If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"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.... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 18:10:15 +1100, "L'acrobat"
wrote: "John Ewing" none@needed wrote in message . au... Bush and Howard are both conservatives, in general terms they believe in the same things. I'd have to say your statement is generally true! Then why would you expect Howard to disagree with him? He never said he did! What bit of "I'm not holding my breath waiting" escaped you dimwit? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"L'acrobat" wrote in message ... "Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... i think the whole missile defence thing is a crock theres not the slightest bit of evidence it'd work Except of course for the times that they have done it. youre an ingnorant ******, you know that dont you go out an read up on NMD http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0706-01.htm http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/ besides seems like its something you need to rely on much better intelligence to see know when/where a missile might actually be launched to get your assets in place to shoot it down. I see you've not heard of Radar. ****** and where your assets must be depends on the asset itself and what phase you intend to go for the kill in. ****** the money wasted on this white elephant would be better spent on either something like a couple of airbus multirole tanker transports to support our strategic strike force of f111s or a couple of recon sattelites to get some independent sattelite capability Yes, a great idea we can pour money into a force that has never had to strike anything and is a money sponge, that, at best might bomb missile silos after the missiles have launched or a sattelite capability so we can watch the launch, but not stop it. ignoramus ****** the F111 is, cheap. try to get any other aircraft to do the same thing and the RAAF would be paying more than twice as much I could supply material to shoot your argument that the F111 is a money sponge out of the water. whod wait till after a launch to bomb a silo? you? ******! I'm yet to be convinced that either approach is productive. youre a ****** besides we've got our own nuclear reactor, and soon to get a new one. ANSTO, the australian nuclear science and technology organisation employs about 150 scientists. they dont build bombs, but they DO do research into the nuclear bomb designs of foriegn countries. We have a network of seismic stations around australia that monitor the global test ban treaty. Any bombs that go off anywhere around the world register on those stations equipment. - Our scientists at ANSTO learn a great deal about the bombs design, yeild etc from those signatures. we could easily (from a technical/engineering) point of view go nuclear if we so desired. - politically however we might find it difficult internationally. Lesson is if anyone drops a bomb on us, and we know who it is, we could sure as hell drop a couple back - quite easily. and im sure that we could "out produce" some of these threshold states. Unless it occurred to them to nuke Lucas Heights (with the added bonus of getting Holsworthy free)... unless unless unless unless they took out your proposed NMD system in our country with a 50 ton fertiliser truck bomb and we've got the nuclear capable plane to do it. the f111 Or Amberley. or your house maybe i'd support that ******! point is however .... you need the range and intelligence multirole tanker (dont expect the yanks to lend us one if we we gonna use it on a nuke mission because someone exploded a bomb in sydney harbour) sattelite imagery (dont expect them or anyone else to provide us with up to date intel either) missile defence is an absolute waste of taxpayer monies imho its a typically ammerhicun approach of trying to solve a problem, without bothering to remove the problem in the first intance. Your "solution" gives us an ability to strike back 6 months to a year after we are struck, if our sattelite detected the launch, if they didn't nuke ANSTO, if they didn't nuke Amberley and if they are prepared to wait until we develop and test a nuke and if they don't have a moderately effective air defence system that they can use to bring down a 40 year old design. You're a ****** I don't think anyone in here would belive it'd take 6 months to plan an airstrike. and if you know it's coming, take it out first before a launch. I'd even consider doing it deniably. cost: NMD = untold billions and debt for generations under current financial arrangements airstrike = paltry millions your concept of intelligence collection is crap sats. your 40 year old design F111 achieved a perfect record flying against some of the worlds most advanced air defences and combat pilots in recent exercises in the united states. ******! Hmmmm. waiter on second thoughts, I'll have a double portion of that BMD thanks.... its coming out of your pocket, not mine ******! |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... "L'acrobat" wrote in message ... "Ian Godfrey" wrote in message ... i think the whole missile defence thing is a crock theres not the slightest bit of evidence it'd work Except of course for the times that they have done it. youre an ingnorant ******, you know that dont you go out an read up on NMD http://www.commondreams.org/news2000/0706-01.htm The "progressive newswire" yep I really believe that they lack bias, their webpage is a whingefest you ****ing goose. http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/nmd/ I see you've not read the FAS article. besides seems like its something you need to rely on much better intelligence to see know when/where a missile might actually be launched to get your assets in place to shoot it down. I see you've not heard of Radar. ****** Dickhead. and where your assets must be depends on the asset itself and what phase you intend to go for the kill in. ****** Dickhead. the money wasted on this white elephant would be better spent on either something like a couple of airbus multirole tanker transports to support our strategic strike force of f111s or a couple of recon sattelites to get some independent sattelite capability Yes, a great idea we can pour money into a force that has never had to strike anything and is a money sponge, that, at best might bomb missile silos after the missiles have launched or a sattelite capability so we can watch the launch, but not stop it. ignoramus ****** the F111 is, cheap. Bwahhhh hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! The F111 is getting the axe because it is too expensive to operate you pig ignorant cocksucker. try to get any other aircraft to do the same thing and the RAAF would be paying more than twice as much I see you've not heard of cruise missiles you clown. I could supply material to shoot your argument that the F111 is a money sponge out of the water. Yet you chose not to and the DoD who have the actual figures to hand have chosen the axe the white elephant and go with cruise missiles, why is it that against that expertise you come out looking like a fool? whod wait till after a launch to bomb a silo? you? So you are going to launch F-111s to preemptively strike silos? on what basis and how will they both reach N Korea and why do you think they will be able to penetrate the NK air defence system given their age? ******! Lackwit! I'm yet to be convinced that either approach is productive. youre a ****** Not very good at arguing the point are you, you sad pathetic buffoon. besides we've got our own nuclear reactor, and soon to get a new one. ANSTO, the australian nuclear science and technology organisation employs about 150 scientists. they dont build bombs, but they DO do research into the nuclear bomb designs of foriegn countries. We have a network of seismic stations around australia that monitor the global test ban treaty. Any bombs that go off anywhere around the world register on those stations equipment. - Our scientists at ANSTO learn a great deal about the bombs design, yeild etc from those signatures. we could easily (from a technical/engineering) point of view go nuclear if we so desired. - politically however we might find it difficult internationally. Lesson is if anyone drops a bomb on us, and we know who it is, we could sure as hell drop a couple back - quite easily. and im sure that we could "out produce" some of these threshold states. Unless it occurred to them to nuke Lucas Heights (with the added bonus of getting Holsworthy free)... unless unless unless unless they took out your proposed NMD system in our country with a 50 ton fertiliser truck bomb They don't work well agains silo mounted weapons, let alone dispersed silos, but then facts are not you gig are they. and we've got the nuclear capable plane to do it. the f111 Or Amberley. or your house maybe i'd support that ******! Yawn, you don't seem to be able to keep up, do you? point is however .... you need the range and intelligence multirole tanker (dont expect the yanks to lend us one if we we gonna use it on a nuke mission because someone exploded a bomb in sydney harbour) sattelite imagery (dont expect them or anyone else to provide us with up to date intel either) missile defence is an absolute waste of taxpayer monies imho its a typically ammerhicun approach of trying to solve a problem, without bothering to remove the problem in the first intance. Your "solution" gives us an ability to strike back 6 months to a year after we are struck, if our sattelite detected the launch, if they didn't nuke ANSTO, if they didn't nuke Amberley and if they are prepared to wait until we develop and test a nuke and if they don't have a moderately effective air defence system that they can use to bring down a 40 year old design. You're a ****** I don't think anyone in here would belive it'd take 6 months to plan an airstrike. and if you know it's coming, take it out first before a launch. What a sad fool you are, where whould the nukes come from dickhead? I'd even consider doing it deniably. Since it would never get near the target and the ability to make the nukes would get nuked on day one, it would certainly be deniable. cost: NMD = untold billions and debt for generations under current financial arrangements airstrike = paltry millions An airstrike wouldn't make it to the target and the F-111 is too costly to operate, ask the DoD who have axed it on that basis. your concept of intelligence collection is crap sats. your 40 year old design F111 achieved a perfect record flying against some of the worlds most advanced air defences and combat pilots in recent exercises in the united states. In an exercise. I'm so impressed. Did they launch unsupported strikes against an air defence system simulating N Korea? did they cover the distance between Darwin and North Korea alone, carrying a bodged up nuke that we hope will work? ******! Dickhead. Hmmmm. waiter on second thoughts, I'll have a double portion of that BMD thanks.... its coming out of your pocket, not mine ******! Dickhead. You aren't very bright, but you are entertaining - feel free to come back and be made a fool of again. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"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. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Australia | Badwater Bill | Home Built | 18 | January 3rd 05 03:57 AM |
Australia F111 to be scrapped!! | John Cook | Military Aviation | 35 | November 10th 03 11:46 PM |
[AU] Defence support for Bush visit | David Bromage | Military Aviation | 7 | October 23rd 03 05:04 AM |
Surface to Air Missile threat | PlanetJ | Instrument Flight Rules | 1 | August 14th 03 02:13 PM |
Australia tries to rewrite history of Vietnam War | Evan Brennan | Military Aviation | 34 | July 18th 03 11:45 PM |