[Kosh]

Which seems to be happening frequently these days....

[Bobboau]

you mean like force/coerce other nations not to get nukes?

I think that would fall into the keeping other nations from getting an egde on you

[Kosh]

The US literally has thousands of nuclear warheads. Do you seriously believe the US would "lose its edge" if Iran somehow got its hands on one?


That's just hype and rhetoric.

[DaBrain]

Who has the right to decide which countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons and why?

I think nobody should have nukes and not even an Amry.

In our modern wold embargos should be enough hit another country.

Embargos only make sense if a lot of nations agree on them.
The more nations agree, the better the solution will be. It's like international democracy.

[Roanoke]

Originally posted by aldo_14
To whoever brought up the UK; 60-80 years (+) ago, you'd probably have got the same reaction to the British Empire.  And rightly so.  Truth be told, we're probably not educated enough here about the rights and (mostly) wrongs of 19th century British Imperialism and consequences thereafter.  Whether it's a result of institutional shame, blindness or simply different priorities, I don't know.

Dude! We civilised the barbarians! And when we were done, we gave them their countires back! How cool is that ? And someone had to keep those pesky spaniards & frenchmen in check.

I actually did quite about the slave trade at school.

[Kosh]

I think nobody should have nukes and not even an Amry.

I personally am a one worlder. I believe in one world government. Although if you play a game called "Deus Ex" it probably will make you think twice about it.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Bobboau
you mean like force/coerce other nations not to get nukes?

I think that would fall into the keeping other nations from getting an egde on you

No, like bribing small African dictatorships and Eastern European nations with cushy aid deals to side with you on the UN security council.  Or imposing (illegal) tariffs on cashmere imports from Scotland because the EU won't give US bananas favoured status.  Or insisting that US troops be immunised from war crimes prosecutions when serving as UN peacekeepers, and deciding the ICOJ doesn't apply to the US. Or indeed the Byrd Amendment, which has been declared illegal by the WTO.

 That sort of thing tends to seem a bit like bully tactics.

[Roanoke]

Originally posted by Descenterace
Re: the Su-47. Niiiiiiiiiiiiice...

I've always prefered the look of Russian hardware to American stuff.

[Jetmech Jr.]

@Ethershock: I was referring to this:

 You think we'd share this tech with all our NATO buddies?

So in otherwords I shouldn't be making any criticisms of what I consider to be a total waste of money. After all, cricizing anything the US government does is unpatriotic and an evil deed.

Not even close to what I was saying. I just don't like people assuming that EVERY single thing the U.S. does is in some way an "evil deed," or is going to play a part in some "evil deed" we do.

And like Flipside mentioned:

I'm thinking the civilian-side bleedoff from this technology will benefit mankind long after the weapons have been rendered obselete

I really think you are taking this way too personally. I am not seeing how saying an opposing viewpoint is bashing the US. I just don't believe the rhetoric around it. It is unfortunate that you are appearently a victim of it.

Automatically assuming the worst is what pisses me off. It also happens to always be done in regards to the U.S. Thats what pisses me off more.

[rant]Don't you DARE try to paint me as some blind/dumb/deaf Uber-Patriotic "U.S. can do no wrong" media slave, or I'll shove it so far up your ass you'll be singing "Star Spangled Banner" til next Thursday. [/rant]

[Ghost]

Originally posted by Kosh
The US literally has thousands of nuclear warheads. Do you seriously believe the US would "lose its edge" if Iran somehow got its hands on one?


That's just hype and rhetoric.

No, but it might certainly cost the US thousands or millions of innocent lives. Or any other nation that Iran thinks sucks. Or for that matter, that North Korea thinks sucks. You'll notice we have them, but we don't use them? I highly doubt they'd hesitate to use them on us.

[Cobra]

Originally posted by Kosh
A good example of Russian weapon development is the Sukhoi 47.

that's one of the most manueverable fighters ever produced. but i'm still not sure how the forward-swept canards even work.

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Nuke
this might make them want to keep the a-10 around. replace the gau-8 with a laser. but we all know what weapon is cooler

Of corse we do!

Giant Gattling guns all they way!!!:D

[achtung]

Originally posted by Kosh



Actually selling military hardware is a big business in Russia. They are always developing new weapons and other stuff like that, mostly for export.

A good example of Russian weapon development is the Sukhoi 47.

Theres an X-Plane that looks just like that.  I wonder which came first?

[ChronoReverse]

Originally posted by Cobra


that's one of the most manueverable fighters ever produced. but i'm still not sure how the forward-swept canards even work.

Not only that, it can literally fly straight up and slide sideways.  It's a rather amazing bird.

It must be horrifically unstable though. Forward swept wings give extreme manueverability at the cost of stability.  I'd imagine it'd be fun to fun if you're good though.

[Kosh]

Originally posted by Swantz



Theres an X-Plane that looks just like that.  I wonder which came first?

Actually, the Nazis had a design on the drawing boards at the end of world war 2 for a forward swept winged jet fighter and jet bomber. So I would say that it predates both by about 55 years or so.

EDIT: Looks like they had a forward swept jet bomber in the prototype stage. Meet the Junkers Ju287.

Forward swept wings give extreme manueverability at the cost of stability. I'd imagine it'd be fun to fun if you're good though.

Don't they also have computers to help control it? Fly by wire controls have been around for decades......

[Descenterace]

Forward-swept wings mean that... uh... something about putting the control surfaces in the place where they can do the most. Gives much higher manoeuverability at all speeds.

[Cobra]

higher manueverability = total pwnage.

[EtherShock]

Higher manueverability does have an edge, but there are ways to counter that, though the only tactics I can think of involve sheer numbers and a missle lock at long range.

Originally posted by Jetmech Jr.
@Ethershock: I was referring to this:

You think we'd share this tech with all our NATO buddies?

What? I thought it was a perfectly legit question.

[Descenterace]

Long range? So the missile expends most of its energy getting to the target?

Best time to launch it is up close, in a tail-chase. That way, the target gets very little time to react. If it's a heatseeker, it'll get a good long look at the target's exhaust (so no Missile Lock indication) and a very short flight time (only a second or two from Missile Launch warning).

[EtherShock]

Good luck getting on that thing's six. You'd have to be a really good pilot, or have some wingmates helping you, unless the enemy pilot sucks.