Australia to participate in US missile defence program

[David Bromage]

Thursday, 4 December 2003
153/2003

AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM

The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the United
States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced
today.

Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the
most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not only be
in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum
opportunities for Australian industry.

These could include:
* Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of launch
and therefore get early warning of an impending attack.
* Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based and
ground-based sensors.
* Science and technology research development, testing and evaluation.
Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear
defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose was
to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore discourage
other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems.

Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the increasing
importance of missile defence in the 21st century.

"The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened
by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that
investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said.

"Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and
Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and
dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons.

"There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our decision
last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration phase
of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends, with
nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is the
potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile
defence program."

Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through hosting
a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the
Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station at
Pine Gap in the Northern Territory.

[Matt B]

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> Thursday, 4 December 2003
> 153/2003
>
> AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM
>
> The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the United
> States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced
> today.
>
> Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the
> most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not only be
> in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum
> opportunities for Australian industry.
>
> These could include:
> * Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of launch
> and therefore get early warning of an impending attack.
> * Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based and
> ground-based sensors.
> * Science and technology research development, testing and evaluation.
> Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear
> defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose was
> to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore discourage
> other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems.
>
> Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the increasing
> importance of missile defence in the 21st century.
>
> "The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened
> by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that
> investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said.
>
> "Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and
> Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and
> dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons.
>
> "There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our decision
> last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration phase
> of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends, with
> nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is the
> potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile
> defence program."
>
> Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through hosting
> a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the
> Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station at
> Pine Gap in the Northern Territory.
>

It's not the nuke attached to an ICBM that I'm worried about. It's the one
delivered to the centre of Sydney in the back of a beat up old white Toyota
Hiace van that concerns me.

[Bernardz]

In article >,
says...
> "David Bromage" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Thursday, 4 December 2003
> > 153/2003
> >
> > AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM
> >
> > The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the United
> > States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced
> > today.
> >
> > Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the
> > most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not only be
> > in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum
> > opportunities for Australian industry.
> >
> > These could include:
> > * Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of launch
> > and therefore get early warning of an impending attack.
> > * Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based and
> > ground-based sensors.
> > * Science and technology research development, testing and evaluation.
> > Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear
> > defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose was
> > to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore discourage
> > other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems.
> >
> > Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the increasing
> > importance of missile defence in the 21st century.
> >
> > "The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened
> > by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that
> > investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said.
> >
> > "Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and
> > Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and
> > dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons.
> >
> > "There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our decision
> > last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration phase
> > of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends, with
> > nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is the
> > potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile
> > defence program."
> >
> > Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through hosting
> > a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the
> > Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station at
> > Pine Gap in the Northern Territory.
> >
>
> It's not the nuke attached to an ICBM that I'm worried about. It's the one
> delivered to the centre of Sydney in the back of a beat up old white Toyota
> Hiace van that concerns me.
>
>
>
>


Still no reason to ignore the ICBM threat. Just means that we have to
also check out for you that old white Toyota Hiace van.

--
Intelligence does not imply reason or purpose

17th saying of Bernard

[The Enlightenment]

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> Thursday, 4 December 2003
> 153/2003
>
> AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM
>
> The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the
United
> States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill
announced
> today.


What are the emrging threats to Australia in regards to ICBMs.

I can only think of the mad dog of the region Nth Korea and our
involvement as US allie.


>
> Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the
> most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not
only be
> in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum
> opportunities for Australian industry.
>
> These could include:
> * Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of
launch
> and therefore get early warning of an impending attack.
> * Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based
and
> ground-based sensors.
> * Science and technology research development, testing and
evaluation.
> Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear
> defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose
was
> to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore
discourage
> other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems.
>
> Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the
increasing
> importance of missile defence in the 21st century.
>
> "The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be
threatened
> by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes
that
> investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said.
>
> "Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and
> Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and
> dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons.
>
> "There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our
decision
> last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration
phase
> of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends,
with
> nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is
the
> potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile
> defence program."
>
> Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through
hosting
> a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the
> Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station
at
> Pine Gap in the Northern Territory.
>

[Chad Irby]

In article >,
"The Enlightenment" > wrote:

> What are the emrging threats to Australia in regards to ICBMs.
>
> I can only think of the mad dog of the region Nth Korea and our
> involvement as US allie.

....and China.

....and Iran.

....and all of the rest of those wonderful people in your hemisphere.

(And if you don't think of China as a standalone threat in the future,
you haven't been paying attention)

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[miso]

The best way to deter those ICBMs is to have a few of your own. Since
it is pretty easy to trace the incoming ICBMs, there is no question as
to who to nuke. Since few like to be turned into toast, the odds of
the enemy launching are pretty slim.

Now the smuggled bomb is another story.

Bernardz > wrote in message news:<MPG.1a39c03d15838be498977e@news>...
> In article >,
> says...
> > "David Bromage" > wrote in message
> > .. .
> > > Thursday, 4 December 2003
> > > 153/2003
> > >
> > > AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM
> > >
> > > The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the United
> > > States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced
> > > today.
> > >
> > > Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the
> > > most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not only be
> > > in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum
> > > opportunities for Australian industry.
> > >
> > > These could include:
> > > * Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of launch
> > > and therefore get early warning of an impending attack.
> > > * Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based and
> > > ground-based sensors.
> > > * Science and technology research development, testing and evaluation.
> > > Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear
> > > defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose was
> > > to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore discourage
> > > other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems.
> > >
> > > Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the increasing
> > > importance of missile defence in the 21st century.
> > >
> > > "The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened
> > > by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that
> > > investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said.
> > >
> > > "Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and
> > > Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and
> > > dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons.
> > >
> > > "There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our decision
> > > last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration phase
> > > of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends, with
> > > nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is the
> > > potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile
> > > defence program."
> > >
> > > Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through hosting
> > > a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the
> > > Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station at
> > > Pine Gap in the Northern Territory.
> > >
> >
> > It's not the nuke attached to an ICBM that I'm worried about. It's the one
> > delivered to the centre of Sydney in the back of a beat up old white Toyota
> > Hiace van that concerns me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> Still no reason to ignore the ICBM threat. Just means that we have to
> also check out for you that old white Toyota Hiace van.

[Chad Irby]

Hobo > wrote:

> Even worse, imagine a bunch of people in a basement working on a gun
> device nuke. When ready they set a timer and leave the city. If the
> device doesn't work they return to make ready a second attempt and keep
> doing so until they succeed.

Anyone with the resources to get a big chunk of fissionable material
shouldn't have to muck around too much with making it work.

The world has been really fortunate that most of the really nasty folks
- the sort that would happily detonate such a weapon - are too dim to
manage something that complicated.

Our first warning that a terror organization has a big chunk of
fissionable material will probably be radiation detectors going off well
downwind from an accidental critical mass.

--
cirby at cfl.rr.com

Remember: Objects in rearview mirror may be hallucinations.
Slam on brakes accordingly.

[Thomas Schoene]

Hobo wrote:
> In article >,
> "Matt B" > wrote:
>
>>
>> It's not the nuke attached to an ICBM that I'm worried about. It's
>> the one delivered to the centre of Sydney in the back of a beat up
>> old white Toyota Hiace van that concerns me.
>
> Even worse, imagine a bunch of people in a basement working on a gun
> device nuke. When ready they set a timer and leave the city. If the
> device doesn't work they return to make ready a second attempt and
> keep doing so until they succeed.

If a gun device fails, I'd expect to see the bits blown over a fairly wide
area. Any random group of terrorists should be able to manage the
electronics for a gun fission weapon, so it's nearly impossible to imagine
the explosive not firing. After that, you simply have varying degrees of
fizzle.

--
Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail
"If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing
special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed)

[Scott Ferrin]

On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:13:10 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:

>Hobo wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "Matt B" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It's not the nuke attached to an ICBM that I'm worried about. It's
>>> the one delivered to the centre of Sydney in the back of a beat up
>>> old white Toyota Hiace van that concerns me.
>>
>> Even worse, imagine a bunch of people in a basement working on a gun
>> device nuke. When ready they set a timer and leave the city. If the
>> device doesn't work they return to make ready a second attempt and
>> keep doing so until they succeed.
>
>If a gun device fails, I'd expect to see the bits blown over a fairly wide
>area. Any random group of terrorists should be able to manage the
>electronics for a gun fission weapon, so it's nearly impossible to imagine
>the explosive not firing. After that, you simply have varying degrees of
>fizzle.


Why fizzle? No convenient neutron source to kick start it?

[L'acrobat]

"The Enlightenment" > wrote in message
...
>
> "David Bromage" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > Thursday, 4 December 2003
> > 153/2003
> >
> > AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM
> >
> > The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the
> United
> > States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill
> announced
> > today.
>
>
> What are the emrging threats to Australia in regards to ICBMs.
>
> I can only think of the mad dog of the region Nth Korea and our
> involvement as US allie.

You seem to be forgetting the fact that we are already off N Koreas Xmas
card list for being so rude as to use our military to prevent the delivery
of large amounts of reasonably priced heroin here.

[Jim Yanik]

Scott Ferrin > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 05 Dec 2003 21:13:10 GMT, "Thomas Schoene"
> wrote:
>
>>Hobo wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> "Matt B" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's not the nuke attached to an ICBM that I'm worried about. It's
>>>> the one delivered to the centre of Sydney in the back of a beat up
>>>> old white Toyota Hiace van that concerns me.
>>>
>>> Even worse, imagine a bunch of people in a basement working on a gun
>>> device nuke. When ready they set a timer and leave the city. If the
>>> device doesn't work they return to make ready a second attempt and
>>> keep doing so until they succeed.
>>
>>If a gun device fails, I'd expect to see the bits blown over a fairly
>>wide area. Any random group of terrorists should be able to manage
>>the electronics for a gun fission weapon, so it's nearly impossible to
>>imagine the explosive not firing. After that, you simply have varying
>>degrees of fizzle.
>
>
> Why fizzle? No convenient neutron source to kick start it?

If they get the critical mass figured wrong,it could 'fizzle' while they
are assembling it,or after firing the 'gun',the mass is not enough to
sustain fission long enough to explode,but still enough to 'fizzle'.Either
way,they would not be -reusing- the fissile material to begin another
bomb;they would not live long enough,it would be highly radioactive.This
happened in Japan,where reprocessing techs "messed up" and had a
fizzle.IIRC,the techs died.

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

[iCentral]

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> Thursday, 4 December 2003
> 153/2003
>
> AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM
>
> The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the United
> States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced
> today.
>
> Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the
> most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not only be
> in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum
> opportunities for Australian industry.
>
> These could include:
> * Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of launch
> and therefore get early warning of an impending attack.
> * Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based and
> ground-based sensors.
> * Science and technology research development, testing and evaluation.
> Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear
> defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose was
> to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore discourage
> other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems.
>
> Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the increasing
> importance of missile defence in the 21st century.
>
> "The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened
> by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that
> investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said.
>
> "Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and
> Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and
> dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons.
>
> "There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our decision
> last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration phase
> of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends, with
> nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is the
> potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile
> defence program."
>
> Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through hosting
> a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the
> Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station at
> Pine Gap in the Northern Territory.

We need to reinvent ourselves without the US.
It's time we grew up.

troy
>

[RT]

iCentral wrote in message
>...
>
>"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
>> Thursday, 4 December 2003
>> 153/2003
>>
>> AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM
>>
>> The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the United
>> States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced
>> today.
>>
>> Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the
>> most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not only be
>> in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum
>> opportunities for Australian industry.
>>
>> These could include:
>> * Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of launch
>> and therefore get early warning of an impending attack.
>> * Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based and
>> ground-based sensors.
>> * Science and technology research development, testing and evaluation.
>> Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear
>> defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose was
>> to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore discourage
>> other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems.
>>
>> Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the increasing
>> importance of missile defence in the 21st century.
>>
>> "The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened
>> by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that
>> investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said.
>>
>> "Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and
>> Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and
>> dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons.
>>
>> "There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our decision
>> last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration phase
>> of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends, with
>> nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is the
>> potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile
>> defence program."
>>
>> Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through hosting
>> a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the
>> Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station at
>> Pine Gap in the Northern Territory.
>
>We need to reinvent ourselves without the US.
>It's time we grew up.

Yes, it's time you did.

Do a few basic monetary/economic sums based on a primary production economy
situated in the 2nd driest continent about as far as possible from the rest
of the land masses with a population of 20 million now effectively so
urbanised they believe milk comes from cardboard boxes and are huddled on
the beach and tell me again how "We need to reinvent ourselves without the
US.
It's time we grew up."

You drooling f'ing idiot.

Lot of Kiwi in you, eh?

[John Ewing]

"RT" > wrote in message
...
>
> iCentral wrote in message
> >...
> >
> >"David Bromage" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> Thursday, 4 December 2003
> >> 153/2003
> >>
> >> AUSTRALIA TO PARTICIPATE IN US MISSILE DEFENCE PROGRAM
> >>
> >> The Government has decided that Australia will participate in the
United
> >> States' missile defence program, Defence Minister Robert Hill announced
> >> today.
> >>
> >> Senator Hill said Australia was working with the US to determine the
> >> most appropriate forms of Australian participation that will not only
be
> >> in our strategic defence interests but also provide maximum
> >> opportunities for Australian industry.
> >>
> >> These could include:
> >> * Expanded cooperation to help detect missiles at the point of launch
> >> and therefore get early warning of an impending attack.
> >> * Acquisition of, or other cooperation in the fields of, ship-based and
> >> ground-based sensors.
> >> * Science and technology research development, testing and evaluation.
> >> Senator Hill said the missile defence program was a non-nuclear
> >> defensive system that did not threaten other countries. Its purpose
was
> >> to be able to negate a ballistic missile threat and therefore
discourage
> >> other countries from investing in ballistic missile systems.
> >>
> >> Defence Update 2003, released in February, foreshadowed the increasing
> >> importance of missile defence in the 21st century.
> >>
> >> "The Government is concerned that Australia might one day be threatened
> >> by long range missiles with mass destruction effect and believes that
> >> investment in defensive measures is important," Senator Hill said.
> >>
> >> "Developing this capability will contribute to global, regional and
> >> Australia security by offering protection from missile attack and
> >> dissuading nations from acquiring or developing such weapons.
> >>
> >> "There will also be opportunities for Australian industry. Our
decision
> >> last year to invest in the systems development and demonstration phase
> >> of the Joint Strike Fighter program is already paying dividends, with
> >> nine contracts awarded to Australian companies to date. There is the
> >> potential for similar benefits from our involvement in the missile
> >> defence program."
> >>
> >> Australia has had a long involvement in missile defence through hosting
> >> a ballistic missile early warning ground station for 29 years as the
> >> Joint Defence Facility Nurrungar and now as the relay ground station at
> >> Pine Gap in the Northern Territory.
> >
> >We need to reinvent ourselves without the US.
> >It's time we grew up.
>
> Yes, it's time you did.
>
> Do a few basic monetary/economic sums based on a primary production
economy
> situated in the 2nd driest continent about as far as possible from the
rest
> of the land masses with a population of 20 million now effectively so
> urbanised they believe milk comes from cardboard boxes and are huddled on
> the beach and tell me again how "We need to reinvent ourselves without the
> US.
> It's time we grew up."
>
> You drooling f'ing idiot.
>
> Lot of Kiwi in you, eh?

Well, even if I totally disagreed with his assessment I see more value in
debating the issue than a moronic personal attack.

I am still waiting for Howard to say 'no' just once to a Bush proposal. And
I am not holding my breath.

Cheers,
John

[L'acrobat]

"John Ewing" <none@needed> wrote in message
u...

>
> Well, even if I totally disagreed with his assessment I see more value in
> debating the issue than a moronic personal attack.
>
> I am still waiting for Howard to say 'no' just once to a Bush proposal.
And
> I am not holding my breath.

and what would that achieve?

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

Should Howard tell Bush to get stuffed just so people who haven't thought
the subject through, are placated?

Perhaps Cardinal Pell should tell the Pope to FOAD on the issue of gay
marriges on the same basis?

[John Ewing]

"L'acrobat" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Ewing" <none@needed> wrote in message
> u...
>
> >
> > Well, even if I totally disagreed with his assessment I see more value
in
> > debating the issue than a moronic personal attack.
> >
> > I am still waiting for Howard to say 'no' just once to a Bush proposal.
> And
> > I am not holding my breath.
>
> and what would that achieve?
>
> 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!

> Should Howard tell Bush to get stuffed just so people who haven't thought
> the subject through, are placated?

No - you've lost me with that one. I just believe Howard should not feel
obligated to follow every proposal put forward by the US. Perhaps you are
more confident than me that Howard has always placed Australia's interests
ahead of keeping the US on side. Missile defence as an effective strategy
has been challenged by more brilliant minds than yours or mine. Be
interesting to know whose technical advice Mr Howard sought? Or did the US
conveniently provide that for us as well.

> Perhaps Cardinal Pell should tell the Pope to FOAD on the issue of gay
> marriges on the same basis?

By all means - if that suits your argument. I certainly wouldn't look to
the church for examples of moral leadership or freedom of speech. Never had
a good record for tolerance of other people's views.

Cheers,
John

[Ian Godfrey]

i think the whole missile defence thing is a crock

theres not the slightest bit of evidence it'd work

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.


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

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.

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

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.

by the way ....
read in the news today
germanys selling nuclear reactors to china ....

[L'acrobat]

"John Ewing" <none@needed> wrote in message
u...

> >
> > 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?

>
> > Should Howard tell Bush to get stuffed just so people who haven't
thought
> > the subject through, are placated?
>
> No - you've lost me with that one. I just believe Howard should not feel
> obligated to follow every proposal put forward by the US. Perhaps you are
> more confident than me that Howard has always placed Australia's interests
> ahead of keeping the US on side.

This will come as a shock to you, but it is in Australias interest to keep
the US on side, the fact that doing so requires doing the very things that
Howard believes in should be no surprise - they are both conservatives,
which part of that don't you get?

> Missile defence as an effective strategy
> has been challenged by more brilliant minds than yours or mine. Be
> interesting to know whose technical advice Mr Howard sought? Or did the
US
> conveniently provide that for us as well.

The old 'bomber will always get through' crowds argument resurfaces, they
were right, for as long as nobody tried to stop the bomber.

N Korea has already made a number of suggestions that they have nukes and
missiles and are prepared to use them, how is it unwise to spend some of our
money trying to stop them?

The point is BMD doesn't have to be 100% effective, to be effective. it just
has to make sure that the enemy can't be assured of a one shot, one kill
capability.

>
> > Perhaps Cardinal Pell should tell the Pope to FOAD on the issue of gay
> > marriges on the same basis?
>
> By all means - if that suits your argument. I certainly wouldn't look to
> the church for examples of moral leadership or freedom of speech. Never
had
> a good record for tolerance of other people's views.

You are the one arguing that a conservative should disagree with a
conservative just to show he disagrees.

[The CO]

"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

"...and I told Orville and I told Wilbur, that thing will never
fly......"

Better minds than ours appear to think otherwise. Probably won't be
100% effective but then
what is? If they lauch say, 10 missiles at us and some, say 3 fail in
some phase (unlikely they will all work perfectly either)
and it gets 5 of those that don't, well would you rather have 2 nukes to
clean up after or 7? Nothings certain or perfect
but it seems to me that it's worth a go. No real down side, and if it
*does* work we are at worst safer than we were.
Note that I don't consider whining from Indonesia and Malaysia to be a
'real down side'..

The CO

[Ian Godfrey]

"The CO" > 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
>
> "...and I told Orville and I told Wilbur, that thing will never
> fly......"
>
> Better minds than ours appear to think otherwise. Probably won't be
> 100% effective but then
> what is? If they lauch say, 10 missiles at us and some, say 3 fail in
> some phase (unlikely they will all work perfectly either)
> and it gets 5 of those that don't, well would you rather have 2 nukes to
> clean up after or 7? Nothings certain or perfect
> but it seems to me that it's worth a go. No real down side, and if it
> *does* work we are at worst safer than we were.




> Note that I don't consider whining from Indonesia and Malaysia to be a
> 'real down side'..

neither do i.
they complain we got F111s

theyd whine more if we got a squadron of Airbus multirole tanker transports,
and a damn sight louder than if we were just participating in missile
defence.

thats something i'd pay money for just for the fun of it. regardless of the
defence benefits to be able to extend the range of the f111 and bring all
those flanker bases in the region to heel.









>
> The CO
>
>

[L'acrobat]

"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....

[Ben James]

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

>
>"John Ewing" <none@needed> wrote in message
u...
>
>> >
>> > 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?

[Ben James]

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.

[L'acrobat]

"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.

[Jim Yanik]

"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

[Ian Godfrey]

"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 re: 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

******!



>
>
>

[Ian Godfrey]

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.
>
>

[L'acrobat]

"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 re: 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.

[L'acrobat]

"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.

[Kevin Brooks]

"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>

[Jim Yanik]

"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

[Ian Godfrey]

"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 re: 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"







>
>

[Dave Kearton]

"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

[L'acrobat]

"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 re: 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.

[Ian Godfrey]

"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

[Kevin Brooks]

"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>

[L'acrobat]

"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.

[Ian Godfrey]

> 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.

[Kevin Brooks]

"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

>
>

[Ian Godfrey]

"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"






> >
> >
>
>

[[email protected]]

Ian Godfrey said the following on 9/12/2003 4:05 PM:

> 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.

I thought that was a perfect availability record, not a prefect
survivability record.