"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...
"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...
"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...
"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...
i think the whole missile defence thing is a crock
theres not the slightest bit of evidence it'd work
Except of course for the times that they have done it.
youre an ingnorant ******, you know that dont you
go out an read up on NMD
http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0706-01.htm
The "progressive newswire" yep I really believe that they lack bias,
their
webpage is a whingefest you ****ing goose.
cutting a long story shot lets actually read part of the article instead of
disregarding it because of who owns the webpage:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JULY 6, 2000
8:18 AM
CONTACT: Federation of American Scientists
Henry Kelly or Charles Ferguson, 202-546-3300
Nobel Laureates Warn Against Missile Defense Deployment
WASHINGTON - July 6 - The Federation of American Scientists (FAS)
today released a letter to the President signed by 50 American Nobel
laureates in the sciences stating that under current circumstances, "any
movement toward deployment" of a ballistic missile defense system would be
"premature, wasteful, and dangerous."
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/
I see you've not read the FAS article.
i have most certainly read it. and others which i would paste here but cant
be arsed because of the likes of you.
besides
seems like its something you need to rely on much better
intelligence
to
see
know when/where a missile might actually be launched to get your
assets
in
place to shoot it down.
I see you've not heard of Radar.
******
Dickhead.
******
and where your assets must be depends on the asset itself and what
phase
you
intend to go for the kill in.
******
Dickhead.
******
the money wasted on this white elephant would be better spent on
either
something like a couple of airbus multirole tanker transports to
support
our
strategic strike force of f111s or a couple of recon sattelites to
get
some
independent sattelite capability
Yes, a great idea we can pour money into a force that has never had to
strike anything and is a money sponge, that, at best might bomb
missile
silos after the missiles have launched or a sattelite capability so we
can
watch the launch, but not stop it.
ignoramus ******
the F111 is, cheap.
Bwahhhh hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!
The F111 is getting the axe because it is too expensive to operate you pig
ignorant cocksucker.
what literature do you read besides the Beano?
do you read Defence Today by strike publications?
no i bet you dont
had a recent article entitled "How expensive is the F-111?"
the article starts:
"Perhaps the most pernicious of the carious commonly heard myths about the
F-111 is that it is an unusually expensive asset to maintain, or indeed that
it presents a particulary expensive way of delivering bombs to targets.
whilst such assertations might appear reasonable at first glance to the lay
observer, expert observers with exposure to overseas cost structuring models
tend to see such comments for what they really are - malicious and
unsubstantiated bunk"
the article then goes on to demolish point by point your beliefs that the
F111 is an expense, it even has an answer to the question:
"we might ask the question of how the myth of the expensive f111 came to
be?"
you dont believe me? I'll scan it and post it.
try to get any other aircraft to do the same thing and the RAAF would be
paying more than twice as much
I see you've not heard of cruise missiles you clown.
youre an absolute ****wit arent you.
the F111 can carry HALF the warload of a B-52 bomber.
more than twice the distance
and more than twice the speed of any cruise missile we might buy.
that said, i'm not against cruise missiles, i think we should equip our subs
with them.
It was proposed a number of years back that we get tommahawks - the proposed
launch vehicle??? - the F111.
I could supply material to shoot your argument that the F111 is a money
sponge out of the water.
Yet you chose not to and the DoD who have the actual figures to hand have
chosen the axe the white elephant and go with cruise missiles, why is it
that against that expertise you come out looking like a fool?
you want me to scan the article and post it? ill scan the article.
anyone who matters is against retirement of the F111, its purely a political
decision to free up funds for something else, instead of increasing defence
funds overall.
whod wait till after a launch to bomb a silo?
you?
So you are going to launch F-111s to preemptively strike silos? on what
basis and how will they both reach N Korea and why do you think they will
be
able to penetrate the NK air defence system given their age?
we dont waste money on NMD, funds would be much better invested in getting
the Airbus multirole tanker transport.
They would provide us with a primary strategic tanker for all the airforce
fleet.
i doubt the NK air defence system is all that its cracked up to be.
the countrys broke
like i said the F111 (our F111) flew up against some of the most
sophisticated air defence systems (and aggressor pilots) in the united
states recently and achieved a perfect record. UNMATCHED by any other
national participant.
Korea is mountainous ... perfect territory for the F111 to fly down valleys
underneath radar.
whats north korea got to fend this off? mig 21 fishbeds??
excuse me
******!
Lackwit!
I'm yet to be convinced that either approach is productive.
youre a ******
Not very good at arguing the point are you, you sad pathetic buffoon.
besides
we've got our own nuclear reactor, and soon to get a new one.
ANSTO, the australian nuclear science and technology organisation
employs
about 150 scientists. they dont build bombs, but they DO do research
into
the nuclear bomb designs of foriegn countries.
We have a network of seismic stations around australia that monitor
the
global test ban treaty.
Any bombs that go off anywhere around the world register on those
stations
equipment. - Our scientists at ANSTO learn a great deal about the
bombs
design, yeild etc from those signatures.
we could easily (from a technical/engineering) point of view go
nuclear
if
we so desired. - politically however we might find it difficult
internationally.
Lesson is if anyone drops a bomb on us, and we know who it is, we
could
sure
as hell drop a couple back - quite easily.
and im sure that we could "out produce" some of these threshold
states.
Unless it occurred to them to nuke Lucas Heights (with the added bonus
of
getting Holsworthy free)...
unless unless unless
unless they took out your proposed NMD system in our country with a 50
ton
fertiliser truck bomb
They don't work well agains silo mounted weapons, let alone dispersed
silos,
but then facts are not you gig are they.
So you have NMD ....
NK launches an attack on us. 5 missiles say.
lets say 3 get downed (for argument sake)
2 hit
ADF reported after Sept 11 that if a nuclear bomb went off in an australian
city, defence operations would effectively come to a complete stop whilst
defence tried to deal with the issue.
so in this scenario defence is stuck trying to deal with a binary nuclear
stike - not 1, but 2.
NMD is also a defensive system, you cant use it to hit back!
NMD is also not very "usable" in military terms .... in other words you cant
have it do much of ANYTHING other than have it just sit there and wait for
an attack that may never come (and in my opinion is unlikely ever to)
and we've got the nuclear capable plane to do it.
the f111
Or Amberley.
or your house maybe
i'd support that
******!
Yawn, you don't seem to be able to keep up, do you?
point is however ....
you need the range
and intelligence
multirole tanker
(dont expect the yanks to lend us one if we we gonna use it on a
nuke
mission because someone exploded a bomb in sydney harbour)
sattelite imagery
(dont expect them or anyone else to provide us with up to date intel
either)
missile defence is an absolute waste of taxpayer monies imho
its a typically ammerhicun approach of trying to solve a problem,
without
bothering to remove the problem in the first intance.
Your "solution" gives us an ability to strike back 6 months to a year
after
we are struck, if our sattelite detected the launch, if they didn't
nuke
ANSTO, if they didn't nuke Amberley and if they are prepared to wait
until
we develop and test a nuke and if they don't have a moderately
effective
air
defence system that they can use to bring down a 40 year old design.
You're a ******
I don't think anyone in here would belive it'd take 6 months to plan an
airstrike.
and if you know it's coming, take it out first before a launch.
What a sad fool you are, where whould the nukes come from dickhead?
you seem to think north korea.
I'd even consider doing it deniably.
Since it would never get near the target and the ability to make the nukes
would get nuked on day one, it would certainly be deniable.
cost:
NMD = untold billions and debt for generations under current financial
arrangements
airstrike = paltry millions
An airstrike wouldn't make it to the target
wrong
and the F-111 is too costly to operate,
wrong
ask the DoD who have axed it on that basis.
wrong
your concept of intelligence collection is crap sats.
your 40 year old design F111 achieved a perfect record flying against
some
of the worlds most advanced air defences and combat pilots in recent
exercises in the united states.
In an exercise. I'm so impressed.
simpletons are easily awed
Did they launch unsupported strikes against an air defence system
simulating
N Korea? did they cover the distance between Darwin and North Korea alone,
carrying a bodged up nuke that we hope will work?
youre splitting hairs
******!
Dickhead.
Hmmmm. waiter on second thoughts, I'll have a double portion of that
BMD
thanks....
its coming out of your pocket, not mine
******!
Dickhead.
You aren't very bright, but you are entertaining - feel free to come back
and be made a fool of again.
firstly, the difference, between you an me is that i am ready to be
persuaded otherwise, on any issue, you however _arent_
secondly, i really really really cant be made a fool of my someone who hides
behind a pseudonym, expecially one called "L'acrobat"