Australia to participate in US missile defence program

"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.



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.

and where your assets must be depends on the asset itself and what phase you
intend to go for the kill in.



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.

I'm yet to be convinced that either approach is productive.

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)...



and we've got the nuclear capable plane to do it.
the f111

Or Amberley.


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.

Hmmmm. waiter on second thoughts, I'll have a double portion of that BMD
thanks....

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:10:15 +1100, "L'acrobat"
wrote:


"John Ewing" none@needed wrote in message
. au...


Bush and Howard are both conservatives, in general terms they believe in
the
same things.

I'd have to say your statement is generally true!

Then why would you expect Howard to disagree with him?

He never said he did!

What bit of "I'm not holding my breath waiting" escaped you dimwit?

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:50:53 +1100, "L'acrobat"
wrote:


"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.

That'd be the times when they rigged it, fudged the tests - right?

The times they put the beacon on the incoming - screaming "Here I am -
c'mon hit me"!

Get your head outta your bum and go back to building your R2D2 model.

Idiot.

"Ben James" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:50:53 +1100, "L'acrobat"
wrote:


"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.

That'd be the times when they rigged it, fudged the tests - right?

The times they put the beacon on the incoming - screaming "Here I am -
c'mon hit me"!

Since those were interceptor tests, not senor tests or system integration
tests it seems reasonable to any intelligent person to ensure that the
target will be detected, but then that explains why you don't get it,
doesn't it.

Of course, in the early stages of development they should make it impossible
to hit or even detect the targets, because that would really help, wouldn't
it?.



Get your head outta your bum and go back to building your R2D2 model.

Idiot.


Isn't that sweet, too dumb to argue to point but not wise enough to say
nothing.

"L'acrobat" wrote in
:


"Ben James" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:50:53 +1100, "L'acrobat"
wrote:


"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.

That'd be the times when they rigged it, fudged the tests - right?

The times they put the beacon on the incoming - screaming "Here I am
- c'mon hit me"!

Since those were interceptor tests, not sensor tests or system
integration tests it seems reasonable to any intelligent person to
ensure that the target will be detected, but then that explains why
you don't get it, doesn't it.

Of course, in the early stages of development they should make it
impossible to hit or even detect the targets, because that would
really help, wouldn't it?.



Well,scientific method would have one eliminate as many variables as
possible to produce more reliable data and less confusion.

--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net

"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
http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/







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.

******


and where your assets must be depends on the asset itself and what phase
you
intend to go for the kill in.

******






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.
try to get any other aircraft to do the same thing and the RAAF would be
paying more than twice as much
I could supply material to shoot your argument that the F111 is a money
sponge out of the water.

whod wait till after a launch to bomb a silo?
you?

******!



I'm yet to be convinced that either approach is productive.


youre a ******


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





and we've got the nuclear capable plane to do it.
the f111

Or Amberley.

or your house maybe
i'd support that

******!



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.

I'd even consider doing it deniably.

cost:
NMD = untold billions and debt for generations under current financial
arrangements
airstrike = paltry millions

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.

******!




Hmmmm. waiter on second thoughts, I'll have a double portion of that BMD
thanks....

its coming out of your pocket, not mine

******!

You're a ******.
absolutely.





"L'acrobat" wrote in message
...

"Ben James" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 21:50:53 +1100, "L'acrobat"
wrote:


"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.

That'd be the times when they rigged it, fudged the tests - right?

The times they put the beacon on the incoming - screaming "Here I am -
c'mon hit me"!

Since those were interceptor tests, not senor tests or system integration
tests it seems reasonable to any intelligent person to ensure that the
target will be detected, but then that explains why you don't get it,
doesn't it.

Of course, in the early stages of development they should make it
impossible
to hit or even detect the targets, because that would really help,
wouldn't
it?.



Get your head outta your bum and go back to building your R2D2 model.

Idiot.


Isn't that sweet, too dumb to argue to point but not wise enough to say
nothing.

"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.


http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/


I see you've not read the FAS article.




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.

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.

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?


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?

******!


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.






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?


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 and the F-111 is too costly to
operate, ask the DoD who have axed it on that basis.


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.

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?



******!


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.

"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
...
You're a ******.
absolutely.

Isn't that sweet, another one that's too dumb to argue to point but not wise
enough to simply say nothing.

"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

Let's see...

http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0706-01.htm

A 2000 document? A bit behind the times...

http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/

Even worse...most of the info is from the 97-98 timeframe. Were you aware
that NMD research and testing have progressed quite a bit since these
periods?

I'd rethink my definition of ignorant/****** if I were you.

Brooks

snip strange rants advocating Australian nuclear force