A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Military Aviation
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A question about the Transall C160



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81  
Old September 30th 03, 02:29 PM
Grantland
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Alan Minyard wrote:

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:39:20 +0200, "ArVa" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" a écrit dans le message de
. ..


So who said we want france as an ally?


Well, almost all your top government officials, including your president...
Or were they all lying while crossing their fingers in their back? That
would probably be a premiere... :-)


Our actions speak louder than our words.


partially because of comments like the one above.


I don't think he was refering to France only. Don't you want allies and
friends at all? Geez, I really wonder what disturbs you so much in Clark's
statement...

ArVa

Because he is willing to sell out to our enemies.

Al Minyard


What's this "our" stuff, Jewboy?

Grantland
  #82  
Old September 30th 03, 04:59 PM
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Kevin Brooks wrote:
"shonen" wrote in message
...


The French felt that they needed an independent nuclear capability
to deter the Soviets, rather than relying on the US, who had
demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice NATO security for their
own.


No, [...]
Note that the UK also developed its own independent nuclear force


Did they? From the little I know the nuclear force in UK was far from
independant from the US...

  #83  
Old September 30th 03, 05:23 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Phil" wrote in message
...
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"shonen" wrote in message
...


The French felt that they needed an independent nuclear capability
to deter the Soviets, rather than relying on the US, who had
demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice NATO security for their
own.


No, [...]
Note that the UK also developed its own independent nuclear force


Did they? From the little I know the nuclear force in UK was far from
independant from the US...


Lets see.

The UK force uses British built submarines equipped with
missiles bought from the US that carry UK designed and
built warheads.

The arming of the warheads and targetting of the missiles
is subject to UK control

What makes you think this is not an independent deterrent ?

Keith


  #84  
Old September 30th 03, 05:35 PM
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Thomas Schoene wrote:

"Skysurfer" wrote in message
. 0.136

tscottme wrote :

Like I said the French hope nothing unusual happens and then are
thoroughly unprepared when it does.


Your sentence doesn't mean anything ...

Do I say that the USA were not prepared to the september the 11th ?

In 1994, a French Airbus was hijacked by islamists who wanted to
crash it on Paris. All terrorist were killed by french special
forces GIGN (you know, the "surrending monkeys").
http://www.specialoperations.com/Cou...rism/gign.html


Well done for GIGN.

However, one does wonder how serious these terrorists were about
blowing up the plane over Paris, given that they actually landed the
plane first. How would GIGN have been able to intervene if a plane
had simply flown from Algiers to Paris direct, with the hijackers
only taking over after it was airborne?



They were quite serious. They executed 3 hostages before taking off to
Marseille. The plane was forced to land there for refuelling. Orders
were issued to blast the tyres if the plane attempted a take-off. The
plane was purposedly prevented to embark enough fuel to go too far.

The original plan from the GIA was to crash the plane on Paris.
It is also documented that the prime minister and the president were
aware of the terrorists intentions and that they were ready to order a
Mirage to take care of the problem in the most radical way if necessary.



  #85  
Old September 30th 03, 06:56 PM
Alan Minyard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Mon, 29 Sep 2003 19:39:20 +0200, "ArVa" wrote:

"Alan Minyard" a écrit dans le message de
.. .


So who said we want france as an ally?


Well, almost all your top government officials, including your president...
Or were they all lying while crossing their fingers in their back? That
would probably be a premiere... :-)


Our actions speak louder than our words.


partially because of comments like the one above.


I don't think he was refering to France only. Don't you want allies and
friends at all? Geez, I really wonder what disturbs you so much in Clark's
statement...

ArVa

Because he is willing to sell out to our enemies.

Al Minyard
  #86  
Old October 1st 03, 12:08 PM
Phil
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Keith Willshaw wrote:

"Phil" wrote in message
...

Kevin Brooks wrote:

"shonen" wrote in message
...


The French felt that they needed an independent nuclear
capability to deter the Soviets, rather than relying on the US,
who had demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice NATO security
for their own.


No, [...] Note that the UK also developed its own independent
nuclear force


Did they? From the little I know the nuclear force in UK was far
from independant from the US...


Lets see.

The UK force uses British built submarines equipped with missiles
bought from the US that carry UK designed and built warheads.

It seems to me that the missiles are simply "anglicised" after they
arrive in UK, and not really designed/built. I don't know what
"anglicised" really means, but it seems far from developped, designed
and built. What is certain is that the Trident warheads are assembled in
UK (AWE - Burghfield). I don't know what kind of rocket is used and what
kind of re-entry module is attached. Are they really "made in UK"? Or
simply assembled there?

The arming of the warheads and targetting of the missiles is subject
to UK control

Yes. I was mistaken with the NATO theatre weapons that were double
keyed.(id.)

What makes you think this is not an independent deterrent ?

Historical relationship between US and UK ;-)
I'd be interrested in any doc about the discussions that took place
during the Falklands war arround the subject of the possible use of the
UK submarines... I already know the US administration was very worried,
to say the least, about a possible dramatic event that would encourage
the Prime Minister to retaliate with nukes.



  #87  
Old October 1st 03, 12:31 PM
Keith Willshaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Phil" wrote in message
...
Keith Willshaw wrote:



The UK force uses British built submarines equipped with missiles
bought from the US that carry UK designed and built warheads.

It seems to me that the missiles are simply "anglicised" after they
arrive in UK, and not really designed/built. I don't know what
"anglicised" really means, but it seems far from developped, designed
and built. What is certain is that the Trident warheads are assembled in
UK (AWE - Burghfield). I don't know what kind of rocket is used and what
kind of re-entry module is attached. Are they really "made in UK"? Or
simply assembled there?


The missiles are bought from the USA, the rentry system is
developed in the UK with technical support form Lockheed Martin

The arming of the warheads and targetting of the missiles is subject
to UK control

Yes. I was mistaken with the NATO theatre weapons that were double
keyed.(id.)

What makes you think this is not an independent deterrent ?

Historical relationship between US and UK ;-)



History wouldnt stop a British retaliation for a nuclear attack
no matter how much the US disapproved.


I'd be interrested in any doc about the discussions that took place
during the Falklands war arround the subject of the possible use of the
UK submarines... I already know the US administration was very worried,
to say the least, about a possible dramatic event that would encourage
the Prime Minister to retaliate with nukes.


Its hard to imagine what sort of event could cause
a nuclear response in that war, more to the point was
the British warning to Iraq in Gulf War 1 that any Iraqi
use of WMD against British forces could prompt a
nuclear response.

Keith


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GPT (Gulfport MS) ILS 14 question A Lieberman Instrument Flight Rules 18 January 30th 05 05:51 PM
VOR/DME Approach Question Chip Jones Instrument Flight Rules 47 August 29th 04 05:03 AM
Question Charles S Home Built 4 April 5th 04 09:10 PM
Tecumseh Engine Mounting Question jlauer Home Built 7 November 16th 03 02:51 AM
Question about Question 4488 [email protected] Instrument Flight Rules 3 October 27th 03 02:26 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.