A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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

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

aging tankers to be replaced



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 23rd 03, 02:22 AM
s.p.i.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...
"s.p.i." wrote in message om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...
The United States spends more on defense than the entire continent of
Europe including Russia. We spend more than the entire continent
of Asia including China and India. We spend more on defense
than the top ten nations combined.
Going to your analogy, the Germans had less equipment than their enemies,
yet could win battles by better methods. The US does not face this challenge.


Ten years from now its entirely plausible that some wily potential
opponents in that region may well have the capacity to outmatch us in
terms of Concentration Of Force fi we had to meet them near or on
their home turf.


Of course the US can be outnumbered at a moments notice. The Chinese
could outnumber us in the Taiwan straights by tomorrow as could the
Nigerians in Benin. But whatever they sieze, they could not hold.

Maybe you could describe a reasonable scenerio where we cannot
put more resources on the battlefield than our enemy. Iraq #1 was an
almost worst case example, with a very well armed and experienced
opponent about as far from the US as one can be.

So, if you could offer a reasonable scenerio.



This one gives the gist anyway:
http://www.capitolsource.net/files/p...y_strategy.pdf
  #2  
Old August 23rd 03, 04:38 AM
Charles Talleyrand
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"s.p.i." wrote in message om...
"Charles Talleyrand" wrote in message ...
Maybe you could describe a reasonable scenerio where we cannot
put more resources on the battlefield than our enemy. Iraq #1 was an
almost worst case example, with a very well armed and experienced
opponent about as far from the US as one can be.

So, if you could offer a reasonable scenerio.



This one gives the gist anyway:
http://www.capitolsource.net/files/p...y_strategy.pdf


Boy what a boring read.

You're arguing that the Chinese will launch 'thousands' of ballistic
missiles with 'advanced conventional warheads'. I'm not really
worried about scenerios involving weapons that the Chinese don't
have and currently cannot even build, and that no other nation on
the planet has chosen to develop.

Maybe we should end this conversation. It's uninteresting.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

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

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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Boeing Boondoggle Larry Dighera Military Aviation 77 September 15th 04 03:39 AM
rec.aviation replaced by yahoo?? Steve Home Built 12 August 24th 03 07:37 PM
Israel may lease Boeing 767 tankers. Larry Dighera Military Aviation 0 August 8th 03 01:33 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.