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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Godfrey" wrote in
: http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/ FAS has been against any kind of ballistic missile defense since it first was discussed. Not my idea of a unbiased source. ISTR the same guy,John Pike,was involved with the Union of Concerned Scientists,too,another anti-missile defense group. -- Jim Yanik,NRA member jyanik-at-kua.net |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"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" |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message
... 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. Trimming the invective out of that thread was hard work. Thanks Ian, I'd love to read the article, a.b.p.a would do nicely Thanks -- Cheers Dave Kearton |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... 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." So, 3 years ago a bunch of guys who do not specialise in the field wrote a letter? Why not look for something a tad more recent? 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. and because of the humiliating fact that it is 3 years old and doesn't support your 'argument'. 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. ****** dickhead and where your assets must be depends on the asset itself and what phase you intend to go for the kill in. ****** Dickhead. ****** 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? (Source: Royal Australian Air Force news; issued Dec. 2, 2003) "By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain." He (CAF Air Marshal Angus Houston) said the F-111 would not be withdrawn until Air Force had fully upgraded the F/A-18s and its weapons systems, and the AEW&Cs and tankers were in service. "The F/A-18 will be capable of dropping not only laser-guided precision munitions but also satellite-guided precision munitions and will also be capable of delivering a follow on stand off weapon, which will also be fitted to the AP-3C," he said. 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" BWWWAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAA, an article by Carlo "the F-111 is the ultimate weapon in the world, can do everything and cannot be defeated" Kopp? Carlo is in love with the F-111, he fails to factor in the point that an old, clapped out, expensive to operate plane like the F-111 isn't coming back from its missions - you will note Carlo doesn't ever speak of the attrition rate (or factor in that cost). Carlo also chooses not to compare the F-111 to cruise missiles, as that would require that he accept that the attrition rate imposed on F-111s in a modern air defence environment would be prohbitive. 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. I've read it, only the most uncritical of reader would accept it as anything more than the last dying gasp of an F-111 fan. The RAAF are retiring it because it is getting to be too expensive to operate, Carlo needs to get over that and so do you. You see, the RAAF have the actual operating costs on file and have done the long term studies on the a/c, Carlo hasn't. 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. and the F-111 costs a fortune to operate, base, train with, and maintain you sad lackwit, and the F-111 is not coming back from any mission against a decent air defence system, jesus wept clownboy - we couldn't even send them to Iraq where the AD system had been bombed for a decade! 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. Given that we operated the F-111 it seems reasonable, now we won't operate it, so we will hang Tomahawk off of Orions, F/A-18s and possibly JSFs later on. 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. I've read it, it's a joke - the fact that you rely on it simply shows what a credulous buffoon you are. 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. yet our bomber would still cost a fortune to own, have no stealth features, be 40 years old and have so little survivability that we couldn't send it to hit targets in a country that had been bombed for 10 years. i doubt the NK air defence system is all that its cracked up to be. the countrys broke and yet if they detect our approach they can launch nukes at us and its in gods hands from there. 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. but not against N Korea, in N Korea when they can launch nukes at us if there is one a/c detected - it is a unique a/c, so they'd know who to hit. You haven't addressed how pleased S Korea will be to have us flying bombers in and stirring up trouble in their backyard either, but then you don't do reality do you? Or how we would explain flying this armada over Indonesia and back, one phone call from our well trusted friend in Indonesia and a few Aust cities fountain skywards. Korea is mountainous ... perfect territory for the F111 to fly down valleys underneath radar. and perfect profile to be downed by AAA, Manpads and Small arms. whats north korea got to fend this off? mig 21 fishbeds?? excuse me You are certainly excused for being an idiot, thats your parents fault. Personally, I'd be more concerned about NKs Mig 29s than the Mig 21s, but to each their own. 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) Hence the D for 'defence' in BMD, which funnily enough is pretty prominent in both 'ADF' and the 'DoD', you see, you pathetic lackwit it is the PRIMARY role of the ADF to DEFEND Australia, BMD fits EXACTLY into their job description. You also seem to have quite glibly ignored the fact that, in your own example above, we have 3 more cities to support both the ongoing war effort and the rescue and recovery efforts in the 2 nuked cities than we'd have had if we didn't have BMD. You might also want to explain what it is that Submarines would do to help in rescue efforts that would prevent them sailing to retailiate? or why AP-3Cs would be held back to help? 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 How did they go over Iraq, oh, we couldn't send them could we... and the F-111 is too costly to operate, wrong (Source: Royal Australian Air Force news; issued Dec. 2, 2003) "By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain." ask the DoD who have axed it on that basis. wrong (Source: Royal Australian Air Force news; issued Dec. 2, 2003) "By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain." VERY HIGH-COST PLATFORM TO OPERATE, for the hard of understanding. 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 Yes, you went with Carlos drivel like a shot. 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 No, you are drawing conclusions from false data. ******! 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_ The fact is that CAF Air Marshal Angus Houston says its too expensive to operate, weighed against this we have Carlo, the ultimate F-111 fanboy. and you, an idiot. secondly, i really really really cant be made a fool of my someone who hides behind a pseudonym, expecially one called "L'acrobat" You have been sweetheart, you have been. |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"L'acrobat" wrote in message ... "Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... 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." So, 3 years ago a bunch of guys who do not specialise in the field wrote a letter? 50 nobel laureates one would assume have more understanding of this than you or I. Why not look for something a tad more recent? to be honest, I couldn't be stuffed, I'm not paranoid about being nuked. snips **** what literature do you read besides the Beano? (Source: Royal Australian Air Force news; issued Dec. 2, 2003) "By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain." He (CAF Air Marshal Angus Houston) said the F-111 would not be withdrawn until Air Force had fully upgraded the F/A-18s and its weapons systems, and the AEW&Cs and tankers were in service. high cost after 2010, as opposed to ... what? B2? (which doesnt necessarily need a strike package assembled with it hence the associated costs of other aircraft) Already our AWACS have been cut in number .... maybe if we werent getting involved in NMD we could afford a "full" half a squadron. And wheres these tankers? nothings going ahead (ie metal being cut) as far as im aware - unlike our (albeit cropped) number of awacs. "The F/A-18 will be capable of dropping not only laser-guided precision munitions but also satellite-guided precision munitions and will also be capable of delivering a follow on stand off weapon, which will also be fitted to the AP-3C," he said. FA 18 is already capable of droping laser guided bombs. which is what were used in iraq. Typical australian defence policy ... usually reminicent of the Navy soon the airforce will be able to boast it.... "Equiped for, but not with." 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" BWWWAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAA, an article by Carlo "the F-111 is the ultimate weapon in the world, can do everything and cannot be defeated" Kopp? Carlo is in love with the F-111, he fails to factor in the point that an old, clapped out, expensive to operate plane like the F-111 isn't coming back from its missions - you will note Carlo doesn't ever speak of the attrition rate (or factor in that cost). Carlo also chooses not to compare the F-111 to cruise missiles, as that would require that he accept that the attrition rate imposed on F-111s in a modern air defence environment would be prohbitive. What ARE you going to launch these cruise missiles from? What is the cruise missiles radius? What is the TRANSIT time of the launch platform to get within strike distance? (especially if its a sub or ship) Take the B-52 for example, its over 50 years old, and all B52s flying today were built in the 60's, and they dont plan to retire it until sometime after 2020. by which time it will be over 75 years old. It is however mainly a cruise missile launcher (although has done ground strike in the gulf and kosovo). If everything could be done cost effectively by cruise missile we could probably get away with buying brand new civil aircraft 747's or 777's and modify them to be massive cruise missile platforms (it has been proposed by the yanks). Why hasnt it been done? Cost over a million dollars (US) a pop for a tomahawk. compared to 200,000 for a laser guided bomb (or less for a GPS guided, concrete filled one) - yes concrete. 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. I've read it, only the most uncritical of reader would accept it as anything more than the last dying gasp of an F-111 fan. sure youve read it The RAAF are retiring it because it is getting to be too expensive to operate, Carlo needs to get over that and so do you. RAAFs retiring it because government wont cough up the money defence needs. and because of the enemies the F111 has in DFAT. You see, the RAAF have the actual operating costs on file and have done the long term studies on the a/c, Carlo hasn't. and you have snips **** and the F-111 costs a fortune to operate, base, train with, and maintain you sad lackwit, and the F-111 is not coming back from any mission against a decent air defence system, jesus wept clownboy - we couldn't even send them to Iraq where the AD system had been bombed for a decade! oh for ****s sake you do talk such **** i bet everyone reading this is having a good laugh at you. I know I am. it doesnt cost a fortune the f111 can will and has come back against decent air defences - in exercises - and is even more likely to considering the overwhelming ECM & ECCM support we would get in any "coalition" we'd participate in. the reason why they werent sent to iraq is because of their capabilities they would have required to be tasked against heavily defended urban targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk civillian casualties, and wasnt prepared to foot the bill for the ammo expenditure (unless the yanks supplied it). http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer 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. Given that we operated the F-111 it seems reasonable, now we won't operate it, so we will hang Tomahawk off of Orions, F/A-18s and possibly JSFs later on. if at all 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. I've read it, it's a joke - the fact that you rely on it simply shows what a credulous buffoon you are. i dont "rely" on it, merely using it as an example. hands up anyone in here who supports defence monies being spent on NMD instead of fixing holes in defence?? snips **** yet our bomber would still cost a fortune to own, have no stealth features, be 40 years old and have so little survivability that we couldn't send it to hit targets in a country that had been bombed for 10 years. http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer i doubt the NK air defence system is all that its cracked up to be. the countrys broke and yet if they detect our approach they can launch nukes at us and its in gods hands from there. if if if but if but but i dont think we're going to go to war with north korea anytime soon 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. but not against N Korea, in N Korea when they can launch nukes at us if there is one a/c detected - it is a unique a/c, so they'd know who to hit. i dont believe north korea can yet weaponise a ballistic missile with a nuclear weapon - yet. nor do i believe they have a ballistic missile capable of reaching australia. i dont believe they would nuke australia with a ballistic missile even if they had one. we're one of the few countries they have diplomatic relations with and they wouldnt want to give that up. You haven't addressed how pleased S Korea will be to have us flying bombers in and stirring up trouble in their backyard either, but then you don't do reality do you? You haven't addressed how pleased S Korea will be to have N Korea launching ballistic missiles at Australia and stirring up trouble in OUR backyard either, but then you don't do reality do you? If they did do something like that, (which i dont believe they will) Im sure S Korea and the United States AND China, would come down on N Korea like a ton of bricks .. I am firmly grouned in reality, which is why I think we wont be threatened with ballistic missiles. which .... is not to say however, that Im not worried about poliferation of missile technology and nuclear weapons, and bio weapns - I am.... Or how we would explain flying this armada over Indonesia and back, one phone call from our well trusted friend in Indonesia and a few Aust cities fountain skywards. We dont explain it. because it isnt going to happen. Youre the one who says we're gonna be nuked. Im saying we wont. - or at least the risk is so LOW that its not justified spending money on NMD. which is an imperfect system. Korea is mountainous ... perfect territory for the F111 to fly down valleys underneath radar. and perfect profile to be downed by AAA, Manpads and Small arms. we wont be flying there anyway so forget about it. whats north korea got to fend this off? mig 21 fishbeds?? excuse me You are certainly excused for being an idiot, thats your parents fault. Personally, I'd be more concerned about NKs Mig 29s than the Mig 21s, but to each their own. Aircraft and weapons alone, an Airforce do not make ..... snips **** Hence the D for 'defence' in BMD, which funnily enough is pretty prominent in both 'ADF' and the 'DoD', you see, you pathetic lackwit it is the PRIMARY role of the ADF to DEFEND Australia, BMD fits EXACTLY into their job description. WRONG read the Defence Act .... and you will find that there is NO DEFINITION of "defence" and its one of the most contentious issues within Defence today, because the role of the ADF is not readily defined, or, atleast defined poorly Defence is the role of Government. The role of the ADF is to provide the largest array of military OPTIONS for the the SUPPORT OF (Governments) NATIONAL POLICY. big difference. http://www.ada.asn.au/policy1.htm snips **** How did they go over Iraq, oh, we couldn't send them could we... http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer and heres why snip 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 No, you are drawing conclusions from false data. no Im being realistic saying we wont be at war with North Korea. snip firstly, the difference, between you an me is that i am ready to be persuaded otherwise, on any issue, you however _arent_ The fact is that CAF Air Marshal Angus Houston says its too expensive to operate, weighed against this we have Carlo, the ultimate F-111 fanboy. and you, an idiot. CAF doest what government tells him to do Carlo, probably more aviation experience that you - and likewise myself (which isnt much aviation experience - compared to others in this group) secondly, i really really really cant be made a fool of my someone who hides behind a pseudonym, expecially one called "L'acrobat" You have been sweetheart, you have been. Lac-robat pseudonym |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... "L'acrobat" wrote in message ... "Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... 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." So, 3 years ago a bunch of guys who do not specialise in the field wrote a letter? 50 nobel laureates one would assume have more understanding of this than you or I. That is the kind of assumption that made the old ditty about "assume makes an 'ass' out of 'you and me'" accurate. That these folks have an *opinion* about such topics well outside their respective areas of expertise is understandable--that some folks place undue confidence in such opinions merely because of who they are is not. Brooks snip |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... "L'acrobat" wrote in message ... "Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... 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." So, 3 years ago a bunch of guys who do not specialise in the field wrote a letter? 50 nobel laureates one would assume have more understanding of this than you or I. Why?, it was written 3 years ago from older data than that and they never bothered updating it. Why not look for something a tad more recent? to be honest, I couldn't be stuffed, I'm not paranoid about being nuked. snips **** ie you are a bull****ter. what literature do you read besides the Beano? (Source: Royal Australian Air Force news; issued Dec. 2, 2003) "By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain." He (CAF Air Marshal Angus Houston) said the F-111 would not be withdrawn until Air Force had fully upgraded the F/A-18s and its weapons systems, and the AEW&Cs and tankers were in service. high cost after 2010, as opposed to ... what? B2? (which doesnt necessarily need a strike package assembled with it hence the associated costs of other aircraft) Cruise missiles, you know, the ones the RAAF are replacing the clapped out F-111s with. Already our AWACS have been cut in number .... maybe if we werent getting involved in NMD we could afford a "full" half a squadron. And wheres these tankers? nothings going ahead (ie metal being cut) as far as im aware - unlike our (albeit cropped) number of awacs. Or maybe not, the DoDs role is to defend us and you will note we are participating in the program not fully funding it ourselves. "The F/A-18 will be capable of dropping not only laser-guided precision munitions but also satellite-guided precision munitions and will also be capable of delivering a follow on stand off weapon, which will also be fitted to the AP-3C," he said. FA 18 is already capable of droping laser guided bombs. which is what were used in iraq. Reading comprehension failure "but also satellite-guided precision munitions and will also be capable of delivering a follow on stand off weapon" Typical australian defence policy ... usually reminicent of the Navy soon the airforce will be able to boast it.... "Equiped for, but not with." Above is crap. they are procuring cruise missiles. 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" BWWWAAAAHHHHHHHAAAAAAA, an article by Carlo "the F-111 is the ultimate weapon in the world, can do everything and cannot be defeated" Kopp? Carlo is in love with the F-111, he fails to factor in the point that an old, clapped out, expensive to operate plane like the F-111 isn't coming back from its missions - you will note Carlo doesn't ever speak of the attrition rate (or factor in that cost). Carlo also chooses not to compare the F-111 to cruise missiles, as that would require that he accept that the attrition rate imposed on F-111s in a modern air defence environment would be prohbitive. What ARE you going to launch these cruise missiles from? What is the cruise missiles radius? What is the TRANSIT time of the launch platform to get within strike distance? (especially if its a sub or ship) Can't you read? AP-3C and F/A-18 to start with. Take the B-52 for example, its over 50 years old, and all B52s flying today were built in the 60's, and they dont plan to retire it until sometime after 2020. by which time it will be over 75 years old. It is however mainly a cruise missile launcher (although has done ground strike in the gulf and kosovo). Jesus wept! we can't affort to operate B-52s either, so who cares. If everything could be done cost effectively by cruise missile we could probably get away with buying brand new civil aircraft 747's or 777's and modify them to be massive cruise missile platforms (it has been proposed by the yanks). Why hasnt it been done? Cost over a million dollars (US) a pop for a tomahawk. compared to 200,000 for a laser guided bomb (or less for a GPS guided, concrete filled one) - yes concrete. Yet you fail to factor in the system cost (as all the F-111 pundits do) of the F-111, for the cost of operating the F-111s (using Carlos 3% of the defence budget figure) we could buy around 470 cruise missiles a year and launch them from existing platforms. How many potential regional adveraries can take 1000 (3 years worth of F-111 operating budget with a bit shaved of for storage etc) precision guided missile hits? 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. I've read it, only the most uncritical of reader would accept it as anything more than the last dying gasp of an F-111 fan. sure youve read it Would you like me to quote it? it was a hoot! The RAAF are retiring it because it is getting to be too expensive to operate, Carlo needs to get over that and so do you. RAAFs retiring it because government wont cough up the money defence needs. and because of the enemies the F111 has in DFAT. No, its too expensive to operate, the Chief of the Air Force stated that. Conspiracy theories too, just how desperate can you get! You see, the RAAF have the actual operating costs on file and have done the long term studies on the a/c, Carlo hasn't. and you have No, its too expensive to operate, the Chief of the Air Force stated that - I believe him over a loon like you and a fanboy like Carlo. snips **** and the F-111 costs a fortune to operate, base, train with, and maintain you sad lackwit, and the F-111 is not coming back from any mission against a decent air defence system, jesus wept clownboy - we couldn't even send them to Iraq where the AD system had been bombed for a decade! oh for ****s sake you do talk such **** i bet everyone reading this is having a good laugh at you. I know I am. Yes, but then you are a congenital moron. How did our F-111s go in Iraq then? Surely they'd have been just the thing for there or Afghanistan, yet they couldn't go could they? it doesnt cost a fortune "By 2010 the F-111 will be almost 40 years old and studies suggest that beyond 2010 it will be a very high-cost platform to maintain." Yes it does. the f111 can will and has come back against decent air defences - in exercises - But can't go out when the enemy is real, can it? and is even more likely to considering the overwhelming ECM & ECCM support we would get in any "coalition" we'd participate in. But what if it isn't a coalition operation, then the F-111 is unable to fight. You might want to explain why it didn't go to Iraq or Afghanistan too, you know those well supported coalition ops that our F/A 18s attended? the reason why they werent sent to iraq is because of their capabilities they would have required to be tasked against heavily defended urban targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk civillian casualties, and wasnt prepared to foot the bill for the ammo expenditure (unless the yanks supplied it). http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer Ah yes, the well known defence publication "Wikipedia", however, I note that you left out the line "Running costs. The F-111 has twice the aircrew and burns twice as much jet fuel as an F/A-18, and requires a larger maintenance crew. " Surely if you are going to go with the expertise of Wikipedia, you have to go with all of it including the bits that say that it is too expensive to operate? However lets have a go at "the reason why they werent sent to iraq is because of their capabilities they would have required to be tasked against heavily defended urban targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk civillian casualties" Hmmm, in light of the fact that the Aust Govt was happy to tell the US that F/A 18s would not use certain munitions or engage certain targets and that the Australian a/c commander would always have the final word on if a target was to be engaged or not, the above is clearly bunk. Explain why you think Aust would be unable to apply Aust targeting considerations to an F-111 when they were able to apply them to F/A-18s? Operational costs (cost of bombs), the majority of the F-111 precision guided weapons would have been heavily degraded by smoke, F-111 is not cleared for JDAMs so it would have been restricted to dumb bombs or clear sky targets. Dumb bombs are cheap so it was not the cost of the bombload that prevented the F-111 deployment. 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. Given that we operated the F-111 it seems reasonable, now we won't operate it, so we will hang Tomahawk off of Orions, F/A-18s and possibly JSFs later on. if at all .. Its in the defence plan, F-111 isn't. 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 oD 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. I've read it, it's a joke - the fact that you rely on it simply shows what a credulous buffoon you are. i dont "rely" on it, merely using it as an example. hands up anyone in here who supports defence monies being spent on NMD instead of fixing holes in defence?? Hands up those who want to build a fortress without a roof, its been done before and didn't go well. yet our bomber would still cost a fortune to own, have no stealth features, be 40 years old and have so little survivability that we couldn't send it to hit targets in a country that had been bombed for 10 years. http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer Ah yes, the well known defence publication "Wikipedia", however, I note that you left out the line "Running costs. The F-111 has twice the aircrew and burns twice as much jet fuel as an F/A-18, and requires a larger maintenance crew. " Surely if you are going to go with the expertise of Wikipedia, you have to go with all of it including the bits that say that it is too expensive to operate? However lets have a go at "the reason why they werent sent to iraq is because of their capabilities they would have required to be tasked against heavily defended urban targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk civillian casualties" Hmmm, in light of the fact that the Aust Govt was happy to tell the US that F/A 18s would not use certain munitions or engage certain targets and that the Australian a/c commander would always have the final word on if a target was to be engaged or not, the above is clearly bunk. Explain why you think Aust would be unable to apply Aust targeting considerations to an F-111 when they were able to apply them to F/A-18s? Operational costs (cost of bombs), the majority of the F-111 precision guided weapons would have been heavily degraded by smoke, F-111 is not cleared for JDAMs so it would have been restricted to dumb bombs or clear sky targets. Dumb bombs are cheap so it was not the cost of the bombload that prevented the F-111 deployment. .. i doubt the NK air defence system is all that its cracked up to be. the countrys broke and yet if they detect our approach they can launch nukes at us and its in gods hands from there. if if if but if but but i dont think we're going to go to war with north korea anytime soon You raised the hypothetical and now are backing away from it because you hadn't thought it through. Nobody thought we were going to war with Japan either, yet we did. Nor did we expect our last war with Korea, Fortunately, the DoD don't care what you 'think', they plan on defending Aust. 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. but not against N Korea, in N Korea when they can launch nukes at us if there is one a/c detected - it is a unique a/c, so they'd know who to hit. i dont believe north korea can yet weaponise a ballistic missile with a nuclear weapon - yet. You don't believe, so we should wait until we know they can? nor do i believe they have a ballistic missile capable of reaching australia. So we should wait until a specific country that has already built and tested multi stage missiles actually demonstrates an ability to hit Aust before we consider aquiring a defence against anyones missiles? i dont believe they would nuke australia with a ballistic missile even if they had one. Fortunately, the DoD don't care what you 'think', they plan on defending Aust. we're one of the few countries they have diplomatic relations with and they wouldnt want to give that up. Which would explain the shipments of reasonably priced Heroin to Aust, just to help with diplomatic relations? You haven't addressed how pleased S Korea will be to have us flying bombers in and stirring up trouble in their backyard either, but then you don't do reality do you? You haven't addressed how pleased S Korea will be to have N Korea launching ballistic missiles at Australia and stirring up trouble in OUR backyard either, but then you don't do reality do you? I see you avoided the question, I'll answer yours - who cares how S Korea reacts to outbound nukes? If we don't have BMD by then its too late to care. So now tell us why the S Koreans and/or the Japanese would let us nuke N Korea in light of the fact that they would wear the fallout. If they did do something like that, (which i dont believe they will) Im sure S Korea and the United States AND China, would come down on N Korea like a ton of bricks .. Oh yes, I can see every one of those countries being prepared to risk losing a major city if Brisbane were nuked... I am firmly grouned in reality, which is why I think we wont be threatened with ballistic missiles. If you leave an obvious capability gap, a potential enemy will exploit it - N Korea (as the obvious example) has sacrificed a vast amount to develop nukes and to develop ballistic missiles. The odds are good that they will not go quietly. which .... is not to say however, that Im not worried about poliferation of missile technology and nuclear weapons, and bio weapns - I am.... Then the obvious first step is to put in place BMD. Or how we would explain flying this armada over Indonesia and back, one phone call from our well trusted friend in Indonesia and a few Aust cities fountain skywards. We dont explain it. because it isnt going to happen. Youre the one who says we're gonna be nuked. Im saying we wont. - or at least the risk is so LOW that its not justified spending money on NMD. which is an imperfect system. The odds may be low, but the consequences are so great that participating in NMD is justified - you seem to think we will be funding the entire project alone. Korea is mountainous ... perfect territory for the F111 to fly down valleys underneath radar. and perfect profile to be downed by AAA, Manpads and Small arms. we wont be flying there anyway so forget about it. Oh I see, you put up your hypothetical, get shown the facts and then try to back away from it as if it wasn't your justification. spineless. whats north korea got to fend this off? mig 21 fishbeds?? excuse me You are certainly excused for being an idiot, thats your parents fault. Personally, I'd be more concerned about NKs Mig 29s than the Mig 21s, but to each their own. Aircraft and weapons alone, an Airforce do not make ..... Avoiding the issue, the North Korean military is reasonably well funded and have hi tech fighters, you proposed sending 40 year old death traps against them. Hence the D for 'defence' in BMD, which funnily enough is pretty prominent in both 'ADF' and the 'DoD', you see, you pathetic lackwit it is the PRIMARY role of the ADF to DEFEND Australia, BMD fits EXACTLY into their job description. WRONG read the Defence Act .... and you will find that there is NO DEFINITION of "defence" and its one of the most contentious issues within Defence today, because the role of the ADF is not readily defined, or, atleast defined poorly Defence is the role of Government. The role of the ADF is to provide the largest array of military OPTIONS for the the SUPPORT OF (Governments) NATIONAL POLICY. big difference. http://www.ada.asn.au/policy1.htm The same weaselling **** I've come to expect from you. Defence does not need to be defined in the act you cretin. The word 'from' is not defined in the act, nor is 'go' yet they can be used in their common meanings as are all other 'common' terms in all acts. BTW "The role of the ADF is to provide the largest array of military OPTIONS for the the SUPPORT OF (Governments) NATIONAL POLICY." is NOT in the act, its from The Australia Defence Association, organised as a public company (ABN 16 083 007 390) limited by guarantee and established under the Corporations Act 2001 How did they go over Iraq, oh, we couldn't send them could we... http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Falconer and heres why Ah yes, the well known defence publication "Wikipedia", however, I note that you left out the line "Running costs. The F-111 has twice the aircrew and burns twice as much jet fuel as an F/A-18, and requires a larger maintenance crew. " Surely if you are going to go with the expertise of Wikipedia, you have to go with all of it including the bits that say that it is too expensive to operate? However lets have a go at "the reason why they werent sent to iraq is because of their capabilities they would have required to be tasked against heavily defended urban targets, the government wasnt prepared to risk civillian casualties" Hmmm, in light of the fact that the Aust Govt was happy to tell the US that F/A 18s would not use certain munitions or engage certain targets and that the Australian a/c commander would always have the final word on if a target was to be engaged or not, the above is clearly bunk. Explain why you think Aust would be unable to apply Aust targeting considerations to an F-111 when they were able to apply them to F/A-18s? Operational costs (cost of bombs), the majority of the F-111 precision guided weapons would have been heavily degraded by smoke, F-111 is not cleared for JDAMs so it would have been restricted to dumb bombs or clear sky targets. Dumb bombs are cheap so it was not the cost of the bombload that prevented the F-111 deployment. snip 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 No, you are drawing conclusions from false data. no Im being realistic saying we wont be at war with North Korea. North Korea is not the only potential threat, just a good current example. snip firstly, the difference, between you an me is that i am ready to be persuaded otherwise, on any issue, you however _arent_ The fact is that CAF Air Marshal Angus Houston says its too expensive to operate, weighed against this we have Carlo, the ultimate F-111 fanboy. and you, an idiot. CAF doest what government tells him to do Carlo, probably more aviation experience that you - and likewise myself (which isnt much aviation experience - compared to others in this group) So CAF lacks the integrity to stand up for his force or resign wheras Carlo, the ultimate F-111 fanboy, who doesn't have access to the actual F-111 operating figures, knows more than all the expertise that CAF has on call. Seek help. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
That is the kind of assumption that made the old ditty about "assume makes
an 'ass' out of 'you and me'" accurate. That these folks have an *opinion* about such topics well outside their respective areas of expertise is understandable--that some folks place undue confidence in such opinions merely because of who they are is not. Brooks well firstly we dont know what their areas of expertise are but from my point of view, their expressed opinion is merely common sense why spend money on a system which is at best technically difficult to achieve at all, with any degree of reliability. And, more to the point of this discussion, barely relevant to Australias Defence needs. Money would be better spend going elsewhere. September 11 showed that if/when an attack comes from a rogue state, I seriously doubt it will come by way of a ballistic missile. Probably more by way of a shipping container or small boat - or some other way yet imagined, against which, NMD is going to just be nothing more than an expensive paperweight. On a seperate and different note, and at the risk of being called an anti semite, israel and its supporters have a dirty little habit of using this same sort of excuse, by attacking anyone who critisizes their policies as being "unqualified" or "lacking the qualifications" to effect a critizism. as if lacking a qualification automatically makes ones opinions incorrect, regardless of the fact that they may be right .... I'd wonder what the voting system would look like if votes were counted in such a way, and how many people could be eligible to vote and those that couldnt ... Historys littered with people like that Italian Philosopher Bruno for example - burnt at the stake - had NO qualifications. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... That is the kind of assumption that made the old ditty about "assume makes an 'ass' out of 'you and me'" accurate. That these folks have an *opinion* about such topics well outside their respective areas of expertise is understandable--that some folks place undue confidence in such opinions merely because of who they are is not. Brooks well firstly we dont know what their areas of expertise are but from my point of view, their expressed opinion is merely common sense Mileage may differ. why spend money on a system which is at best technically difficult to achieve at all, with any degree of reliability. And, more to the point of this discussion, barely relevant to Australias Defence needs. Money would be better spend going elsewhere. I suspect that any money Australia spends will likely be spent in Australia. As to Australian needs, you might want to reconsider that rather large and sometimes prickly neighbor to your north. September 11 showed that if/when an attack comes from a rogue state, I seriously doubt it will come by way of a ballistic missile. Huh? More accurately what 9-11 showed was that attacks could come by any number of means, and not being prepared can be very dangerous indeed. The world of military threat analysis is predicated upon two principles--the most likely enemy course of action (COA), and the most *dangerous* enemy COA. Smart commanders are prepared to deal with both. I'd posit that incoming ballistic missiles ranks up there with the latter. Probably more by way of a shipping container or small boat - or some other way yet imagined, against which, NMD is going to just be nothing more than an expensive paperweight. Gee, then I guess your philosophy is, "Why bother with *any* defenses against any form of attack whatsoever?" Because you can make the statement that no matter where you dedicate your resources, another means of enemy attack might circumvent that effort. Why bother with beefing up your customs inspections procedures against your SCAS (Shipping Container Attack System... ) if it means the bad guys may just lob a missile instead?Sorry, but that kind of roll-over-and-just-give-up approach just does not make much sense to me. On a seperate and different note, and at the risk of being called an anti semite, israel and its supporters have a dirty little habit of using this same sort of excuse, by attacking anyone who critisizes their policies as being "unqualified" or "lacking the qualifications" to effect a critizism. Huh? Where in the hell did *that* come from? as if lacking a qualification automatically makes ones opinions incorrect, regardless of the fact that they may be right .... I'd wonder what the voting system would look like if votes were counted in such a way, and how many people could be eligible to vote and those that couldnt ... No, but neither do the opinions of Nobel laureate economists, medical doctors, and the like merit any greater consideration than that of the rank-and-file citizenry when it comes to issues outside their area of specialization. Historys littered with people like that Italian Philosopher Bruno for example - burnt at the stake - had NO qualifications. I am "assuming" that the last was an example of sleep-deprived keyboard rambling, 'cause your point, if there is one, is rather obscure. Brooks |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message . .. "Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... That is the kind of assumption that made the old ditty about "assume makes an 'ass' out of 'you and me'" accurate. That these folks have an *opinion* about such topics well outside their respective areas of expertise is understandable--that some folks place undue confidence in such opinions merely because of who they are is not. Brooks well firstly we dont know what their areas of expertise are but from my point of view, their expressed opinion is merely common sense Mileage may differ. why spend money on a system which is at best technically difficult to achieve at all, with any degree of reliability. And, more to the point of this discussion, barely relevant to Australias Defence needs. Money would be better spend going elsewhere. I suspect that any money Australia spends will likely be spent in Australia. As to Australian needs, you might want to reconsider that rather large and sometimes prickly neighbor to your north. which one? theres plenty part of the reason why we have F111's in the first place from what I recall. - and state of the art subs. I dont doubt that at the moment we could defeat an attack on our country by any south east asian nation. .... in 25 years from now however? Somehow I dont think that current defence policy (in terms of equipment and money) looks that far ahead unfortunately. September 11 showed that if/when an attack comes from a rogue state, I seriously doubt it will come by way of a ballistic missile. Huh? More accurately what 9-11 showed was that attacks could come by any number of means, and not being prepared can be very dangerous indeed. The world of military threat analysis is predicated upon two principles--the most likely enemy course of action (COA), and the most *dangerous* enemy COA. Smart commanders are prepared to deal with both. I'd posit that incoming ballistic missiles ranks up there with the latter. by any number of means, including probably your own - the anthrax terrorist for example. Anyone notice how THATS died down. Ballistic missiles are certainly one of the most dangerous - it is also the most expensive, technically complex option that not everyone can afford, and the most difficult to counter. And considering defence budgetary realities smart commanders are rarely prepared to deal with both. what 9-11 showed me is to be cautious of 2 things: "manufactured" terrorist events (anthrax bomber), the objectives of which are to shape certain events in the world. and terrorism for the sake of terrorism, (9,11 - bali) using asymetric methods, and increasingly sophisticated methods of operating to cause the biggest amout of damage on the "puniest" of resources - (german intelligence estimated that the 9-11 attacks probably cost less than 1 million to conduct). I have also become increasingly skeptical of the conduct of the war on terror, and the motives of the individuals conducting it. We need to be spending our money on combat capability in general - so called hardening, increasing the size of the special forces, becoming less reliant on allies, and geting some credible independent intelligence gathering capability in place. Also need some ability to strategically deploy and sustain forces, which means MRA and LST ships. we should look seriously at merging ASIS, DSD, ONA, DIGO and DIO into one all powerful, integrated national foriegn intelligence and cyptologic organisation. The same could be said for the following domestic agencies to be merged into a single national federal policing and security agency: ASIO, Federal Police, Customs/Coas****ch, Austrac, Crimtrac, Australian Protective Service, Critical Infrastructure Protection Group, NMPU, and the National Surveillence Centre. It would constitute the biggest reform of Australias security apperatus in decades, and would contribute major efficencies and savings that could be ploughed back into operations. Probably more by way of a shipping container or small boat - or some other way yet imagined, against which, NMD is going to just be nothing more than an expensive paperweight. Gee, then I guess your philosophy is, "Why bother with *any* defenses against any form of attack whatsoever?" Because you can make the statement that no matter where you dedicate your resources, another means of enemy attack might circumvent that effort. Why bother with beefing up your customs inspections procedures against your SCAS (Shipping Container Attack System... ) if it means the bad guys may just lob a missile instead?Sorry, but that kind of roll-over-and-just-give-up approach just does not make much sense to me. get real. I advocate a strong national defence, the core of which would be reform of australias border protection agencies as described above. Something that could contribute realworld security advantages here and now. I've also probably alone in this newsgroup advocated the re-aquisition of an aircraft carrier (or two) for the RAN. despite being shouted down at the "expense" - short of a proper carrier I'd go for the MRA (multirole Auxillery) or LSS (Littoral support ship) consepts the RAN has recently been advocating. The fact is, despite costing a billion or so dollars for an MRA, it is an infinately more "usable" asset than any NMD scheme. - that is, more liable to get more use, be more flexible and hence justify its cost. On a seperate and different note, and at the risk of being called an anti semite, israel and its supporters have a dirty little habit of using this same sort of excuse, by attacking anyone who critisizes their policies as being "unqualified" or "lacking the qualifications" to effect a critizism. Huh? Where in the hell did *that* come from? here we go ... fact is i get annoyed by people who use the argument that youre not qualified to make a contribution to a debate - PUBLIC debate at that! as if lacking a qualification automatically makes ones opinions incorrect, regardless of the fact that they may be right .... I'd wonder what the voting system would look like if votes were counted in such a way, and how many people could be eligible to vote and those that couldnt ... No, but neither do the opinions of Nobel laureate economists, medical doctors, and the like merit any greater consideration than that of the rank-and-file citizenry when it comes to issues outside their area of specialization. I suspect that they might be slightly more rational in forming an opinion. Fact is i'd be more easily persuaded by a letter signed by 50 nobel laureates, regardless of their area of specialisation, than 50 members of the "rank and file" citizenry, regardless of their area of specialisation. because you can be sure theres more people "qualified" to speak in the former, than the latter.. Historys littered with people like that Italian Philosopher Bruno for example - burnt at the stake - had NO qualifications. I am "assuming" that the last was an example of sleep-deprived keyboard rambling, 'cause your point, if there is one, is rather obscure. Brooks not really, he was one of the most profound minds in human history. Taught that everything is relative 400 years before einstein, said the stars were other suns, just like our own, and that they had planets like ours. http://en2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno (not a partuculary good article) he had no formal education. was a genius, was burnt at the stake for his beliefs. and only now looking back can people see how brilliant he was, in an age of superstition - despite being "unqualified" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 18 | January 3rd 05 03:57 AM |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |
[AU] Defence support for Bush visit | David Bromage | Military Aviation | 7 | October 23rd 03 05:04 AM |
Surface to Air Missile threat | PlanetJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 14th 03 02:13 PM |
Australia tries to rewrite history of Vietnam War | Evan Brennan | Military Aviation | 34 | July 18th 03 11:45 PM |