Beautiful people.
Now my point is completely different. I don't like that your impression about Russians and "communists" is the only one accepted by the public.
I never saw early Startrek series, and the only time where I met "Chekov" was an ancient Startrek computer game for IBM-360 (I played it on EC-1033). You know, a game for a primitive CRT terminal, with command-line interface. I have never experienced so much fun from any other computer game ;)
Hehe, Chekov was a family-name of my first teacher in 1979, Leningrad, school #248. Yekaterina Sregeyevna Chekova ;)
-
Now my point is completely different. I don't like that your impression about Russians and "communists" is the only one accepted by the public.
That, like most of your posts, is entirely incorrect.
But, not to distract you too much from the subject; it seems that to your reckoning; the USSR's accomplishemnts of old, and the Confederations accomplishments as of late were and are shining examples of stalwart progress towards peace, prosperity and unity in the world; while the USA's motives and policys are underhanded, sneaky and rife with perfidity.
*gasp*
My god, he's right! We're truly evil capitlist running dogs; distributing imperialistic corrupt goverments in our diplomatic wakes; ever intent on more customers for our evil corporations!
*yawn*
We now return you to our evil plan of dominating the world whilst we madly scramble about horrifying the peace-loving citizens of the world tearing up treaties with defunct governments in the attempt to obtain parity with the Evil Empire to the East in missile technology!
"Have a Nice Day... in Hell!!" (chalked on the side of a Daisy Cutter, replete with yellow smily face)
So sorry..
-
RADARGATE: SOVIET ADMISSION OF AN "OPEN" TREATY VIOLATION (http://http:/http://www.security-policy.org/papers/1989/89-65.html)
"23 October 1989
RADARGATE: SOVIET ADMISSION OF AN "OPEN" TREATY VIOLATION MAKES FOOLS OF AMERICAN APOLOGISTS
(Washington, D.C.): Today, the Soviet Union formally acknowledged what it has systematically denied since July 1983 when the United States first detected the construction of a large, phased array radar (LPAR) near the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk. After rejecting for six years formal U.S. accusations of wrong-doing, Soviet Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze admitted what all but the USSR's most determined apologists have long since recognized: "The construction of this [radar] station...constituted an open violation of [the] ABM [Treaty]."
More interesting still is the fact that, as reported by Reuters, Shevardnadze disclosed "the [Soviet] leadership had known this for some time." He tried to downplay the significance of that statement by suggesting that it took four years "to sort out matters with this [radar] station." The reality, however, is that this radar was a violation of the ABM Treaty from its inception. Moreover, there can be little doubt that the Soviet leadership has always known that to be the case.
The basis for these conclusions is elementary: The Krasnoyarsk radar is of essentially the same design as eight other LPARs the Soviets themselves have described as early warning radars. The ABM Treaty prohibits the Soviets from constructing a radar with such characteristics at a site and with an orientation like those of the LPAR at Krasnoyarsk......."
******
Oh, most certainly we must ALL honor the sanctity of the ABM treaty.
:D
-
I got to go with rip on this one.
It might surprise you to learn that in the 60's most soldiers I talked too were anti-nuke. We wanted a crack at the Russians in a conventional war. The nuke's were ruining the game.
We didn't consider the Chinese, in a nuclear sense, at the time. (no delivery system). That could change dramatically. Frankly we would probably be launching first, if it came down to it with the Chinese. There are just to damn many of them.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B:
I know perfectly well that the proposed system would not shield against a massive attack. That's not the point. MAD is still an effective deterrant to a large nation, be it Russia or China. They won't attack us because in doing so they'd be killing themselves.
MAD is utterly no deterrant to a small rogue state or terrorist organization. They don't CARE if they get "martyred" if it means killing a lot of Americans. We need something that can stop a missle or two, which is what the proposed system will do.
Of course, after Las Angeles gets nuked I'm sure you'll agree with me. It isn't possible quite yet, but in 5 or 10 years it could happen.
J_A_B
....don't be so sure bout that.
Tumor
-
Originally posted by Boroda:
Well, I already told you that the first ICBM interception was performed in 1963. Guess where?
In 1972 USSR had a complete functional ABM system ready for deployment. Now we have a second-generation ABM system around Moscow, built in mid-80s. All according to the treaty.
USSR was far behind the West in "consumer goods" technologies. But, until the "destroyka" in late-80s Soviet weapon systems were at the same level or more advanced then American competitors.
As for the "space race" - tell it to your grandma and don't waste time nessesary to read it on this board.
All my pro-Soviet rhethorics are a result of a frustration and disappointment about the "free world" in the last 10 years. And the picture of Russians that I get from Hangtime and others (don't mean to offend Hangtime, a person that I really respect). Unfortunately, the propaganda slogans picked up from dr. Goebbels helped US to win the cold war. I don't care about what you are told there, but I hate this crap spread here in Russia.
This days I can be extremely cynic. I am reading "Goebbels: the Devil's Advocate" by Curt Riess. A great book. In the current context I can call it a "Requiem for the pro-Western idealism".
I want to ask you to refrain from further discussing propaganda in this thread. If you wish to flame about it (and I don't see any other way of discussing that topic) - please start another thread.
blah blah bla..<hic>h b<hic>lah blah.
Tumor
-
FYI if you want to learn a little bit more about who did what try this site out pretty good stuff almost everything you always wanted to know about bombs that make people glow in the dark but were afraid to ask.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/index.html (http://www.fas.org/nuke/hew/index.html)
[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: Professor Fate ]
-
Hey,
When I posted my question, I wasn't saying it wasn't a good idea or wouldn't work EVENTUALLY. I just hate the fact that the government sells it with a line of BS.
I haven't any doubt the ABL will kick butt, and I would much rather see defensive weapons then nukes. I just wanted to be clear on that.
As for you guys dissing the Soviet weapons, they do have the most advanced ejection seats :D ! Actually, they did a kick butt job designing those. Plus they have the most advanced A2A missles in the world. We are still trying to catch up to them. As for Fly-By-Wire technology, we may have had it first, but any Viper pilot that enters into an angles fight with a Fulcrum or Flanker deserves to have his tail waxed, and neither of those are FBW. Besides, it isn't the fact that are FBW that is the advance. It's that FBW allowed the aircraft to employ Relaxed Static Stability (I.E.- It's get to be unstable at subsonic speeds (The F-16 that is)).
Of course, the U.S. designed the coolest fighter of the modern age, but decided to fly something boring instead (Coolest being the YF-23A, boring being the F-22). Don't get me wrong, the F-22 will kick butt. However, considering the YF-23A's performance is still classified and the fact that the YF-22 was chosen over the YF-23 because the YF-22 would be easier to navalize 'wreaks' of politics. Of course everyone knew the NATF was a joke and was in fact, cancelled one month after the ATF down select.
Needless to say, I think we need, should have, and are entitled to the best equipment money can buy. Unfortunately, Politics usually say otherwise, which is why I will always remain a skeptic of the 'motivations' offered behind the decisions.
It's too bad the Soviets can't afford to build the S-37 Berkut (Not the Su-37). It is definitely the 'new' coolest plane flying, IMHO. Of course, if I had to fight, I would rather be in a F-22 , but if I could get an S-37 in a macross paint scheme and...er, sorry. What was the point?
Damn, rambling again.
Hangtime, one to beam up. :eek:
[ 12-13-2001: Message edited by: Sundog ]
-
If the Russians are so far ahead of us in ABMs why do they care if we pull out of the treaty? hmmm
Seriously though, I agree with Boroda that the Soviets were at least equal to the US up through a certain period. I would say that period ended in about 1982 however. At that point, they were nearly equal in terms of quality and way ahead in terms of quantity. During the Reagan era however the US made great strides ahead, deploying the F-18, M-1 Abrams, BFV, Patriot, B-1, and many other advanced wpns systems. Today, the US is obviously light years ahead of the Russians in military technology due to the underfunded state of Russian military tech development. The US has made enormous advances in existing weapons systems just in the last few years. A classic example is the F-16. When it was first developed it was slightly less than equal to the Mig-29 and far behind the Su-27. The original F-16 had no BVR missiles except for one variant and it was slightly less manouverable than the Russian fighters. Even the Mig-23 had longer ranged missiles and radar. Today, however the Viper is almost a different airplane. The avionics suite that it carries now is almost as good as the one that the F-15 carried back then and the F-15 now is even further ahead. I will say that the Russians do have SAMs now that are equal and in the opinion of many superior to the Patriot. There was an excellent article on the state of Russian SAMs in Air Force magazine recently. This concerns me somewhat because although we drawing closer to Russian daily, who knows who they may sell these SAMs to. I think the ABM treaty was outdated and it was time for it to go. The Russians realize this too I think, and are just milking this for political advantage just as we would if the shoe were on the other foot. I predict in coming years that Russia will become a close ally of the US. I saw one recent analysis that suggested that the US is subtly replacing Saudi Arabia with Russia as a petroleum supplier. I suspect that to some extent this is probably true. Russia wouldnt be the first ex-enemy that became close friends with us. Germany and Japan, our foes from WW2 are among our closest allies today. The anti-missile defense system is just a first step. It currently doesnt protect agaisnt massive ICBM strikes or anything like that but eventually using this technology as a stepping stone, we will be able to have a protective blanket that will prevent any type of ICBM strike. This is necessary because at some point, maybe 20 years from now, maybe 100 years from now there will be an awful lot of countries with nuclear missile capabilities and not all of those will be friendly. Everything is unlikely until it happens. Imagine the uproar if security measures like we have now had been implemented before 11 Sept. People would have been absolutely livid. People are even complaining about the inconvenience now much less if the terrorrist attack had never happened. People would have said that such an attack was unlikely and would never happen. The sad thing is that if we had current measures in place then, perhaps we could have prevented those attacks and 4000+ people would still be alive. Hopefully we will not let the same thing happen with ballistic missile defense. Hopefully we will get a good system out of this program which will prevent any future enemy of the US from causing millions of casualties with an unforeseen missile attack. The problem with people is that they are shortsighted. Very few people look 10, 20 even 30 years down the road and try to see what might be coming. Obviously nobody can predict the future but if we dont even try to head off potential threats we are just asking for it.
-
Energize, Scotty.
-
you've made a stunning case for the use of paragraphs durr.
-
rofl Sorry about that. I didnt even realize that it was going to be a long post, I just banged it out and hit "post" without proofreading or anything. I guess it was kinda hard to read at that. lol :rolleyes: