backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 183 comment(s) - last by Lakku.. on Jan 5 at 5:39 PM


Image courtesy Popular Mechanics

Image courtesy Popular Mechanics
X-51 would be seven times faster than the Tomahawk

With the United States military looking for faster ways to destroy targets anywhere in the world, it should come as no surprise that a new hypersonic cruise missile is currently in development for precision strikes.

Conventionally armed Trident II missiles (which are the same size, have the same speed and are launched from the same locations) have been tested by the Navy since 1993. However, many are concerned that the launch of ballistic missiles equipped with multiple warheads could spark a crisis far more dangerous the one that it is supposed to subdue.

"The launch of such a missile could provoke an inappropriate response from one of the nuclear powers, could provoke a full-scale counterattack using strategic nuclear forces," said Russian president Vladimir Putin in a 2006 state of the nation address.

Donald Rumsfeld, former United States Secretary of Defense, seemed less concerned over the possibility that America's actions might be seen as nuclear-inclined. "Everyone in the world would know that [the missile] was conventional," said Rumsfeld. Many in congress along with weapons experts aren’t quite as sure as Rumsfeld.

With conventionally-tipped Trident II missiles catching flak from almost all sides, the Department of Defense is looking to the X-51 WaveRider as a solution. The 14-ft long missile can travel at hypersonic speeds (greater than 3,600MPH or Mach 5). At that speed, the X-51 is seven times faster than the humble Tomahawk cruise missile and can make the trip from the Arabian Sea to eastern Afghanistan in roughly 20 minutes. Tomahawk missiles took two hours to make the same trek in 1998 and missed Osama Bin Laden by 30 minutes.  Popular Mechanics reports:

What the X-51 does is to turn some of the most brutal effects of hypersonic flight to its advantage. Take shock waves, for example. Bursting through the air at a hypersonic rate produces a train of waves, one after the other, which can drag down an aircraft. But the X-51 is a "wave rider," with a sharp nose shaped to make the waves break at precisely the right angle. All of the pressure is directed beneath the missile, lifting it up. The shock waves also compress the air to help fuel the X-51's combustion process.

The X-51 would be launched from a B-52 Stratofortress and carried to supersonic speeds by a booster rocket. From there, the missile’s scramjet engine would take over. The X-51 has the advantage of being able to hit targets much quicker than the Tomahawk missiles employed today without being mistaken for a much larger nuclear weapon. "You don't worry about starting World War III," said Air Force chief scientist Mark J. Lewis.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Fuck Yeah!
By Ralph The Magician on 12/21/2006 8:32:13 PM , Rating: 5
AMERICA! FUCK YEAH!




RE: Fuck Yeah!
By djkrypplephite on 12/21/2006 9:11:43 PM , Rating: 2
I like this guy^^


RE: Fuck Yeah!
By Enoch2001 on 12/21/2006 9:13:02 PM , Rating: 2
LOL - we ARE Team America: World Police!


RE: Fuck Yeah!
By QuadCore6700 on 12/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: Fuck Yeah!
By msva124 on 12/22/2006 1:15:50 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Fuck Yeah!
By Ardan on 12/22/2006 2:52:56 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, you really need to relax. Take a laxative or something, phew.


everyone should die
By Serifan on 12/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: everyone should die
By dallasskins on 12/22/2006 12:01:50 AM , Rating: 2
This is weak minded drivel. Here is a link to the top ten bloodiest dictators. Notice most were Communist (read atheist) or Facist. None killed in the name of religion, but in the name of their political belief system. Even Hitler falls into this category. Yes he killed millions of Jews, but also millions of other non-Arayans were killed in the death camps. So much for religion being the source of all evil. Here is the link if you want the truth, or just google mass murderers yourself.
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB1.4.GIF


RE: everyone should die
By ThisSpaceForRent on 12/22/2006 12:43:55 AM , Rating: 2
1. Instead of religion, substitute belief systems (politics, religion, economics, etc.) and you have it dead on.
2. Money, always. People kill and screw each other for it all the time.
3. You've been looking while other's post haven't you?


RE: everyone should die
By DOSGuy on 12/22/2006 1:04:49 AM , Rating: 2
Religion was merely the best excuse for war prior to the 20th century. When kings wanted to conquer their neighbors, they often used religion to justify ordering their subjects to lay down their lives. Money and power were always the true motivations. Even conflicts within the Catholic Church were about power: whether the power lay in Rome or Constantinople, for instance.

As religion began to lose its influence, the excuses for war changed. The vast majority of all the casualties ever suffered in war occurred during WWI, WWII, and the Chinese Civil War, none of which were about religion. As far as genocide, the Stalinist purges were an attempt to subdue Ukraine; the Khmer Rouge was to eliminate threats to the government, and Rwandan Genocide was the result of the artificial socioeconomic divide of Hutus and Tutsis that was created by Europeans. In Kosovo it was "ethnic cleansing". The excuses change, but money and power continue to be at the root of human conflict.

Religion is still used to manipulate violence in Iraq today. Sunni and Shia have been separate for so many centuries that they now represent distinct cultural heritages, so it's unfair to say that religion is the only difference between them. Control of Iraq is the true motivation of those who incite the violence; religion is merely the best excuse to convince people to fight. Whether it's Sunni vs. Shia in Iraq, or Fatah vs. Hamas in Palestine, the root of the conflict is power.

It boils down to greed. Whether the desire for money or the desire for power, or both, greed is the real reason for war. The excuses will change with the times, but the root will never change unless humanity does.

Does humanity deserve to be wiped out? The world would certainly be better off without us, but there is cause for hope. Consider Gandhi, who could summon 700 million people to crush the occupying British force if he had wanted to, but chose peace instead. Martin Luther King led a civil rights revolution by refusing to be violent, and shaming those who would use violence to suppress them. Humanity is capable of peace. We just have to take it one day at a time. Just as an alcoholic can determine that he's not going to have a drink today, and then get up the next morning and decide that he's not going to have a drink today either, we can decide not to be killers, one day at a time.

"All right! We're savages. We have the blood of a million years of history on our hands. But we can change that. We can tell ourselves we're killers, but we're not going to kill today. That's all it takes; one simple decision. We're not going to kill… today!" ~ James T. Kirk


RE: everyone should die
By SmokeRngs on 12/22/2006 5:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
I've been saying this for a long time now and this is the first time I've seen someone else actually say it.

Power is the reason. People use religion and many other things as tools to get their power. The tools are used to create the events that lead to the individual or group obtaining power.

There will always be people that want power. There will always be a few of those people that will use any means necessary to obtain it. Then are people or countries that spend large amounts of time and money to make sure there is a defense against those few.


RE: everyone should die
By tdream on 12/27/2006 10:22:32 AM , Rating: 2
This is a good post and I agree with what you've said. Many nations have gone to war under false pretence and as you clearly stated the root cause being human desires of greed and power.


RE: everyone should die
By msva124 on 12/22/2006 1:13:42 AM , Rating: 2
I don't like humans either. Can a comet hit the Earth please?


Fast, but....
By InTheNameOfMyself on 12/22/2006 7:06:47 AM , Rating: 2
OK, I get it that this thing is fast.

But, how much punch does it pack?
1ton? 2tons?

You got to bundle a strong warhead you know.




RE: Fast, but....
By tdream on 12/22/2006 7:21:37 AM , Rating: 2
foookin ridiculous, here america are blatantly improving their already considereable armament and they hold countries hostage for even ATTEMPTING to improve their own defences with nuclear capabilities. such irony is lost one americans though. peace by power such double standards for a war on terror, more like a suppression of any other country that dares match america in it's weaponry.

yes we should bash america, are we to sit idly by and let those ignorant masses continue on build up super powered weaponry until no one has a choice but to listen to america? its a free country after all and being so i retain to right to slag the living shiit out of america until it ceases to be a world power. the ignore forget more and more of the atrocities by each passing day and also forget that american defense is big business, and that's the problem with america. capitalist kunts who will stop and nothing for the bottom dollar. missle that missed it's target by 2 miles, friendly fire, user error and whatever bs their news reporters cococted to put a positive spin on a tragic event. this is not the only time this will happen if no one raises an eyelid to forcefully denigrate what they are doing. the US of A is a virus on the planet and the sooner they run the natural course of all powerful sovereignties the better, even roman empire had to end.


RE: Fast, but....
By Tedtalker1 on 12/22/2006 3:11:04 PM , Rating: 2
What an ignorant statement.The differece is obvious-the antichrist running Iran and the doofus in charge of North Korea want to blow up whoever they want just for kicks because they don't like you.Like a kid just coming back from the fireworks stand with a sack of rockets and Roman Candles.


RE: Fast, but....
By tdream on 12/27/2006 9:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
What exactly is ignorant about what I've written? Would you like to retort each of my points or are you going to blanket "ignore" anything that has a negative point of view towards america?

Well obviously there is an antichrist and doofus in charge of america, to use your own words. Trouble is you don't know what the leaders of Iran and North Korea are like. Sure they might spin you the truth and all the while hiding some ulterior motive, but that is exatly what Bush has done in Iraq. WMD, which we now irrefutably known to be non existant, and everyone else knew thi before the US began their invasion. You see where is the accountability, you can't point the finger at Iran and North Korea, when your own government can't justify it's own actions. No one is repsonsible for freedom or justice, the US use these ideals to masquerade for their real motives, ie. economic power, monetary gain and political influence. It's a self serving agenda with no concern for anyone else.


RE: Fast, but....
By CascadingDarkness on 12/22/2006 6:48:19 PM , Rating: 2
Not touching your US bashing.

WTF is with
quote:
missile that missed it's target by 2 miles, friendly fire, user error and whatever bs their news reporters concocted to put a positive spin on a tragic event
(fixed typos in your quote btw) should we just go back to carpet bombing entire cities to ashes with B-52s?

All the time I have to spare from my new, improved, precise warmongering


RE: Fast, but....
By tdream on 12/27/2006 9:31:44 AM , Rating: 2
How about not using bombs altogether where substancial loss of innocent life is at stake, like a populated city?


Ironic?
By Hoser McMoose on 12/22/2006 11:35:32 AM , Rating: 2
Does anyone else find it ironic that the main excuse for going for this missile is the fear of ballistic missiles being a nuke, even though there is nothing preventing them from putting nuclear warheads on this cruise missile? There is nothing special about a cruise missile vs. ballistic missile when it comes to the type of warhead they could carry, the US is quite willing and able to equip either one with conventional or nuclear warheads (they could probably toss a chemical or biological warhead on either one as well, but that is much less likely to occur). Certainly the Tomahawk was designed to carry tactical nukes, conventional munitions were more of an afterthought it seems (I doubt it ever would have been build, back in the 60's and 70's, if the only plan was to use conventional warheads).

Certainly there is more history with ballistic missiles carrying nukes, what with the whole cold-war era, but that was simply due to logistics (it's easier for U.S. to hit Russia, and vice versa, with a ballistic missile than a cruise missile due to the distances involved). If the cold war had been between two countries that shared a land boarder then cruise missiles might well have been the delivery method of choice for nukes.

I guess it's all about perceptions though.




RE: Ironic?
By CascadingDarkness on 12/22/2006 3:33:03 PM , Rating: 2
Likely wouldn't be too effective. First there is payload. I doubt this could hold a large warhead. Also took me a while but I found they have 600 mile range.
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?Art...

Not effective for a massive enough attack that could look like nuke war. Seems more like international figures getting mad about new weapons research in general. I doubt these could really be confused with nuclear attack (yes subs shoot from short range, but all out nuke war wouldn't just be subs).

I'm sure that wouldn't really matter to the city that was hit by a single small yield missile, but I hope US would never do anything like that.


RE: Ironic?
By CascadingDarkness on 12/22/2006 3:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
Better link
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/militar...

Don't confuse info though. Some is about Trident II conversion and rest is X-51.


RE: Ironic?
By Eris23007 on 12/22/2006 3:40:21 PM , Rating: 2
It's not quite what you think. Trident II missiles are kept in submarines - which are quite stealthy. It is extremely difficult to track the location of those submarines. They also have ranges in the thousands of km. However, when one launches a ballistic missile, there is an incredible amount of infrastructure in place to observe the where and when - the russians, chinese, etc. will all know when a ballistic missile is fired, and potentially respond accordingly (I.E., nuclear exchange, as they say. How's that for an Xmas present!).

This hypersonic cruise missile, on the other hand, is fired from a B-52 - an airplane with a very large radar cross-section (I.E., not stealthy), and while the missile is fast, it isn't as fast as a ballistic missile, and it doesn't have anywhere near the range.

Let's put it this way: you fire a Trident II from a submarine in the middle of the pacific, it could be targeting Moscow, Beijing, Pyongyang, etc. Launch a Hypersonic missile from the same spot, and it probably can't reach any of those (depending on where it's fired from).

It is a much less "overtly aggressive" sort of technology...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_II

This is based upon my (admittedly incomplete) understanding of the tech of the hypersonic one. If this thing has a thousands-of-km sort of range, let me know and perhaps I'll reconsider my viewpoint. Otherwise this thing sounds like an outstanding solution for for its stated purpose of quickly putting conventional ordnance on target...


RE: Ironic?
By Eris23007 on 12/22/2006 3:48:56 PM , Rating: 2
Upon further review:

quote:
That doesn't mean the X-51 will be in competition with a conventional Trident. It will have a range of only 600 nautical miles. And it first needs to be lifted into the air by a plane, then accelerated by a rocket-fueled booster before its hypersonic engine kicks in. But if the 2008 test flight is a success, the X-51 will be the first weapon other than a ballistic missile to fly at hypersonic speeds.


Compare 600 nautical miles range vs. over 6000 nm for the Trident II. This thing is a totally different animal - far less aggresive and far less concerning to countries such as Russia and China from a Strategic standpoint - they also don't have a "multiple warhead" capability the way a Trident II does - a single Trident II missile can carry a number of independently targetable warheads - so in theory a single missile could destroy multiple cities, not just one. This thing can't do that.


Out come the surrender monkeys...
By jarman on 12/22/2006 11:44:23 PM , Rating: 2
You know, it has gotten to the point that I absolutely hate getting tech news from Daily Tech. The content and reporting done at the site is fine, but all of the whiny little tree huggers come out in force when there is an article like this posted.

It can't be said enough, that If you have a problem with this country and its history, then LEAVE and go to one of the "better countries". Yet, strangely enough, the surrender monkeys never do. Wonder why?




RE: Out come the surrender monkeys...
By poohbear on 12/23/2006 9:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
ROFL!!!!! yes please run for president w/ that slogan. "leave america if u dont like our problems! yes, u were born here, and u're an american citizen, and maybe u even served and bled for this country, but is that any reason to whine u spoiled motherfuker?!?!?!?"

that needs to be the republican slogan.


RE: Out come the surrender monkeys...
By jarman on 12/23/2006 12:41:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
ROFL!!!!! yes please run for president w/ that slogan. "leave america if u dont like our problems! yes, u were born here, and u're an american citizen, and maybe u even served and bled for this country, but is that any reason to whine u spoiled motherfuker?!?!?!?"


Wow! My comment about pussies like you bitching about this country without the ability to identify a better one must have really hit home, huh? Please educate me with your incontrovertible wisdom on how you correlate asking someone to put their money where their mouth is, makes me spoiled?


By Kuroyama on 12/23/2006 2:30:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
My comment about pussies like you bitching ... how you correlate asking someone to put their money where their mouth is, makes me spoiled

I take it you're a soldier or veteran? If so, then you're a braver person than me and I certainly salute you for serving our country. But if not then you're no different than people like Bush and Cheney who talk tough but stayed at home when they had the chance to put their money where their mouth is in Vietnam. It always amazes me how overwhelmingly the "don't be pussies" crowd is made up of chickenhawks.


By Kuroyama on 12/23/2006 11:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, I feel the same way, but about idiotic people who think they are somehow being convincing by being shrill and using childish name calling like "surrender monkeys". Given that we both feel the other side is clueless, maybe it's a good sign that we're getting different opinions here than what we normally hear from our friends and favorite web sites. As Sun Tzu famously said, "know your enemy". When you (or I) only read sites that are preaching to the converted then we don't really learn much of why some people have different opinions than we do.


It's all about Israel
By Tedtalker1 on 12/22/2006 5:54:01 AM , Rating: 2
It's the USA's support for Israel and what seems like the rest of the world's disdain for them that is a cause for so much USA bashing in this thread.And the sad thing is the bashers don't even realize it.The dark force has crept upon them while they sllep in ignorant bliss.Looks as though the prophets were right and the armies of the world will soon be lining up to do battle with Israel and her allies(Ally).God help us all!There are no perfect countries and we all know who the weaklings looked to when they were invaded by tyrannts.The USA; and I hope in their military might because that's the side I want to be on whe the final sheet hits the fan.Merry Christmas to all :-)




RE: It's all about Israel
By tdream on 12/22/2006 7:29:19 AM , Rating: 2
It could be any country, it could of even been iraq if they co operated with USA. They could of been the lapdogs for bush and co, but saddam decided he wanted a bit more. The relationship with Irasel exists for one sole reason, not politics not friendliness but one simple thing $$$$$$$$

That's right economic control in the middle east is VERY important to their fuel based economy and control of the prices is even more important. Where had all the stock of Iraqs natural resource disappered to, Fox, NBC any other poor excuse for a news station fails to report on the obvious criminal activities that have taken place without no global eye on the valuable commodity that is OIL baby. And it shows that Bush and friends have done their job very well, keep the ignorant american's minds incapacitated with Prison Break and Desperate Housewives meanwhile, there is a war going on, halfway across the planet for the last and vast remain sources of oil left on this sphere. People dying everyday so you joe amerianc bloggs and sleep in the comfort of your own home. And why knock something like that, even if you descent of such a subject it's not like you can do anything about it. So that's right go back to sleep america, go back to sleep.


RE: It's all about Israel
By camped69 on 12/23/2006 6:40:41 AM , Rating: 3
I will sleep and sleep well. And when I wake up I will love and be loved. I will also be free. As free as a working man can be.

It's all about the oil, everybody needs it or their economies will grind to a halt. So were protecting our interest in the in Iraq, big deal. Cry me a river. Hopefully we can tap the oil resource in Canadas soil, develop better alternatives or tap new regions soon so the middle east can fade away into irrelevance.

We rolled the Iraqi forces in a matter of days. But were still there. Mostly acting as a policing unit although our presence has slowed down the movement of the extremists. Our military is not designed to police. It is designed to decimate and it does that extremely well. I'm sick and tired of all the..."oh how could they kill innocent life" comments and such. The world witnessed the most precise tactical engagement, even though it presented in a total bs manor as to why we were going. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that everyone in the US is stupid. We are a free thinkg people with passion and fortitude. Not to mention FREE. To all you creampuffs out there, grow a pair and embrace your heritage.

The political correctness in the world is sickening. If you declare war, you take no prisoners and be done with it. End of problem. I think every option should be used before war but if you throw down the gauntlet, do it Fin right. Or strap a bomb to yourself and blow up 100 countrymen. WEAK

And in the free world there is something that you can do, VOTE!

sidenote: when calculating the population of the US just include Canada and Mexico.


RE: It's all about Israel
By Tedtalker1 on 12/24/2006 2:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
I agree camped69.It just seems more than coincidence,in which I don't believe; that most of the oil is under evil's control in the middle east.That in all the thousands of years of mankind,oil would run the world only in these last 100 years.And that the whole world would go to war over this black goo if need be.Very revealing to some of us..


The news article
By Ardan on 12/22/2006 3:20:48 AM , Rating: 2
So after reading all of this, I have one question for the people posting and replying constantly: What was the original subject of this page? :P

We have gotten WAY off topic and drifted into the realm of endless political arguments instead. I'm sure someone might try and connect the dots here, but there is absolutely no way i'm going to buy that. Some of the things people are discussing are way, way off and it is just the same thing over and over again.

It just got tiring to see people from different countries posting with a completely misplaced 'holier than thou' attitude. Sure, the US has done some bad stuff, but we've also done a lot of good things but the same goes with EVERYONE ELSE in history. Nobody has been truly a country of angels, so everyone should stop trying to be so condescending and stay on topic. It is madness seeing people insult America or other nations and generalize what a nation of (in America's case) 300 million people is like and think of them as idiots or clueless. People that try and do that in a serious manner are just as stupid as the people they claim to allegedly be "stupid." Some people here are stupid and don't really know much, sure, but the same thing is the case in every other country out there.

I know those guilty of it will vehemently deny this to be the case, but you won't get a discussion and I won't change my mind for you, so don't even try to get a response. I mean, its ridiculous: of course we'll take pride in aspects of our nation (such as the military) and you take pride in your respective nations and its strengths as well. National pride is not a foolish idea, you know, so show some respect. If you don't like the foreign policies of the US Government, then do what we do and spew forth hatred upon the government for its policies and not the people because you will never know what goes on in the minds of a huge nation of people (no matter what your over-sized egos think). There, I said my 2 cents and now its time for bed. Goodnight and Merry Christmas! Have fun taking time out of your weekends just to write a blistering response when I won't even read it :).




RE: The news article
By lufoxe on 12/22/2006 8:11:47 AM , Rating: 2
wow, I've actually read through this whole thing... and this man is right.
quote:
What was the original subject of this page?

It's about a new technology/weapon. Not America bashing. I have to say I love my county and I would not trade it for citizenship elsewhere. For all those who have a stick up their bum about us, well... join france. I'm tired of seeing us being bashed and then when push comes to shove you come to us for military/economic aid. This is not a forum for international relations of the US or how the U.S. is doing in foreign policy. This is a TECHNOLOGY FORUM! We bash microsoft and sony, or some other international corporation that f**ks up. Leave politics where it belongs, outside of this forum.


RE: The news article
By Dfere on 12/22/2006 12:22:54 PM , Rating: 2
This is the internet. This is the new battleground.

And I disagree.

Sorry to say the article did have political discussions, not just tech news. Other nations do not want us to develop more sophisticated and powerful weapons (Well it says they don't want us to test them which is necessary for development) so I disagree.

Actually what I take from the article is we are developing more sophisticated and cost effective ways to "reach out and touch someone" directly in response to the political repurcussions of testing certain different missile techs, thus furthering development in other missile tech areas.

And people say we becoming stifled in innovation.


RE: The news article
By joset00 on 12/22/2006 10:54:47 PM , Rating: 2
@ Ardan:

Probably, the only OT worth reading, here.

quote:
Nobody has been truly a country of angels (...)


Probably true... but irrelevant; if you care to consider just the two last centuries of History, you'll notice the USA just continued the expansionist, dominating attitude Europe's started. You've mentioned "country" and, both Europe & the USA built & destroyed some.
'Sanctity', in this context, is out of the equation; we're Human; we make mistakes, both as individuals & as [sophisticated] groups we call societies; the issue, in my opinion, is not who's done more & for how long but, rather, who's doing it now.
I'm European; we've 'carved' more countries in the Earth's surface than any other sophisticated group before; we've been - and we still are - hated for what we've done in almost every corner of this planet, in the good name of profit... & slavery. The USA just followed the trend and became the Roman Empire of modern times.
Ask yourself the question "why are we so much hated, around the world?" Simple.

quote:
It is madness seeing people insult America or other nations and generalize what a nation of (in America's case) 300 million people is like and think of them as idiots or clueless.


True. Europe (well, the EU) is going over 500M & counting.
But, what if you take the other side, for a moment? What if less than a sixth of the world's population is taking the other 5/6 as idiots & clueless?
Neither Europe or the USA can [should] claim 'democracy', 'freedom', 'independence', etc for themselves, while still trying to enslave the other 5/6. That, is idiocy.
If we've managed to have our own 'way-of-life', in this XXI century, it's because of the living standard's penalty we're still inflicting on the rest of the World; and, the USA has reached the culprit as the sole dominating power on the Planet, carrying the arrogance & pre-potence I still can see in Europe, nowadays.
It's no surprise for me that the 'rest' of the world looks at Europe and, mostly, at the USA as 'evil'; call it morale if you will, but we do have our own "maddrassas" & X-51s to carry the message...
I, for one, do plead guilty for not knowing much about Afegan, Iraqui, Kwaiti or Iranian culture & how their people find themselves (idiots & clueless or otherwise); but I do know a lot of them died (& will die) without knowing who the hell are we (better like that, perhaps?!); maybe, they wouldn't care... we sure don't.
So, I'm not sure about those who're posting here some trivialities but, I - for one - would fear a botulin syringe in a supermarket, not any hypersonic X-whatever...


Cheers!


Why is America so off balance
By Senju on 12/22/2006 4:00:00 AM , Rating: 2
Good old USA. They never learn! They spend all their money and resources into their great military. It is always so funny to see Americans travel abroad because it shocks to see how Asian countries are so economically advance. And the shock goes both ways! I was shock when visiting the US to see how screwed up the cities are. I feel like it is a 3rd world country or a time slip back 30 years. There is no growth in the inter cities. The roads are really bad.
So When I see these headlines how America is going to spend Billions of money for their great freedom...it makes me wonder if any of them are really happy. Anyway, I really feel sorry for people living in the US.




RE: Why is America so off balance
By Tedtalker1 on 12/22/2006 6:11:59 AM , Rating: 2
Well if you really want to know -certain decisions were made in the past 150 years to let too many leecher immigrants into the United States and it continues to this day.They have to live somewhere and the inner cities are full of them.Hey maybe the USA could send them all to your wonderful country!


RE: Why is America so off balance
By Keeir on 12/22/2006 2:09:44 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, its true that many countries have more vibrant and new cities than the United States, especially in Asian countries. A few points however to consider

#1. Many US cities are significantly older Urban Developments. This leads to very poor road layouts, "historic" districts full of decaying structure, additional costs to build new buildings (tear down and proper disposal of older material that are now potentially hazardous)

#2. Asian countries have yet to lose the core businesses that thier cities are based on... Most of the worst US cities such as Detroit, Cleveland, etc have had their core businesses destroyed in the last 30 years IE Automotive production, Steel Production, etc etc.

#3. Asian countries have gotten alot of help and lessons learned from experience. As Asian Urban Developments tend to be the newest in the world, they have benifited from the experiences and knowledge gained throughout the world from the European and North American Urban Developments.



In conclusions, lets see how some of these wonderful Asian Cities (and yes, they are wonderful) fare over the next 50 years. And maybe by 2100, the best cities in the world will all be in Africa....


RE: Why is America so off balance
By jarman on 12/23/2006 12:46:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They spend all their money and resources into their great military.


5% of GDP is all of our money and resources??????????????


What is so wrong with it
By ajfink on 12/21/2006 8:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
If they had these in 1998, Osama Bin Laden would be dead today. This is one thing I don't mind my tax dollars going toward.

Also, Canada doesn't need a large armed force because they live next to and share deep cultural and economic ties with the US.




RE: What is so wrong with it
By Kilim on 12/21/2006 8:32:33 PM , Rating: 3
Dude, Bin Laden was a good chap until chicks started reading. Chicks learning too read, that's going to far man, everyone has limits.


RE: What is so wrong with it
By Dfere on 12/22/2006 8:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
Was that a Sammy Davis/Tom Jones explanation of world politics? OMG. Cool.


Ohh Yes, America and its armed forces are soooo evil.
By Dfere on 12/22/2006 9:18:40 AM , Rating: 3
Let me understand this. We pay for an Army. We use this army (in the last century to keep the scope down) to combat fascism and communism, and any countries we "liberate" or "conquer" we never claim as our own. The only land we claim for our army is for foreign grave sites for our soldiers killed overseas. We do do this in the name of democracy (which is in our best interest). We do set up or assist pro-American factions during this time. During this time, no one in the UN opposes us except the Soviet and pro-Soviet countries. USSR collapses. Many Euro countries immediately reduce military spending. The Germans do this to integrate their country once again and become an economic powerhouse (my congratulations). The French and many Scandinavian countries use this extra 10-20% of GDP to fund social programs. Meanwhile, all US allies, except primarily for Israel, begin to fund private companies with state intelligence to compete with our companies.

We maintain the Army. We pay for it. We then cut some costs by closing bases, and certain Asian countries scream we are killing their hard currency economy. We still spend a lot of currency in Europe when their is no invasion threat and we get kicked in the teeth. And the UN feels it has the right to tell us what to do.

The truth is, if the UN would PAY for what they want, I would gladly see us close all of our bases overseas and shrink our naval capacity. Currently this would lead civilization in many countries collapsing and posssibly a small nuclear war in the middle east. Where is China in this? Their middle class is BIGGER than our entire population! They accumulate resources while we spend ours trying to keep a balance in the world. Only a few countries actively assist in this.

If you want to spit on America as unilateral, go ahead. but don't think I don't realize this job is forced on us. I truly with a lot of foreign countries would ttop funding their own direct economic and social programs you claim are superior to ours and spend more on military for world security and give your forces over to the UN. Then comlpain, or "comment" about us "chaps" being so aggressive, or talk about us being "warmongering", or talk about us not "being harmonistic", or calling us "Imperial", or patronizing or any other second guessing of our actions. Only a few countries have assisted us, and only some of the populations in thoise countries. I hope they help us more and take more leadership.

End rant.




By Dfere on 12/22/2006 9:19:27 AM , Rating: 1
Oops truly "wish"- my fingers got tired.


By Goatjoe on 12/22/2006 11:41:04 PM , Rating: 1
I cant believe that I read all of the posts... My brain hurts...


By Gannon on 12/23/2006 9:08:15 AM , Rating: 2
"...combat fascism and communism, and any countries we "liberate" or "conquer" we never claim as our own."

The truth is US culture is at the root of many of the worlds ills, lets face that fact. Unfettered capitalism while it has brought much wealth to some works by displacing disproportinately the wealth of others, the concept of ownership and earnings is so primitive in capitalist thought in the USA and the west in general, its no wonder that you have a huge enormous underclass growing (34 million plus nad growing daily).

Most of all it's the middle men and the rich people who benefit, now the rich are disposing of the middle class in their home country to go to cheaper countries via the "pump and dump" method. They use countries and play them off one another as one big power game. The sad fact is nationalism and patriotism was designed by the rich for the people of these countires... thats us, they tell us we have freedom... when you're only as free, and only have as many rights as your economic wellbeing allows. More money = more freedom = more rights.

Therefore the poor are basically without rights and wage slaves in their home country.

The end of war will not come through more war, it will come through developing superior culture and infecting all other human beings with this superior culture. And american capitalism is not it.


America the bipolar
By mackintire on 12/21/2006 10:45:05 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, I live in america. I m intellegent to know that the world sees us and the 4 year *itch. Our goverment changes its mind every 4 years and reverses policy. Unfortunately for you and and fortunately for us we also have the largest economy in the world, and thus the most cash. He with the most cash wins.

The UN is mostly unless because it has no teeth. Name me one country that is actually afraid of the UN. There arn t any. There are many countries afraid of the US. When the US and the UN are on the same side its going to have a similar effect to the US standing alone with the exception that instead of ONE country making a point MOST countries are trying to make that point.

The whole Iraq/ Afgan thing is NOT the current President Bush's fault. Blaim the poor desisions of his father. He was the one that let down the people of Iraq some 13 years ago and create most of the hatred in that country towards America.

Don't worry within 20 years China will have the largest economy and we will all be looking towards them to run things. Go put that in your pipe and enjoy your smoke.





RE: America the bipolar
By Gatt on 12/22/2006 12:14:47 AM , Rating: 2
I doubt China's going to make it. They can't get a grip on certain fundamental economic sectors like the entertainment sector because they refuse to reign in Piracy, so there goes a few hundred billion dollars.

Additionally, they're increasing manufacturing capacity beyond they're ability to consume, or even sell, for the sole purpose of decreasing unemployment. Producing what you don't need, and can't sell, is a sure-fire way to create an economic collapse. Which, if bad enough, would shortly be followed by a revolution.

China's got some impressive potential, but I don't think it's going to pan out anytime soon.


RE: America the bipolar
By AndreasM on 12/22/2006 3:02:27 AM , Rating: 2
I would be more worried about the US economy. China manufactures real, tangible things, instead of ethereal concepts like "intellectual property". I find the thought of a future with these stringent copyright laws laughable; what's the point with petabytes of storage if you have to spend millions of dollars to license entertainment to fill it up?


So civilians get the short end of the stick again?
By Shintai on 12/22/2006 7:51:17 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if people realize, or even the US army about the usual cruise missile situation. Unlike bombs or the like they rely on low attitude flying. So even tho it might be launched on a B52, it will have to drop down under radar to avoid radar and SAMs.

Now here is the part, sonic bangs in extremely low altidude. It gonna be deaf people and ruined house, not to even talk about the horrors and such.




By Dfere on 12/22/2006 9:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, the US should not hurt anybody when using violent force. Drivel. War is evil, violence is a last resort. The best you can hope for, if needed, is surgical deadly force. But don't scare anyone.


By SGTLindy on 12/22/2006 10:23:21 AM , Rating: 2
"it will have to drop down under radar to avoid radar and SAMs"

The Tomahawk had to fly low because of its low speed. At Hypersonic speeds (mach 5) nothing is going to shoot this down. Also ramjets work best at high altitudes.

I bet this thing will leave the B-52 and go up higher near space to skirt along the edge of the atmosphere enhancing its speed.….fly 95% of the way there at high altitude and then point down and blaze into the target. I think the explosion will be much louder than any sonic boom.


These look almost too futureistic.
By kuyaglen on 12/21/2006 8:28:25 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder which one of the nuclear powers Putin had in mind (and here I was thinking that the cold war was over). Anyone know approximately how much these cost vs the Tomahawk?




By codeThug on 12/21/2006 9:43:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's the bang per dollar that's important not the actual per unit cost. Lets call it the booyahBuck. These things definitely have more booyah.


Some good may come of it
By ThisSpaceForRent on 12/21/2006 10:35:00 PM , Rating: 2
Look on the brightside, while we're busy trying to blow people up for the next 10 years or so, there will be more research done on hypersonic airframes. This has the added benefit of bringing hypersonic air travel closer to being a reality. This could also serve as a stepping stone to cheaper launch vehicles for low orbit insertion.

As an American I am proud of the fact that we can walk into any country in the world, find the bigggest shit head, and put him in charge. Knowing full well in 20 years we'll be back to take him out. If you ask me that's good PR, we make sure we're always in need. I'm so going to get flamed from all directions on this one.




RE: Some good may come of it
By nicknet on 12/21/2006 10:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
ya know what... in many ways you are quite right. Simple laws of business is all that the USA tries to imply. Just running like one huge corporation. And who said a corporation has to have ethics?


Anti nuke missile?
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if these types of missiles are capable of bringing down an airborne nuke or other missile. Since they are so fast and precise I'd be willing to bet it's possible.




RE: Anti nuke missile?
By CascadingDarkness on 12/22/2006 2:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe, but I kinda doubt it. They would most likely be designed to fly straight line to target. Not for any quick, tight maneuvers. You would need lots of tracking data to plan the flight path of a nuke close enough for straight line impact (they go into Thermosphere, same as shuttle). Doubt these will be designed to go that high.

If you ever did hit one I would think it would have to be more luck. I heard something about patriot system maybe being able to intercept nukes as they re-enter (before they detonate). Now that you've peeked my interest maybe I'll have to see if anything became of that.


Fancy toys
By crystal clear on 12/22/2006 9:24:54 AM , Rating: 2
Just how much will these toys cost?????

and are they worth the price paid for it.

Hey its the tax payers money you are playing with-these toys certainly dont come cheap.




USA
By Missing Ghost on 12/21/06, Rating: -1
RE: USA
By thewalrusnp on 12/21/06, Rating: 0
RE: USA
By camped69 on 12/22/2006 2:04:20 AM , Rating: 3
You'd either be speaking German or you would be dead if it wasn't for the US. Call us what you want but when the s*it hits the fan as it soon will, you may just find yourself and your family saved by a United States armed soldier.
Just ask the French. The world will get worse before it can get any better. Count on it. Oh, and don't forget to clean your rifle and fuel up the K-5.

Semper Fi


RE: USA
By msva124 on 12/22/2006 2:22:31 AM , Rating: 4
GO TEAM AMERICA!!!!


RE: USA
By Samus on 12/24/2006 10:49:56 PM , Rating: 1
FUCK YEA


RE: USA
By probedb on 12/22/2006 6:15:53 AM , Rating: 2
<cough>yeah right</cough>


RE: USA
By xeal on 12/22/2006 7:03:28 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
You'd either be speaking German or you would be dead if it wasn't for the US.


Wrong. It should be "Russian". At least for Europe.
If US (and its allies) would not have started the Normandy invasion and advance to push the Germans back as fast as possible, Stalin would not have stopped till the whole map of Europe would have been red . Like in Red Army . Even so, he got half of it.


RE: USA
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
Read again homeboy. It sounded like he was addressing the original comment, written by someone clearly from Canada (it said in their post).


RE: USA
By rcc on 12/23/2006 12:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
We could play the history game for quite a while.

But, had the US, Britain, etc. not been sending supplies, munitions, food, ships, etc. to the USSR at the time, and creating a threat, knocking out strategic targets in Germany, etc. ad nauseum, the USSR would not have been in a position to threaten the rest of Europe or defend itself from Germany.


RE: USA
By Bladen on 12/22/2006 7:08:04 AM , Rating: 2
More likely speaking Japanese, or some kind of Japanese-German mix...

(Germanese?)


RE: USA
By poohbear on 12/23/2006 9:16:14 AM , Rating: 2
im sorry, some of us are more educated than the i watched CNN to for 2 minutes level, so your celebrity comment "we'd all be speaking german right now if it was'nt for the US" has absoluetly no bearing here. The treaty of versailles, created by the british and french, utterly ravaged germany after WW1 and WW2 was inevitable. So, if it was'nt for the french and british, there probably wouldnt have been a WW2 and a ruthless Nazi government in Germany. And we'd be speaking japanese my ass, why did america have guam and hawaii at japan's doorstep, fuk me that looked aggressive enough to the rest of the region of American imperial ambitions to trigger japanese expansion before america ate up more islands. Please oh PLEASE try to disprove me since im a history buff and could care less about this "american patriotism we are the world's saviours" drivel. Yeah, the whole world starts fights, america never does right? gimme a break.



RE: USA
By Miggle on 12/26/2006 6:42:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. But lets keep the peace here.


RE: USA
By Skilty on 12/22/2006 7:17:43 AM , Rating: 2
Ok being a limey I don't understand all of the yank bashing. At the end of the day every country must have a defense against hostile intent against its borders and its interests. I have to admit US foreign policy is the thing that should be questioned as it has caused more issues in the Middle East than it can ever hope to solve. Rather than fighting terrorism its actually probably radicalised more groups into action. Having said that the British government are no better!

As for WWII, weren't the Americans rather late to the party? ;-p


RE: USA
By Nightskyre on 12/22/2006 9:22:05 AM , Rating: 3
Late to the party? Absolutely not. America was actively trying to remain a non-hostile party. Yes, they were giving supplies to the British, but they were actively NOT engaging in warfare. It wasn't until the Japanese directly attacked the American borders that they became actively involved. Read your history book. America retaliated when it was threatened.


RE: USA
By Kuroyama on 12/22/2006 6:09:16 PM , Rating: 2
Read your history book. If you want to start pointing fingers, you might realize that Japan attacked the US when we put an oil embargo on them. By your logic Japan retaliated when it was threatened by economic destruction.

Not to mention that our "non-hostile" behavior included supplying those actively fighting Germany and Japan (as you yourself note). Based on your jingoistic attitude I am sure that you consider Iran as an enemy of the US for supplying those who dislike us, so by your logic we are if anything worse than Iran because we supplied people actively fighting wars against Germany and Japan.

Disclaimer: No, I don't think Japan, Germany or Iran were/are justified in their actions. But don't go pretending we are an innocent party either.


RE: USA
By Shintai on 12/22/2006 7:45:57 AM , Rating: 2
I think you lack quite abit of facts on history.

http://politics.videosift.com/video/Lil-Hitler-suc...

Thats alittle funny, but also shows WHEN the US cared. Until then they couldnt be bothered. And saved us? You know without the french you hate so much, you would be a british puppet now.


RE: USA
By rushfan2006 on 12/22/2006 8:55:23 AM , Rating: 2
You do really you made a silly contradictory comment there right? LOL....you emphasis "WHEN the US cared"...but yet you bring up the French helping the US during the revolution....you do realize right that the French were rather late in helping the US as well.....in fact the US was getting strung out pretty thin waiting for some allied help..then the French showed up...at last. Now I'm not making fun of the French here having said that, I'm merely stating it because if you are gonna mock the timing of the US help in WWII, let's also mock the timing of the French in the Revolution.

Now that that business is out of the way...

The original comment in this posting was silly about Canada and never should of be stated.

Every nation has a duty to protect its citizens, in fact that is one of (if not THE most important) reason for governments to even exist....provide for the defense and security of all its citizens.

The US btw, giving aid to our allied nations before we got physically involved in WWII due to the attack on Pearl...and FINALLY.....don't bullshit everyone with the "US was late" rant.....I don't rightly see a lot of nations helping out with a lot of operations the US nearly stands alone on. And can the "world police comments"....some of that is valid, and Iraq is a poor excuse to use....but with the middle east situation over the decades....research the numbers of forces...its US overwhelming have spilt more of its own blood than any of our allied nations have.

Not saying the action is right or wrong for us even being over there...but what happened to the "team spirit" allies are supposed to have?

And so yeah..that's why I find it rich and ironic....



RE: USA
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
Are you trying to tell me that the American Revolution was inspired by the French Revolution? Probably not, since it took place after. Or maybe you mean the French directly liberated us from the British.

I don't really follow. Maybe I should have paid more attention in history classes. :( Do expand please.


RE: USA
By Trippytiger on 12/22/2006 1:47:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, you should have paid more attention. The French played a big role in the American Revolution; they sent soldiers to America to help fight the British troops and poured a great deal of their own money into the effort. The number of places in the U.S. named "Lafayette" pays tribute to the marquis de Lafayette, a French general who fought with the Americans.

In turn, this actually had a fairly large part in the French Revolution, as it can trace its roots back to the meeting of the Estates General, which I believe (been a while since history class for me) was mostly about the king wanting to raise taxes to help the French government recover some of the money it sunk into America.


RE: USA
By iNGEN on 12/22/2006 3:52:08 PM , Rating: 2
The French have shown up at critical times during each of the conflicts on US soil. With the exception of the French & Indian War (you folks in Canada, and in Europe call it something else) the Frenchies have provided critical support in America's moments of greatest need. The American's have always found it interesting, however, that the French never show up until the winner is clearly decided.

Examples:
During the War for Independence the French had 3 officers assigned to liaison with the colonist forces throughout the war, but would not commit any troops despite repeated promises to the contrary. In the closing days of the war Washington and his Continental Army, supplemented by states' militias, drove Gen. Cornwallis into the sea. Earlier coastal battles had functionally eliminated the American Navy and shrunk the British flotilla to only transports and a handful of combat vessels, only one of which was a ship-of-the-line. No matter how bad Cornwallis was beaten, he could always make reparations in the Caribbean and reinvade in a few short months, potentially carrying on the conflict for several more years. Just as Cornwallis began loading his transports the French Navy showed up. The Frenchies blasted the hell out of the already warn-torn British ships leaving Cornwallis no alternative, but surrender.

During the War Between the States the British , oddly enough, showed favor upon the Confederacy. The Brits wouldn't field infantry in the internal conflict of another nation, so they used their navy to protect Confederate merchant ships along their trade routes. This kept the whole of the inferior Confederate Navy free for combat operations while the Union Navy had to divide up its superior forces to maintain civil patrol; thereby "leveling the playing field". It worked for the first part of the war. But shortly after the Battle at Gettysburg, the French Navy showed up again, this time with notice they would fire on any vessel firing on any Union ship, American or not. This network of ultimatums effectively took British naval power off the balance sheet. Union naval forces quickly blockaded Confederate trade routes forcing surrender years sooner than would have otherwise been likely in a war that had already run far to long a course. It's important to note that in both cases French use of force saved a considerable number of American lives, but also that the French did act until it was clear which side was the victor and there was minimal risk of loss.

My knowledge of French action in The Great War is limited. I only know French casualties were proportionally far worse than the other western allied nations, and that the French desertion rate was likewise proportionally higher.

During the Second World War about 2/3 of France capitulated with the Nazi invaders almost immediately. Although I've heard people here on this board comment like they rolled over without so much as a shot being fired. I think the Vichy French put a little bit of a fight before crying uncle...just not much of one. On the flip side of the coin, French resistance (mostly bourgeois civilians whose businesses had been nationalized by the nazis) provided absolutely crucial intelligence about occupation forces in France during the summer of 1944. Without that intelligence the D-Day invasion would likely have failed. French resistance also sabotaged German equipment, moved road signs so German reinforcements went they tried to move south to cut off the freshly landed allied forces. They even assasinated a few Nazi officials and officers before D-Day. Once again its important to note how important their contribution truly was. However, it's worthy of note as well that when they stood to loose a lot they just gave up, but when the risk of loss topped out at a few hundred volunteers they were all in. It is often believed that the U.S. liberated France, this is a fallacy as fighting throughout France far outlasted D-Day and involved significant action by Canadian and British forces as well as US, but the US landed on heavily defended beaches whereas the former encountered little resistance landing. It is said an American died for every step taken back from the German's in France.

Hopefully this helps you, WhiteBoyFunk. As well as those of you who were didn't follow all the animosity between the French and American posters on this board.


RE: USA
By JoseMaria on 12/22/2006 8:32:33 PM , Rating: 2
Eeeerrrrr, quick history lesson. It was SPAIN who helped the US, with CASH as a matter of fact, used to pay for weapons. France was late and lame to the party.


RE: USA
By dsumanik on 12/22/2006 11:36:11 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, have a look on youtube and watch what our military is doing over there....and recording it for the world to see. semper fi! we got some really smart marines nowadays.

We have wiped out a complete country and mentally and physically torment innocent citizens regularly, even women and children.

sound familiar?

like a terrorist organization perhaps?

its us man.

You think 9/11 was bad?

9/11 is a complete joke compared to rolling an army onto foriegn soil and blowing everything up.

what if a foriegn army rolled onto american soil and decided to attack? Would that be more monumental than 2 planes crashing into a building? 5000 dead?

big whoop.

Would you expect an armed response form your military to retaliate against a foreign invasion?

Guess what? The Arabs over there will too, and in 10 years further splinter cells and terrorists organizations will be retaliating for what our glorious army is doing over there now.

Congratulations, we've secured more terrorism at the cost of 600 billion and counting.

The only way the ignorant, uneducated, fat, lazy, and money hungry consumer troggs of our "glorious" country will ever wake up is when someone they know gets killed as a result of this senseless and stupid unwinnable battle.

when a family member die, then youve paid the price. When you lose a leg in a bombing, then youve paid the price.

you heard bush in his last statement, i encourage you to go shopping.

spend spend spend so we can kill kill kill, oh well change the channel rosie andthe donald are fighting...much more entertaining.

i see why america is so hated, were disgusting.

happy holidays and safe flying.




RE: USA
By rushfan2006 on 12/22/2006 11:44:17 AM , Rating: 3
Nice. Judge an organization of around 300k (USMC) on the behavior of a handful. I love blanket statments. Condemn the majority for the acts of the few.

Damn armchair assholes slaming the military who are sacrificing their lives, while you have your smug remarks from the safety of your home..then after you are done here you'll log off and what go play your PS3 or maybe watch a movie, go over a friends house ?

What an idiot.

NEWSFLASH...in EVERY group you WILL have bad seeds....its all the law of averages and part of the human condition. The more people in a group the greater the likelihood, the less people the chance decreases.



RE: USA
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:36:19 PM , Rating: 2
This kid is a pr0 debater. Everyone should rate him up ^_^


RE: USA
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
This comment, much like its creator I'm sure, is without base and useless to the direction of the thread.

Yes, we have wiped the country out. Utterly and completely, without a doubt. This is of course since we are the ones killing thousands of innocent Iraq civilians each month. Not so much.

People like this are the ones who give me reason to believe that the draft should be re-reinstituted. Just think how his perspective would shift once his truck was hit by an RPG on the streets of Baghdad.


RE: USA
By Schadenfroh on 12/22/2006 11:46:38 AM , Rating: 2
This weapon is a big win for civilians. One of the reasons that cruise missiles in Iraq hit civilian buildings was that anti-aircraft guns damaged them and threw them off course. These fly so fast that it would be very hard to hit with said guns, and thus they will hit their correct targets.


RE: USA
By Gannon on 12/23/2006 8:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
"You'd either be speaking German or you would be dead if it wasn't for the US"

What a bunch of nonsense. Look at asia, india's and russia's population. There is no way Germany would have taken over the world it simply did not have the manpower or the technical expertise. Just look at the blunders in IRAQ by the USA right now, they can't even manage to take over a small country of around ~25 something million. Sad.


RE: USA
By alcalde on 12/24/2006 1:05:56 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, you'd be speaking...um... English... well, the Queen's English, anyway... if the French hadn't helped America during the Revolutionary War. And the Soviets were the real heroes of WWII, grinding Hitler's military machine to a halt at an astounding cost in lives and property.

I also can't conceive of an imminent threat to Canada that will require the intervention of U.S. forces. In fact, with U.S. forces stretched to the breaking point, the U.S. couldn't send a significant military force into Canada if it wanted to.


RE: USA
By spluurfg on 12/22/2006 7:12:16 AM , Rating: 2
Horrible? Weapons like these are designed to be fast and accurate in order to destroy their targets and cause little collateral damage. I see smart weapons like these as a step forward from the days when nations, say, firebombed cities and annihilated their populations.

The firebombing of Tokyo killed more civilians than the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, yet did not have nearly the same psychological effect. It is better to have a strike option that causes fewer casualties to reach the desired objective. This weapon could have a dramatic psychological impact if knowing that ambushing a patrol could bring a missile strike in 20 minutes from a loitering bomber; an impact that could potentially save lives.

Of course, that isn't to say that diplomacy shouldn't be our first option...


RE: USA
By Seer on 12/24/2006 2:22:52 PM , Rating: 2
The fire-bombing of Dresden killed more people than either Fat Man or Little Boy.


RE: USA
By dome1234 on 12/21/2006 8:23:08 PM , Rating: 2
canada is land&sea-locked by the states. Another way of putting it is that canada has less enemies.

Given the current state of world, a supersonic cruise missile definitely wouldn't win any wars on terror.

btw, has the osama chap been caught?


RE: USA
By badgeror on 12/22/2006 3:20:43 AM , Rating: 1
Nope Ossama hasn't been caught and I don't know if you're aware of it but it seems that some french special forces (yeah I know thanks to you guys they don't speak german, blablabla) had 2 opportunities to shoot him in 2003 and 2004 but they had to wait for US instructions to do so (as they are under US command in Afganistan), instructions that never came. Now tell me about how much Georges wants his Ossama killed. I guess it would have prevented him and Donald to go after Sadam and his oil rich nation...


RE: USA
By rushfan2006 on 12/22/2006 9:04:08 AM , Rating: 2
I know dispite any disclaimer I could write this will likely sent off a political rant but its the truth....

The REAL genuine and BEST opportunity we had (USA) to kill Osama was well before George Bush was president....it was during the Clinton administration. We had special forces who literally had him in their friggin sights but they were told to stand down.

And btw....this information is from the guy that was running the Osama Bin Laden desk at the CIA...translation he was tasked with heading the operations to get bin laden.

Micheal something or other was his name I believe.

Last name was Schaffer or Sawyer or something like that.



RE: USA
By psenechal on 12/22/2006 11:27:08 AM , Rating: 2
Donny Whalberg played him in the TV movie :)

You're right though...everyone was too chicken sh!t to be the one to authorize pulling the trigger and were afraid of the fallout. Same thing when we had a missile strike...someone in the State Department called and warned the Pakistani government that a missile was going to be crossing their air space. And of course they called and told Bin Laden to get out.

It kills me at how many chances we had to stop 9/11 and just flat out blew it.


RE: USA
By rushfan2006 on 12/22/2006 11:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
I never saw the movie you refer to. But yes when I think about how we had Osama so many times and didn't act and then look at the state we are in....just makes me sick.


RE: USA
By WhiteBoyFunk on 12/22/2006 1:41:24 PM , Rating: 2
I hardly believe this claim. We were in the same situation with another member of our so 'loved' organization, the dirka-dirkanians, and we took his ass out right quick and in a hurry. Al-Zarqawi