nova_satori

alright, scrap it. Unless Kyoto targets China, Russia and parts of Africa and South Africa, i'm not supporting it. However, just because we do not support Kyoto doesn't mean we should pollute like there is no tomorrow. What we do today, will screw us later. The world needs to cut the trillions of tons of airborne pollutants released annually. We got one planet. Let's not screw it up. It's a long way before we can colonize Mars, and Alpha Centauri is not even on the time table yet.

Then you are dead. As long as you live, you are learning. When you stop learning, you are dead. The best way to learn is the research it for yourself. You obviously refuse to do this. Thus, you have refused the best way of learning. Um, that is what studies do. They ask, compare statisics, education levels, but all of that is lies isn't it derek, because you said so?

Thus, I think Taiwan should declare indepedence.

Not the new missiles in development or the sea skippers that countries currently employ. Many of the sea skimmers skim mere inches above the surface, where your radar doesn't work as well as normal. While it supposively isn't easy to obtain Granits, I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to bribe a freezing, underpaid, overworked Russian general. Many former Soviet nuclear scientists are out there. Many willing to work for a "reasonable" pay level. Then you're mistaken. Security around siberian ICBM silos is seriously lacking. Many of the nukes are in plain sight. The US is trying to get funds to dismantle the nukes, or at least put pressure on the Soviets to put them back into the silos. The Soviets are also reporetd missing suitcase tact nukes. How many, i'm not sure. It's now a puppy and two drunk guards. The Russian economy is in serious ruin. There isn't much money for the military. Us intelligance? That's a laugh. We can't even get spies into the southern part of Afganistan, much less into the inner spheres of black market trading. You haven't even read most of my post. Or the protests aganist US ships and actions in Japan. Do you REALLY think the US navy will turn galting guns, more like saliors with M4s and M16s, on UNARMED protesters? Americans think things through? Do you actually believe that? The pentagon knows this. They've known it for years. The secret to stoping it, is good PR. Backpack nukes are their nightmare. Why do the think the US is actively helping the Russians track them down?

They have no right to try to regain their land and freedoms stolen by the creation of the Isreali state? They have NO right to fight for their property and the children's freedom? They have NO right to fight for their own freedom? So you're saying the Palestians have absoultely no right to seek their freedom? Derek, you OBVIOUSLY have no idea what is happening over there, no history of Israel, no history of the Palestinians, nor have you spoken with anyone from that general area. Please learn something before you go around talking like a ignorant, arrogant fool.

isn't the book of mormon the bible with a extra chapter?

Why do you need to keep up with them if you're only gonig to fire a torp then run? The US idea of air-defense is to stop missiles from hitting. The senario doesn't require getting closer then 1/2 a mile at most. Actually, all you need is a singe missile with the warhead. The rest are simply decoys. They don't need to hit, just airburst. Well, come to think of it, all they need is a single launch from a few ships. The key to working this is to have a extremely common ship. Launch the missiles, dump the jury-rigg and blend into the crowd. Remember, they don't have to hit. Even a dentonation at 2 miles - 5 miles would seriously damage the fleet. You keep thinking that the missiles have to hit. That simply isn't so. Not necessarily. Should the US do something rather "questionable," the populations around bases might stage protests large enough for the miliatants to get in. Harbor patrol and escorts aren't what people call manuerable in tight situations such as a harbor. Enough small ships and it could be done. The outrage the Japanese people would have over shelling of protesters is something the US is not willing to do.

Good for the US I mean.

oh, the pentagon knows about this. They've known about this for a long time. The new phalanxes are a quick fix, as well as superior jamming, but there are no permenant at the moment. The inability to quickly obtain nukes is a serious obstacle to this plan, (well 550kt ones), and the Russians are supposively not letting their p700 granits out of their sights. this isn't new, it's just not touched on alot.

if you think I have NO understanding of anything military, why haven't you completely contridicted the "China vs. Taiwan" thread?

Getting back to the subject: Do you believe that the US support for Isreal is a good thing? (beyond the huge weapons testing ground) And why do US politicans support Isreal, is it for their own gain via the Jewish vote, or do they geniunily care for a country that has done little to help the US?

When did I do this? I never said it was new or even interesting. Like Craig respects any leftists? have you read the books? Of course I know nothing. No one knows anything. We simply believe what we think is true. The wisest man is the one who acknowedlges that he knows nothing. The oracle of delphi granted Socrates the title of wisest man because he believed he knew nothing. It matter not what age you are, you know nothing, but believe much. Unless you'd like to say that everything you believe, you know. So asking questions and learning from the past is a socialistic principal? Promoting ethical capitalisim is a socialistic principal?

Typical orthodox military thinking. It always takes a huge loss before they change. Why do you need a submarine? The modern terrorist does not have access to a high tech submarine capable of evading superior US detection. Nor do they need one. The terrorist does not even need a plane to attack. All a terrorist needs is a single, small, fishing boat to destroy a US carrier fleet. Actually, only one sub scouts in front, usually at a range of 30-60 miles. The second, usually a LA or a new Virginia class fast attack sub (or perhaps a sea wolf, but highly doubtful), lags to the rear. At times (rarely though), the US command will attack an additional sub or two, which fan out to the left and right of the carrier group. The US produces the best attack subs in the world. Oscars, Romeos, Akulus, Golfs, Kilos or even Typhoons aren’t much of a challenge. However, like I said before, the modern terrorists requires none of that sort to pull off complete destruction of a US carrier group. Are you so sure about that? Here is precisely how it would go off. There are several methods to total annihilation. Every US carrier has a homeport. That is common knowledge. Whether it is Norfolk, Yokosuko, San Diego, Manama, or soon Pearl Harbor. The key is to know when they are coming back. That is easy to figure out as well. Carriers usually have 6 month tours. With this new war on, some tours have extended to 12 months. However, a carrier MUST check into a port for refueling, rearmament, and restocking. However, which port is usually kept secret for obvious reasons. When the time comes for the carrier and her fleet to head back into HQ, the plot goes off. The P-700 Granit, which can probably be acquired on the black market, has a range of roughly 550 KM. It can be packed with a 550 KT warhead. Far more then needed to destroy an enemy carrier fleet. The Russian cold war strategy was simply to send a few subs packing nuclear warhead torpedoes, and fire them at long range. Whether or not they hit was irrelevant, an early detonation could take care of the problem long before the carrier became a threat. Likewise it can be done here. A jury-rig on a small to medium fishing vessel around the port of Yokosuko, with some tactical help from a tech station on mainland Japan, can target the general area where the carrier is going to come in. The carrier fleet will not be scanning thousands of fishing vessels. That is impossible. The vessel launches a missile or two at the carrier, if there are more then 4 or 5 of these jury-rigged ship, a salvo of 10 missiles or more will by flying at the fleet. Japanese authorities will quickly notice, and send out harbor and naval patrols to investigate, however it is too late. Control of the missiles transfers to tech station, where commands to in-flight missiles can be easily done. They can also program a self-detonation sequence on time, should jamming be initiated. Phalanx defense stations on US ships will activate and start spewing lead at the incoming missiles. With a 550 KT warhead, you do not need to hit. A early denotation, or airburst at a range of a ½ mile or two, will release a huge blast, as well as massive waves of energy. The sea will become extremely dangerous, and carriers do not perform well under heavy sea conditions. A 550 KT warhead at ½ a mile will destroy a fleet. Easily accomplished. Second scenario. Dale Brown talked about this one well, in “fatal terrain.” Backpack nuke. Easily acquired, since Russia has reported hundreds missing. When a US carrier is in port, preferably in another country, like Japan, or Bahrain, a huge protest involving thousands of tiny ships swarms the carrier. Port security and US security will be overwhelmed. All it takes is one ship to get close enough to slap a backpack nuke, or throw a diver overboard to attach a nuke to the hull. When the carrier moves out of port, reaches a distance away from the port, the pack back can set to detonate, or a signal can be given. There goes your carrier. While the payload will be less, it will be enough to destroy the carrier and heavily damage her escorts. I ask again, why do you need a submarine?

Sadly that is true. The new exocet is excellent weapon, possibly only overshadowed by the "shipwreck." However, without nukes both weapons are inferior to the new type of anti-ship missile. The new types do not actually hit the ship. They dive under, or as a torp, explode underneath the ship, creating a huge vaccum, which literally snaps the ship in two. The modern Us and Brit ships can take multiple missiles without sinking. They however, cannot take a vaccum underneath their hull.

I don't see you dropping dump trucks of counter-evidence. Or is it perhaps because you don't like opposition? Thinking about alternatives is NEVER acceptable. We MUST shoot first and NEVER ask questions. Hmmmm More lies eh Hugo? But hey, We don't have to listen to anything we don't want. All Dissidence is wrong! We never need to hear an alternative! Who needs a different view point, they might see something important that we fail to notice, na, we don't need to know anything!

500 Ktons of nuclear material can be packed into it. It can be jury-rigged to launch from a "non-combatant." You don't even need to hit. Just get within a reasonable distance and dentonate, or airburst it. You can say goodbye to 5,000+ sailors & every ship in that complement. With one missile. Now, why is the US investing in something so easily destroyed? No other country does this.

You don't know what you are talking about. Does the Russian P-700 Granit mean anything to you?

Ok, it was a bit unfair. The exocet missile is downright mean. However, it's not downright evil like the Russian P-700 Granit. That badboy has "carrier killer" written ALL over it. Let's see what the Exocet has killed/maimed: In March 1987 a Mirage F-1 fighter fired French Exocet missiles into the hull of the USS Stark killing 37 Navy seaman. At 2:04 p.m. the missile struck amidships on the starboard side, ripping a 4-by-15-foot hole from her auxiliary machine space to her forward engine room. By that time, the Argentine pilots had banked sharply away, returning to low-level flying on the westward trek home. HMS Sheffield burned well into the night before sinking. The MV Atlantic Conveyor is hit by an Exocet missile and sinks 3 days later, 12 more British dead. The cruiser HMS Glamorgan is hit by an Exocet missile as it was bombarding on shore Argentine positions. 13 British die. It's a superb weapon.

Why does the US keep building more carriers? Russian weapons comming on the black market make the US carrier group a huge sitting duck.

French military. That's a joke. Would they even be of any help? I'd rather have afgani troops then French troops. Now if we can get the Germans to help....that would be good. The french have produced two things that served their military well. Joan of Arc and the Exocet missile. Napolean was Corsican, not French.

I wouldn't call America the "great satan." Insatiable resource demon is far more appropiate. I have actually convinced more or less an entire forum somewhere else by listing the LONG list of atrocities America has commited. However, I have met plenty of ignorant Americans who flame me because they simply cannot understand that the US is a unethical and immoral country (but then again, almost every other country is anyway). I met one guy who would rather flame then look at the problems that America has. Idiot he was. When the right-wing destroys the world, I will be laughing at all of them, and will be shouting, "I TOLD YOU SO!" For their ignorance and arrogance, they will be paying in their children and grandchildren's blood. I told them, do they ever listen? The right wing loves to ignore the best teacher they will ever have: The past. The average American knows nothing about their own history and the history of their country. Very few college freshmen have taken any US history in highschool. Do you understand that Irish DON'T like brits? Small Irish-America armies were invading Canada before the war of 1812, flanting America's neutrality treaties. the UK constantly verbally attacked the US on this. The media never touched on this. I wonder why! They were not assissinations. They were slaughering non-cooperating civilians. By the thousands at times. However, it wasn't mainly the CIA or the President in charge of this, but companies seeking resources in the Congo. The Congonese got so angry, they went on a murderous rage, killng any foreigners. That is when Belgium Colonization ended. 6-7 Million dead by the Belgium-America alliance in expolition of the Congo. You would so like to write this off as "lies" then actually accept that America has done horrible things. You don't understand what happened in the first place. Did you take AP US? Did u take AP Euro? Did you take any college recongized US history?

Before we go ANYWHERE, what is your definition of a weapon of mass destruction? Mine is a nuclear warhead, or millions of gallons of bio/chem agents packed into shells. That's not a nuke. Nor did they have a ability to deliver it on a large scale. Not past 1999. Yes, he had them, at one time. Did he have them past 2000? Highly doubtful. If he had them during the war, facing sheer destruction, why weren't they used? Why weren't they launched from artillery like the Bush admin stated they could be? For the same reason he let on he had WMD during a certain period. The Islamic world is highly factionalized. Many of them hate each other, and war is often at the top of the list of things to do. Would you go to war aganist someone who supposively had large amounts of weapons that could wipe out divisons in a split second. The numerous embargos didn't stop the trade of weapons into Iraq. it stopped SOME, but many guns, tanks and ordance found its way into the arsenals of the Iraqi army. besides, like Castro, the best way to move the blame for bad management is to say that it was the fault of the West. Removing those saunctions, you got no one to blame for your management failures except for yourself.

without a clear understanding of your enemy, you will never taste victory.

So the english definition accepted by 99.9999% of all dictionaries is wrong and should be replaced with: So the use of definitions is without an backup? Language is not proof? A definition that has existed for hundreds of years is wrong? Thus, you're saying EVERY TIME SOMEONE USED HUMOR IN THE NORMAL WAY, THEY WERE WRONG? lol. Foolish ignorant Right-wing.

If the militants left Isreal alone for 2 months, Isreal would tear itself apart. The sole thing keeping the government together is the threat of terrorism.