Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StSanta on February 22, 2001, 01:03:00 PM
-
used in that last strike.
GPS guided. Dinnae think you guys had those ready.
Seems now, all statiponary targets can be attacked and hit regardless of weather conditions.
Quite an achievement, way to go yankees. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"All your base/are belong to us"
http://www.thefever.com/AYB2.swf
Keep up the momentum!
-
Talking of the misses in last strike? GPS numbers were entered incorrectly, human error is 99.9% of all computer malfunctions...go figure..
-
From the numbers on this page http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-154.htm (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/agm-154.htm) it appears that this system costs over a billion dollars.
Now, if that billion was spent on developing alternate energy sources or perhaps installing solar panels on every house in the country maybe we could lessen our dependency on this part of the world.
Wait a minute I'm starting to make too much sense! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
On second thought it's good for the defense industry. Not only do they get to blow things up; the Pentagon can also go back to Congress to ask for more funds to fight terrorism after they piss everybody off.
Kind of like a mouse catcher growing his own mice. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
go away hippie
-
Originally posted by blur:
Now, if that billion was spent on developing alternate energy sources or perhaps installing solar panels on every house in the country maybe we could lessen our dependency on this part of the world.
Wait a minute I'm starting to make too much sense!
While you are at it, could you concentrate and wish real hard that the gravity constant changed so we all weighted half as much, or even one percent? Not only would it save fuel in all areas involving lifting and transportation, it would make us all feel wonderfully light and frisky! We would be able to jump down from the window instead of waiting for that pesky elevator! Women's breasts would look gorgeous without need (and expence) of a complicated bras.
What is that you saying? Gravity forces are governed by laws of nature and cannot be altered by wishfull thinking? What about the laws that govern the movement of money? Or structure of the society? Oh, you are saying that physics is a real science and sociology and economics are not - and their laws could be ignored at will because they are not real laws of nature at all? Good for you.
What is that saying... If my garandmother had balls, she would be my grandfather...
miko
-
Production unit cost:
AGM-154A Baseline / Mobile soft, fixed soft / $246,585
AGM-154B Anti-Armor / Mobile hard, mobile soft / $429,929
AGM-154C Unitary / Mobile hard, mobile soft Fixed hard, maritime surface / $661,013
Weapons aren't cheap anymore are they?
Now if you shoot one of these AGM-154B Anti-Armor $429,929 bullets and hit an enemy tank of the cost and capability of an M1A2 Abrams then you have killed a $4,300,000 tank.
While not cheap, it's not as bad as using an $8 million dollar weapon to destroy a $4 million dollar tank. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
While I'm sure we'd ALL rather spend the bucks to "beat our swords into ploughshares" until such a time as the ENTIRE world does that you have a decision to make.
Do you prefer your sons and daughters to have the most "cost-effective" weapons or simply the best we know how to build, regardless of cost?
I think the Gulf War death toll for the Allies would have been quite a bit higher had we not spent billions on developing the F-117, the Cruise Missile, the Abrams, the MLRS and a host of other weapons. There were a lot of complaints when we funded those projects too.
If you're going to stand ready to fight a modern war, it costs. Big Money.
Or the US can become totally isolationist. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Which would suit me JUST fine. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif) (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
[This message has been edited by Toad (edited 02-22-2001).]
-
Ya if yer gonna squeak about the price of weapons, and those weapons make it easier for you to hit the enemy without getting yourself killed in the process, then you must also have a set price for a human life..and as far as I am concerned life is priceless, so if it gets the job done and saves the lives of your solders im all for it.
-
Rip, no, I was being sincere. Didn't think that weapon was operational yet.
------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"All your base/are belong to us"
http://www.thefever.com/AYB2.swf
Keep up the momentum!
-
Aromory engineers out on the testing ground again ?
-
And I suppose the rest of the world merely develops weapons as an art form?
"Computer, research hypocrisy"
'Suggest search, [semantic]/ newsgroups'
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
I think hippie, I mean blur, does have a point.
I'll have to admit, I have a weak spot for watching things blow up like all of us, but, it is about time we seriously consider getting alternative energy sources.
A fellow who runs a water & light department is in my train club, and it was the thought about 10-15 years ago that you could never make an electric car go fast enough, or have enough electrical storage to be feasible.
Now, we meld that with a combustion engine, and use that power to re-charge while we're using the combustion side.
So, I just hope our society (worldwide) doesn't turn into a group of folks who point fingers and call people names who want to think "outside of the box."
Some folks who changed our lives like Tesla, Edison, and Bell were looked upon as kooks. Hell, Edison spent half his time trying to communicate with the dead for heaven's sake.
I work with a builder who was telling me that a friend of his has a ground-source heat pump.
When everybody else is paying $200-400 for heating bills this year, he's paying about 45 bucks. And most of the energy/heat that powers his house is coming from the Earth. Hmmmmm.
We just need to keep our minds and hearts open guys. We need to keep thinking about getting better and smarter, not necessarily just gathering more and more of something.
That way, we'll still have plenty of money to buy things that go "BOOM!"
Mk
-
Some money HAS to be for defense, or you would not have a country where one could have the freedom to come up with alternate power sources. ...the ends to the means? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
I've come across some interesting information concerning defense contractors; did you realize that CBS and NBC are owned by them?
No wonder you never see opposing opinions to our military operations! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/eek.gif)
I'm almost afraid to investigate NBC and CNN……almost... (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
If we covered the US in enough photovoltaic cells to meet our needs, the three huggers would be crying about the environmental effects of mining that much silicon and the adverse effects on the environment from the enormous installations.
-
So, Blur, you finally joining the Isolationist bandwagon? Bring all the troops home now?
Or you just here tossing verbal grenades and running away again?
In other words, do you have anything in the way of solutions to contribute or just more inflammatory statements like always?
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
Funked think I read somewhere that if we had an area the size of Nevada covered we'd be producing more than we use. You heard anything on this?
-
Originally posted by Toad:
In other words, do you have anything in the way of solutions to contribute or just more inflammatory statements like always?
What's inflammatory about posting a TRUTHFUL statement that two of our major media sources are owned by defense contractors?
Is this hitting too close to home?
Am I about to shatter that Disney World USA Theme Park illusion you have about this country?
Hold on…
That amazinhunk Bill Clinton!!!
Feel better? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
No, Blur.
That's not it at all. You simply never post anything except complaints. You have no proposed solutions; you have no substantive suggestions.
The world fails to live up to your ideals. Shame on those bastiges!
Weapons are too expensive. Yet in another post you think we should maintain the capability to intervene in Bosnia. I'd guess that means you want to maintain our war-fighting capability in the premier rank.
Think the J-SOWS are too expensive? Think killing a $4 million dollar tank with a $500K glide bomb is a bad deal? Think killing a $50 million dollar ship with a $700K glide bomb is a bad deal?
Well what's your plan then? Got any sons/daughters of military service age Blur? I do. I think any weapon that kills "stand-off" without risking our troops is a good thing.
Obviously, you can't go around killing a $20,000 jeep with $400,000 missiles. But I support any technology within reason that saves our troops.
It will happen again too; since some people insist on sending them into harm's way.
We've fought two world wars starting out a lap behind because people like you don't want to FUND the military ahead of time. You just want them to DIE when necessary until you can gin up production.
Come on Blur..how would Desert Storm have gone without the F-117, the Cruise Missiles, the Abrams, the new ECM gear, the J-STARS, etc., etc.?
Don't divert the topic and tell me we should have never been involved in Desert Storm, either. The fact is we were. You want the troops to do that stuff modern weaponry or not?
Now Oh! No! Some of the networks are owned by defense contractors! THEY'RE the ones making us fight! They probably use subliminal advertising too!
Drink Duff Beer! {wage war on Iraq!}
I bet the Hollywood moguls actually work for the defense contractors too! That's why we had all Rambo movies!
If anyones in Disneyland, it's you. I'm guessing deep, deep, deep in Spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace Mountain.
-
Originally posted by Toad:
Funked think I read somewhere that if we had an area the size of Nevada covered we'd be producing more than we use. You heard anything on this?
I volunteer New Jersey.
-
To enjoy the thread, pop some popcorn in your microwave (spinoff from military technology) sit in front of your computer(spinoff from military technology)
and peruse the World Wide Web (spinoff from military technology)
Ah yes, let us cut funding for Defense research, the yawning gulf of a new dark age beckons. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
ah, He just likes to complain that the world isn't perfect. Duh!
His original gripe was "We wasted a billion dollars on J-SOW!"
Wonder what he'd say if it was his son holding an M-16 and facing down a T-80 on a rainy day in some misbegotten place where they slaughter each other by the thousands because the other side worships the "wrong" god and the aging F-4 overhead missed with its last dumb iron bomb?
After all, why build new aircraft and weapons systems? We're only going to police the world!
Now he's worried that Defense Contractors are buying the media to make us all more warlike. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/rolleyes.gif)
Yeah, the US media is sooooooooooo conservative and warmongering. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
As if.
-
Toad, we have a have a failure of communications here. You haven't understood a thing I've posted.
I've always held the sneaking suspicion that when we're engaged in discussions with others, that in truth, we're only talking to ourselves.
Think the J-SOWS are too expensive? Think killing a $4 million dollar tank with a $500K glide bomb is a bad deal? Think killing a $50 million dollar ship with a $700K glide bomb is a bad deal?
Well what's your plan then? Got any sons/daughters of military service age Blur? I do. I think any weapon that kills "stand-off" without risking our troops is a good thing.
Obviously, you can't go around killing a $20,000 jeep with $400,000 missiles. But I support any technology within reason that saves our troops.
Come on Blur..how would Desert Storm have gone without the F-17, the Cruise Missiles, the Abrams, the new ECM gear, the J-STARS, etc., etc.?
Don't divert the topic and tell me we should have never been involved in Desert Storm, either. The fact is we were. You want the troops to do that stuff modern weaponry or not?
I'll explain again. If we were to put the massive resources that we now spend on weaponry into alternate energy sources then we wouldn't be arguing over a $600,000 missile destroying a $4,000,000 tank because we wouldn't be concerned about controlling the resources of the Middle East to begin with.
We wouldn't even be there!
See my point? I'm cutting the rug out from under your military argument by saying the military wouldn't be needed at all. We just have to grow a brain.
Now Oh! No! Some of the networks are owned by defense contractors! THEY'RE the ones making us fight! They probably use subliminal advertising too!
It's well known in anthropology that an individual's worldview is shaped by his culture, by parents, teachers, institutions, etc.
In the US the "Advertisement Delivery Device" or TV is a major factor in forming the viewpoints of its citizens. To try to explain to the average American that he's brainwashed is like trying to explain water to a fish! It's transparent unless you can transcend it, which isn't easy.
As far as corporate (defense industry or otherwise) control of media is concerned let's go back to our ABCs. What's the purpose of a corporation? Profit isn't it? So, any news media that's corporate controlled will put profit above truth. Am I not correct?
Institutions once formed fight like hell to survive even though their time is past. That's why defense industries will always push to fabricate more enemies. Why, if the cold war is over, do we still maintain huge military budgets?
As an example, Sikorsky Aircraft of Stratford CT lobbied in Congress for the recent 1.3 billion dollar aid to Columbia.
Now, do we really believe that their primary purpose is to protect our little ones from taking those nasty horrible drugs? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
I'm cutting the rug out from under your military argument by saying the military wouldn't be needed at all. We just have to grow a brain.
Thas just a JOKE,
you think that if we are all nice to everybody and dont need thier natural resources we will never have to fight anyone?
A miltiary will always be needed to protect a countiry's interests..and you say that we need to get where we have no interests outside the US..yea that may in theory work well in LA-LA LAND but in the real world it just isnt possable. It isnt possable in the animal kindgdom and most definatly not in the human speces. Been that way since man walked the earth. And to think that if the US was "nice" to everyone that we wouldent ever have any problems with anyone is to say the least a PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT assumption.
"grow a brain"
Indeed........
[This message has been edited by TheWobble (edited 02-24-2001).]
-
In Bosnia, folk are killing each other based on a religious theory, In Africa, folk are killing each other because they're from different tribes.
Let me know when the brain growing starts.
------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"
-
Blur,
Just so we don't continue this "failure to communicate" let me see if I understand your hypothesis.
You're saying if we were energy independent, through solar or other alternative sources we wouldn't need a military establishment at all?
You are "saying the military wouldn't be needed at all" because our need for a military establishment stems solely from our need to "controlling the resources of the Middle East"?
You actually believe this? This is what you are offering as a hypothesis?
-
A miltiary will always be needed to protect a countiry's interests..and you say that we need to get where we have no interests outside the US..yea that may in theory work well in LA- LA LAND but in the real world it just isnt possable. It isn't possable in the animal kindgdom and most definatly not in the human speces.
Aha! Now I know why geese always fly in formation! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
You're saying if we were energy independent, through solar or other alternative sources we wouldn't need a military establishment at all?
You are "saying the military wouldn't be needed at all" because our need for a military establishment stems solely from our need to "controlling the resources of the Middle East"?
You actually believe this? This is what you are offering as a hypothesis?
Okay, obviously we live in a dysfunctional world. And while this remains a reality then some sort of military is necessary. I'm thinking more of a defensive force where we don't have to bankrupt the country to maintain it. I'm suggesting we start diverting our resources into more reasonable solutions.
Honestly do you really think that Iraq is about to invade the east coast of the US or that Columbia is about to invade Texas?
Then why are WE there?
-
Blur,
As usual, you have just abandoned the entire basis for your argument and started off on a new heading as if the old argument is now totally immaterial. Why am I not suprised?
This has been a "dysfunctional world" since the first Cane whacked the first Abel over the head with a rock. Excuse me if I see all that as extremely unlikely to change within the next 100 years... as a minimum... despite all your good intentions, power pyramids, quartz crystals and the Coca-Cola "I'd like to teach the world to sing" commercial.
So "some sort of military" is necessary. Wow, Blur. What an incredible piece of insight. It may surprise you that a few people have reached this conclusion ahead of you, however, and thought it through far more carefully.
Sneer all you like (and I'm sure you will) but this is the exact reason Bush recently ordered a review of current military strategy and organization.
Here's our problem: we're still organized and equipped to fight the "hot" side of the Cold War.The strategic necessities of that era have totally changed; that threat essentially no longer exists. Instead we have a world that routinely presents us with more confusing military missions, ones that we are not really equipped to handle. (Combat troops do not make good policemen.)
Obviously, our military equipment needs to change. Now you want to "start diverting our resources into more reasonable solutions."
Don't we all. Who here isn't tired of huge US military budgets? Yet until now did we really have that option?
You know, after WWI, "the war to end all wars" the civilised nations vowed "never again!"
I guess you know how that pledge turned out.
Then after WWII, the civilised nations of the world vowed "never again" and formed the UN. Of course at the time, there was only ONE nation capable of defending anyone against anything. Take a wild guess.
Be as cynical as you like but it was the Mothers and Fathers of the US that agreed to do the job. Had they not agreed, the politicians would have been unable to do it alone.
Most of these "Moms and Dads" had just lived through the worst war in the history of the world. They saw their friends, sons and lovers come home in boxes in the thousands. They accepted the fact that it truly had to be "never again". They again volunteered their sons and their money to see that it never did. It has cost a large amount of both....but it hasn't happened again.
Your "defensive force" would be AND WOULD ALWAYS HAVE BEEN much, much cheaper to field and fund if it's mission was solely to protect and defend the United States.
After all, outside of our North and South American neighbors any other "world power" would have incredibly long and vulnerable supply lines should they attempt to threaten the US by invasion. Therefore, the primary threat to the US itself, in the post-WW2 era, has been from the air. Either manned or missile, the only way to really hurt us physically and slaughter our people was through airpower.
Yet we've spent untold amounts of money to field a fully diversified and capable military that could fight anyone and anywhere ...and win... in the world and we've maintained these troops and forces in expensive deployed status.
Why is that?
Now it IS time to bring our troops home. In previous threads you've stated you support our Bosnian deployment as well as other "peacekeeping" missions.
I don't. We've more than done our share in the world "peacekeeping" effort. Time to share that burden around for a while.
If we do, then we CAN refocus on a mainly defensive force to protect the US homeland. We're going to have to thouroughly revise our equipment when we do, too. Guess what! that's going to COST MONEY for quite a while. It'll still be cheaper than fielding military that can fight and win against anyone, anywhere and anytime.
To reconfigure the force will take more than just money. The US will have to basically abandon its philosophy of standing ready to engage anywhere in the world at anytime. If we do that, it basically means our allies and the UN are on their own with only a fraction of the support we stood ready to provide.
My crystal pyramid tells me this isn't going to happen in my lifetime. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
As to your comment about Sikorsky lobbying Congress for the Aid Package to Colombia, they were just supporting the greatest US President ever, weren't they?
http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/08/23/colombia.aid/ (http://www.cnn.com/2000/WORLD/americas/08/23/colombia.aid/)
Clinton OKs Colombia aid package despite country's human rights abuses
"A U.S. delegation met with Colombian leaders earlier this month to discuss the aid package, under which the United States would dispatch 90 Army helicopters to Colombia's armed forces. U.S. military authorities would train their Colombian counterparts to use the aircraft to eradicate drug crops and combat Marxist rebels, who control roughly 40 percent of the country and have ties to Colombian drug traffickers."
Yeah, go figure. Why would a helicopter company support such a program? They should be SO ashamed of themselves for seeing an opportunity to sell more helos in Clinton's program. They should have stayed out of it. After all, no other decent company in the entire WORLD tries to feed at their respective national public troughs, right?
Blur: "Now, do we really believe that their primary purpose is to protect our little ones from taking those nasty horrible drugs?"
No, now with your help, the scales have fallen from my eyes. I see that in actuality Clinton's 1.3 Billion Dollar aid package was simply a gift to his buddies at Sikorsky and a few other firms. After all, drugs are not really a problem in the US, are they? This whole thing is just a made-up scary story so that we can enrich the military industrial complex. Thanks for helping me with that, Blur. Why, I look forward to your next installment of "How Cocaine Helps American Youth Realize Their Full Potential."
Iraq isn't about to invade the East Coast of the US. Given another opportunity, they might take another shot at the West Coast of the Gulf. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif) Hope your son gets in on that one, Blur.
Say, Blur, what's your position on the no-fly zones. I work with some guys that get shot at their on a regular basis during their Guard/Reserve deployments. What do you think? Time to give up on that idea?
Bosnia...to quote you again: Why are WE there? Think the Serbs are about to invade the East Coast of the US? The Muslims about to sneak in through Galveston?
Joining us Isolationists or not Blur? Time to get off the fence!
-
Originally posted by blur:
We wouldn't even be there!
Get real, we'll be there as long as Isreal exists, oil or no.
Swamp