I don't realize the significance of his post. I would expect our leaders to be of the highest education. Furthermore, there is a difference between being booksmart and streetsmart. If they are "so smart" then why are they ignoring the history of the area which dictates western nations have never been able to bring significant change to the area?
Since you have "called me out", I'll will post tommorrow so more "real information" for you that I would love to hear you dispute.
Actually, I was replying on the other thread and ended up here?? Wrong button I guess... There is "significant" change going on right now. Like it or not, we are making a new chapter in history. And if other countries are harboring or aiding terrorists (which they are), we may go there too. There are about 6 more countries in that region, one or two farther east, and at least one in Central America that also need their cages rattled. The dumb bastards awoke the sleeping giant, again.
<font color=orange>The best ideas are the ones that look obvious to the casual observer.</font color=orange>
Sorry for being so naive, I guess I spend too much time with the family and on RDC.
What are the chances that Russia, Germany, or China will attack us? I have been following the news very closely lately and heard a speech from the Russian president saying what the US is doing is wrong and no country will be safe if we just attack whomever we want and that Germany and China both said we are in the wrong..
Also what about North Korea now? I heard the Nuclear weapon is pointed at California? Do we have the weapons/technology to intersect that thing in the air, should we worry about these claims?
Thank Clinton for killing Reagan's Star Wars system for good.
Do a search on the internet on the YAL-1 ABL. Its the Air Force's experimental aircraft that they are testing currently with putting a laser on a modified 747. I'm hoping to get on the program in a few years myself as my job field in the Air Force will be one that will fly on the aircraft. Basically the laser heats up the rocket fuel in an ICBM hot enough to make it explode, and no, blowing up a nuke isn't the same as a nuke blowing up, it has to be activated, usually an automatic process in an ICBM...
"Thank Clinton for killing Reagan's Star Wars system for good"
At the time, that project was deemed un-necessary. There was no threat that warrented that kind of spending and as a result, the country was in a surplus budget and enjoying a surging economy. Russia was our main threat and once Reagan spent them to death with programs like Star Wars (not complaing as I thought them to be a good idea) they could not afford it and collapsed. Star wars is still a bad idea as chances are somebody is going to smuggle a nuc into the country and not launch it. The only people that we have to worry about launching a nuc at us is N. Korea. The YAL-1 ABL is a good idea as it could take out not only nucs, but non nuclear weapons as well and metororites if one ever posed a threat.
Most nucs have a predetermined altitude at which they explode and if they are destroyed before hand, they do not detonate a nuclear explosion.
Good luck on getting on board the YAL - 1 ABLE program as it is the cutting edge of the Air Force and something that could offer a long term and very lucrative career. Keep us informed.
strange, i remember reading a magazine article saying we did have a satelitte based laser interception system in place. it said it was a chemical laser system, and we had to throw away a treaty we had written which banned such a thing. i think it was popular science or maybe popular mechanics.
We should all worry about these things at least to the point of staying well informed. Only then can we cast an intelligent vote. It's more likely that the small attacks are what we should be concerned about. These are the ones aimed at killing between 10 and 10,000 people. These are the ones carried out by terrorists. These are the ones that are unannounced, unprovoked, and without remorse. The targets are civilian not military. There is no one for us to retaliate with, so there is no deterrent to it. It should be understood that what is going on now in Iraq is based only about one third on what has already happened and two thirds on what will happen, if they are not stopped. What we are doing now is the only deterrent that we have an option to exercise.
The Soviets know better than anyone else what will happen in any kind of nuclear attack. They know full well what Mutually Assured Destruction is. This means there would be nothing left. If there is anything the US will not tolerate, it is any kind of nuclear attack or definite substantiated threat of one. All the rhetoric from North Korea is to extort money from us. We know it, plain as day, that's why we are not talking to them. They are desperate for money right now and many are starving because they are still under a communist regime. They know that giving us their best shot in war is not worth turning their entire country into an empty crater. If our satellites or other sources see any nuclear type rockets being readied, we will be there in a heartbeat. We may attack first, and the peaceniks will again call it preemptive. It is likely that we will have offensive weapons such as destroyers and submarines in that area for a long time.
If anyone is a loose cannon it is China. They have very capable weapons and tremendous underground hardened facilities. The government is also very willing to loose a lot of people because they simply have too many. Fortunately, like the Great Wall and any other defensive structure, the underground facilities are becoming obsolete. That’s why we advertise the various bunker busters every chance we get. They continuously underestimate our resolve but they also fear that they just might get vaporized.
When is the last time you saw a new German or Japanese plane. They are barred from building such things for wartime purposes. These countries are permanently sterilized from building up anything but local defensive capabilities. This was a significant change brought about by us, and a new chapter in history. Hopefully, no ultra liberal leader will come along and try to undo the contingencies like one gave away the Panama Canal, or another who gave away a lot of very high technology to the Chinese.
No, we can’t stop the terrorists, but we can give the leaders of countries that would harbor or aid them, strong incentive not to do so. This means, at least, that the terrorists will get much less training, funding, places to hide, and hopefully weapons. If we rid the world of some more war mongering, hateful, dictators, it will reduce the incentive of terrorists as well.
<font color=orange>The best ideas are the ones that look obvious to the casual observer.</font color=orange>
My brother-in-law is off the coast of Korea on a Carrier right now. I know that there is more going on (as far as being prepared is concerned) than any of us could imagine. N Korea has much greater reasons to buckle to diplomatic pressure than did Iraq. They are also advertising (and even exaggerating) what they have which means that they don't want to use them. Iraq was hiding what they had.
Korea technically does not have a weapon capable of flying across the Pacific and hitting a target. With that said, they can launch a long range plane, drone, etc..and if it reaches the west coast and etonates, it doesn't matter where it hits, that is the beauty of a nuclear bomb, the destruction is the damage, not the target. The real issue with Nukes on the Korean penninsula is the fact that we cannot react fast enough to stop what would be the utter destruction of Seoul as well as what would most likely be an attack on Japan. You sat the Japanese are barred forever from producing offensive weapons, but they are negotiating now to start a build-up to counter the saber rattling of N. Korea. If the North launched weapons, it is calculated that Seoul would be gone in less than 7 minutes and Japan would be hit in 12. One of the U.S.'s strong points has always been the isolation we enjoy and the fact that intercontinental ballistic missles would be in the air a long time before they reached our land. With thetoes we have to Japan and the support we have promised South Korea, We are in a position to have to deal with the North to protect those interests. Had we done something in the previous administration instead of turning away and looking for only the good in the world, North Korea might have been in the same boat Iraq is in now. With Nuclear weapons, the tactics will have to change.
Germany will not be an issue millitarily as much as it will be on shaping the world markets and economy. The French and the Germans are trying to place the E.U. based Socialist Market as teh model the world should adopt as opposed to the western Capitalist market the U.S., Britain, Spain, Australia, and Japan use. With teh mention of those names, you can see there is more to the war in Iraq than just going after Hussein, who sets up the middle Eastern Market will have a telling role in the region for future trade. France has been supporting Iraq since the Gulf War with this in mind.
Also gotta remember tho, North Korea is at least smart enough to know that nuking South Korea and Japan would not make their bellies full. Its the threat that might, but then again, if we know they won't do it, there is no real threat. Thus the reason we aren't taking them completely seriously, they aren't a real threat. China still has a grasp on N Korea and China is not in the mood to start World War III especially with their economy hurting like it is.
We didn't take alot of things seriously before Pearl Harbor either. Live and Learn, but it's horrible that human tragedy has to open our/ our governments eyes to reality. Korea is playing a horrible Poker Game. Let's keep in mind to, N. Korea is about the size of Arizona, maybe a little smaller. You have another "leader" saying that he will do this, with little support from his people, since they are poverty level as is.
Germany is in my opinion one of the most intelligent nations on the Earth. They get banned from doing things militarily, fine, we'll do it monetarily, and be the best at what we do. As far as I am concerned, after being in a Porsche GT-2, and using only german levels and other precision instruments at work, they have some of the best engineering I've ever witnessed. A porsche driveline makes Ford, Chevy, and Dodge all look like welfare projects. They will/ are playing a major role in the worlds economy, and will continue to do so for quite some time.
Godspeed our troops, and let them be safe when dealing with these asinine terrorists.
Just because a government offers official support of the war, does not mean that we have the support of the people. Here are some figures regarding the "enormous" support we are receiving from our allies:
(1) Of the countries that constitute "New Europe", which comprise a good majority of U.S. support, between 70-80 percent of Hungarians, Czechs and Poles are against the war in Iraq.
(2) Over 50% of Australian's (arguably our second biggest allie) are opposed to the war. In another long time allie, Turkey, 90% of the people oppose war.
(3) In a current survey 30% of Spanish (big allie), 27% of Russian's, 26% of Canadian's, 24% French, 23% of Italian's (allie) and 22 % ofJapanese current avoid buying U.S products.
(4) Over 30,000 people took to the streets in Yemen yesterday protesting the war and resulting in 3 deaths.
(5) Over 100,000 people took to the streets in Pakistan protesting the war. Remember Pakistan, its the country that we are dumbing serious money into for helping us fight our war on terrorism?
What does all this mean? For starters it means that if we keeps this up, we are going to start losing the support of these nations. The leaders, if they want to to stay in power, are going to have to start listening to the people and not offering so much support to the U.S. In turn the U.S. will start to be "ganged up" on by the rest of the world in order to off-set its power. Look at history.
Since the begining of the state system in the 16th century there has been one clear pattern, the formation of balances of power against the strong, starting with the Hapsburg Empire in the 17th century. Continuing with France in the 18th and then again in the 19th century, Germany twice in the 20th century, and the USSR in the later half of the 20th century. It should be noted, that this lead to the fall of all these great and powerful nations. People fear the strong and the only reason the US has been so successful prior to this point is through the formation of alliances and treaties in order to keep the peace and ensure that all nations get along and can peacefully coexist. However, what was the first thing President Bush did upon entering office - he withdrew the U.S from 5 international treaties and reneged on virtually every diplomatic effort Clinton had made from N. Korea to the Middle East (and you all wonder why we are in this current mess).
However, even more shocking is that is what President Bush has done to NATO. I hear the general complaint among many here that NATO is irrelevant. Lets examine why. After 9/11NATO, for the first time in history, invoked the self-defense clause (a means through which a nation can retaliate) and offered the United States assistance. The Bush administration rejected the offer, essentially telling the world that the U.S. didn't need NATO's support or assistance. When the most powerful nation in the world says NATO is irrelevant and powerless, how do you expect NATO to operate effectively? In another blow to NATO, Bush gave a speech to the Security Council telling it to "get serious about enforcing its resolutions on Iraq and to try and give inspections one last time." Parrelleling these comments, were those made by Rumsfeld and Cheney calling the inspections a "sham" thus contradicting amercian policy to go to follow the U.N. and signaling to the rest of the world that the U.S. was ready to go to war. This was shortly followed up by the initial deployment of troops to the region.
The point is, the United States cannot keeping acting like the opinion of the rest of the world does not matter. The world is much to connected both economically and politically for any one nation to act out as it sees fit. With the successful emergancy of the EU, the rise of the Chinese market and the growing alliances in the Muslim world, the United States will have nobody to turn to for support. I'll end with a great quote I read that fits the context of what I'm trying to convey:
"Being pro-American should not be a political liability for our allies." - Fareed Zakaria
In my researching of the last post, I came across one more piece of information I thought to be quite astounding. Starting with the Reagan administration and ending with the first Bush administration, in the five years before the invasion of Kuwait, the United States approved 771 export licenses to sell Saddam approximentaly $1.5 billion in equipment with military uses, including some that could be used to develope weapons of mass destruction. Maybe that is why they are so sure that the Saddam has WMD, but have refused to to publicly state how they know for fear of being labeled a hypocrite.