America The Free, America The Proud, America The Terror

[Mental Liberator]

I'm going to have to disaggree with you there.
When you get aids it may be because of you having sex without a condom but like what if it was my accident? like come on man, you would like to see people die because they made a mistake or something broke because it was defective? I'm worry but I find that sick, it's like me not caring that you got a bullet in the chest because you were doing something stupid and just by chance somebody felt like shooting you. I'm sure your view on thsi would change if you get aids yourself.

Chris

Sorry, I forgot about that one too. You're right.

Um Excuse me? When Did I say I hated my country? I was posting a debate about how our government works. In my opinion I dont like how it works, I never said that the country as a whole sucks. I would appreciate it if you people would stop spamming up the topic with "arh arh yur toopid, UsA R D roxx0r!" -_-

And now back on topic.. The war in Iraq.. Did we ever even Find anything There? We captured Saddam, Got thousands of soldiers killed, And all just to set up a new government for them? My best friends husband is in Iraq as I am typing this message to you, And every single person he comes in contact over there says they wish america would just leave them alone. Why are we still over there? They can support themselves already. The media likes to overdramatize the current topic that has everybodies attention until something better comes along. The only reason I think bush is over there is to finish daddies work. That and the whole oil debate, Hes had plans on the oil there from the start, everyone knows that iraq is rich in it.

And I too would like to see all the nukes gone, But we know this isnt going to be happening =\ I say, We all get in our own private little space things, that grow plants, and reginerate atoms from space waste into edible food, changes what we exhale into oxygen, and sale off into the preverbial horizon

Yes, it is stupid of us to still be over there, but I really don't think they can support themselves without our help yet, I mean there are still suicide car bombs and ect.

I like this topic, so here's my 2p.

1st of, the reason we have nukes is to keep the peace, and any doubters of that can look at the cold war.

Fact, During the cold war Russia had about 17000 nukes, the USA had about 13000. Big huge numbers, but that was the point. They used MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. If either Russia or the USA initially lauched a nuke the other country could wipe the floor with it's surviving nukes. I.E BOTH COUNTRIES WOULD BE ForKED! and why it is a detereant. This is the case with nuclear powers still having stock piles of nukes. It is pointless to say that we should get rid of them all, because alien nations (and thats exactly what they are) have completely different goals or imperial ambitions (pointing a finger here to China).

Over here in Britain we have 400 nukes. Most of the strategical ones (of which there are 200) are built into the hills. You would never be able to see them. The reason I know this is because my dad was the joiner (or carpenter depending on where you come from) during the construction of the gates covering them. These are made of solid wood then covered in concreate. Above that soil covers the hatch and grass is left to grow back over it. Result - noone knows it's there. When they go to lauch the nukes the internal wooden gate is opened by explosives and pushes the soil and concreate into the air, then the missile is lauched. Pretty neat ehh?

The other 200 nukes are tacticle warheads mostly kept on our trident submarines. No-one can detect them once submerged, not even the Americans and thats the good part about that plan. Again it works on MAD. Our Trident submarines mostly patrol Chinese and Russian waters so if they ever decide to have a ball with there nukes, we can retaliate imidiately and so keeps the peace.

With respect to China (someone mentioned it before), they have nukes, they have openly said that they want to challenge America. There Economy is booming and they have far more natrual resources than America. There population is five times greater and they do have a Imperialistic and Comunist goverment. Now what do you think is going to happen? There Military is also rapidly advancing have a look at the Type -98 tanks, better than the USA's Abrihams and the UK's Challenger II's. There new targeting gear on there fighter planes are also far more advanced than the F16s'. A lot of you will not believe, but go and have a wee look.

It doesn't cost China anywhere near the amount it costs the USA or the UK to upkeep it's military. This is mostly due to low labour pay.

I'm not Anti-American, but America is not invinsible, and the people at the top know it. They know that China is a huge power and it is only a question of when, and not if, they become a super power to rival the USA. Hence the reason for the USA's continued military advancement and space conquest.

Look into the past. At one point Britian was the Super Power not to mess with. No other country in the world had increased it's wealth and such a rate while still financing a global war (and financing other countries, notably Prussia Austria and Germany) with Napoleons empire. That so easily went down the drain during the 1st and 2nd World Wars and now look what Britian is today - back to being a spit in the ocean.

Nations rise and fall, it's always been that way, but for us in the west, I don't think the futures that bright. Hence the need for the nukes. I just hope us Brits and Americans are still brothers in arms, I think Chinese would be a difficult language to learn .

Hey man, thanks for the information. This topic kicks ass.

 

[ChuNalt787]

I might bother to read up on the previous posts soon but for now all I have to say is that you are a retard. You even mention that other countries are a deterent. Its called mutual assured destruction. If you know that attacking us means dying yourself you dont attack us, period. Thats like some little kid at school getting the crap beaten out of him by the bigger kids but not wanting to beef up and hit the gym cause it would make him look like a bully. You sir are a retard. Without those nukes the soviets would have put a world of hurt on us in the cold war. And yes this is a flame. You deserve to be flamed.

 

[Mental Liberator]

I might bother to read up on the previous posts soon but for now all I have to say is that you are a retard. You even mention that other countries are a deterent. Its called mutual assured destruction. If you know that attacking us means dying yourself you dont attack us, period. Thats like some little kid at school getting the crap beaten out of him by the bigger kids but not wanting to beef up and hit the gym cause it would make him look like a bully. You sir are a retard. Without those nukes the soviets would have put a world of hurt on us in the cold war. And yes this is a flame. You deserve to be flamed.

You're talking to the topic creator, not me right?

 

[ChuNalt787]

Ok i read them all and have some stuff to say. And yes I am talking to the creator. Sorry should have made that more clear.

My opinion on this, nukes really should be all destroyed, they can cause too much damage to civilians, and enough of them and we are all gone for good.

First off This would result in a mass number of wars. Nukes are a nessecary evil. If there was no threat of the smaller country being able to do anything to you then many larger countries would be able to take control of the smaller ones. What would have kept the Soviets from grabbing more land in the days after world war 2. The world was very war weary and to mobilize more troops for a full out war against the Soviets after germany and Japan the allies would have to pull something amazing out of their ass. For the Soviets who had only recently entered the war a mass mobilization of troops would have been easier. Luckily we did not have to mobilize to keep them at bay. A few planes could do the trick.

Woooooooooooooo, and to the person that said "Bush is stupid, the president is stupid, blame the presidents, myea!" You are wrong, the president is nothing more than a dummy to take all the negative feedback from the media. What really chooses what our rights are and how we live is chosen by Congress, not Bush. So for all those stupid kids with you "Myea! I hate Bush because the news tells me to!" go die.

At least one person gets it. The president is the leader of the executive branch. The executive branch is charged with carrying out the laws. They do not make policy. The president sits down with congressmen and makes it known what he wants in the new bills and hopes that he get it. HE DOES NOT WRITE THE LAWS. He does have influence but does not have control. Its called checks and balances.

There Military is also rapidly advancing have a look at the Type -98 tanks, better than the USA's Abrihams and the UK's Challenger II's. There new targeting gear on there fighter planes are also far more advanced than the F16s'. A lot of you will not believe, but go and have a wee look.

That is blatently wrong. The abrams tank has a further more accurate gun. We can hit them before they can even think of locking on to us. If someone provides some proof otherwise please present cause everything I have seen states otherwise. Also the targeting system you speak of is embeded in the helmets of the pilot. We have the sytem yet are currently testing it. The difference between our program and thiers is that we care more about the lives and dependability of the system. They can put it in without worrying about the person because when you have numbers like theirs it doesnt matter so much. If we were to go to war that system would be in every plane in a hurry.

 

[mammikoura]

Alvino u are absolutely right, the f-22 raptor is a beautiful plane. But there is another really nice plane currently in use is the F-18F super hornet and F-18E super hornet. Mostly like the normal F-18A, (exept the that the F-18F has two pilots) but with increased performance in almost every aspect. Though not as beautiful as the F-22 but the performance is awesome. I am so sad that we don't have eighter of those planes in our airforce

 

[alvino]

Yeah, I think all the F-18's are either in the Navy or the Blue Angels (which is part of the Navy). The F-18F is a two-seater? I always liked the F-14A Tomcat...those nice sweeping wings...and the ability to fire AIM-54 Pheonix "fire & forget" missles. I think the F-14 was supposed to replace the F-4 Phantom, the oh-so infamous Vietnam Era Fighter/ Bomber. The armament only consisted of missles, no gun. Which gave it a disadvantage because the missles were designed to kill MIGs from a certain range, not up close (which is what the Gatling Guns were for). That's when the Top Gun Fighter school was founded, then we kicked ass

 

[setishock]

I was in on the field testing of the F-14 Tomcat. A truely bad to the bone piece of hardware. It can track 24 targets and kill 6 of them at one time. It can fly at over mach 2 and sustain it for short periods of time. With the flight and fight duties being distributed to two operators it is less of a load than is put on a single operator in a single seater aircraft. The Tomcat was slated to be retired from service but like the Hornet updates in the avionics and airframe will allow it to remain the badass of the skys for years to come...
If you want to see the field trials of the F-14 you can eithe Google for it or the carrier it was tested on. USS Forrestal CVA-59
"Airforce jocks make movies. Naval avators make history..."

 

[alvino]

Yeah, the Tomcat is so sweet. The huge AWG-9 radar it carries can detect targets at over 230 miles (370km). Later the AWG-9 was replaced with the advanced digital APG-71 radar for more ownage.

 

[connchri]

That is blatently wrong. The abrams tank has a further more accurate gun. We can hit them before they can even think of locking on to us. If someone provides some proof otherwise please present cause everything I have seen states otherwise. Also the targeting system you speak of is embeded in the helmets of the pilot. We have the sytem yet are currently testing it. The difference between our program and thiers is that we care more about the lives and dependability of the system. They can put it in without worrying about the person because when you have numbers like theirs it doesnt matter so much. If we were to go to war that system would be in every plane in a hurry.

The Abrams may be able to shoot it's target quicker than the Type -T98 but what use would that be once the Abrams camera optics are burnt out? Read up on the -T98 and you'll know what I'm getting at.


The point about there targeting gear being more sophisticated than the F16 was to show how far the Chinese have progressed in such a relatively short period of time. I don't know the specs of the other USA's Aircraft so what am I ment to compare with? Seemenly two of these planes are ment to take down any single USA aircraft (Read it somewhere a while ago so don't get at me for this). Woopy doo you might think, but again, look at the huge numbers involved.

Also, the other UK guy that reckons, or hinted in that direction, I was trying to start a flame war by saying the UK is better than the USA, your wrong. I'd rather say Scotland is better than the whole lot!! LOL!.

 

[alvino]

Eh, the F-16 Fighting Falcon is still an awesome aircraft.