[Fineus]

I... choose... to remove my nations liberties, bend over backwards to the quiet little invasion of minority peoples (now majority peoples) and set about removing the money from the people and placing it into the pockets of the government.

Phew, glad I made the right choice there...

[Roanoke]

I want to move to Australia! Who's with me ?

[Ford Prefect]

No thanks. Hole in the ozone layer FTL.

[vyper]

Either the 51st American state or the 51st European state (so to speak).

if your not going to go after power for your selves, your going to have to make alliances with someone who does, so you have three options, join the bigger closer empire, the further more powerful empire, or make your own empire.

which is it going to be?

Empire building is Bad(TM), didn't you know? Part of what's wrong with this country is that the "caring" side of the political spectrum is too caring.

[IceFire]

I... choose... to remove my nations liberties, bend over backwards to the quiet little invasion of minority peoples (now majority peoples) and set about removing the money from the people and placing it into the pockets of the government.

Phew, glad I made the right choice there...

And I'm scared as can be that Canada is the next one to slide.  This is getting ridiculous with people down in the states now stating that it would be "ok to suspend freedom of speech to fight the terrorists" which is about as slippery a slope as you can find!  And nobody is outraged about it.

I want the 90s back...

[Bobboau]

I... choose... to remove my nations liberties, bend over backwards to the quiet little invasion of minority peoples (now majority peoples) and set about removing the money from the people and placing it into the pockets of the government.

Phew, glad I made the right choice there...

so in other words, you are going to become subject to people who have no ancestry in your land and turn your government into a socialist state, sounds kind of like option one.

[Nuclear1]

I want to move to Australia! Who's with me ?

Hooray, compulsory voting systems!  That's a much better government to live under, one elected by people who have no idea what they're on about!

I... choose... to remove my nations liberties, bend over backwards to the quiet little invasion of minority peoples (now majority peoples) and set about removing the money from the people and placing it into the pockets of the government.

Phew, glad I made the right choice there...

And I'm scared as can be that Canada is the next one to slide.  This is getting ridiculous with people down in the states now stating that it would be "ok to suspend freedom of speech to fight the terrorists" which is about as slippery a slope as you can find!  And nobody is outraged about it.

I want the 90s back...

It's not that people aren't outraged, it's just simply that we haven't until recently had a chance to do anything drastic about.  The US for the past six years has suffered through what has plagued the UK:  a streamlined, effecient government.  It's like Harry Truman said: "Where you have an effecient government, you have a dictatorship."  Legislation such as the Patriot Act and the Military Commissions Act has gotten through Congress and the President simply because the two bodies were ruled by neoconservatives or Republicans who vote for their party.  What that sort of united government does is ignore what makes American government effective:  slow deliberation. 

We should be seeing a lot less of this sort of legislation in the last two years of Bush's reign, with Congress now in Democratic control, however.  Divided government FTW.

[Quest_techie]

there is a reason the f-16 has such a large radar signature and flys in the manner it does, design doctrine

IIRC, the F-16 has a lower radar signature than most fighters due to its blended wing design (only when not carrying weapons), but probably I'm wrong... I can't find the article where I read it.

Britian should have just gotten Mig29s, possibily in kit form to keep BAe bods busy, rather than all this collaberation nonsense.

I've read that refitting an airplane which uses meters, kph, liters and kilograms to use feet, knots, gallons and pounds may have the same cost as building a totally new airplane, not talking about weapon compatibility. But again, I may be wrong.

ben rich, the leader of the lockheed martin skunk works at the time of the Have blue project used a barn as a comparison for the size for an f-16, not saying that isn't lower profile than it's contemporaries, probably is, but it's still incredibly big, especially compared to the f-117 which was compared to the size of a large birds eye or a ball bearing in terms of total cross section

there is a reason the f-117 looks so unusual and has such unstable flight characteristics, there is also a reason it has such an incredibly small radar profile <well, several really> there is a reason the f-16 has such a large radar signature and flys in the manner it does, design doctrine

BTW: According to the experts the F-117 has a larger radar profile than the B-2, F-22 and F-35.

This whole thing is silly...the British jointly developed the F-35 from the start.  If anyone should have access to the software then it should be them.

I don't know about that, on one hand I can't imagine reasonable people using something as expensive and otherwise tacticly useless as the f-117, for the love of god, every time maintenance is done the composite coating has to be scraped off, the panel removed, maintenance performed, and the coating reapplied

now the question is, is the command structure of the USAF burdened with reasonable people?

BTW: According to the experts the F-117 has a larger radar profile than the B-2, F-22 and F-35.

I've read that the F-22 and the B-2 are much "stealthier" than the F-117 due to their curved surfaces, but I read also that the F-35 is only slightly stealthier than the B-1 (another "low observability" aircraft).

the f117 was the first combat stealth aircraft. there were some minor stealth features on the sr-71, however they were secondary to its speed. it wasnt till the f117 that stealth was the primary purpose or an aircraft. i personally dont know why we use them, theyre small, slow weak, ****ty handeling, and have a tiny payload. none the less it was a proof of concept for stealth.

now the f117 was developed back in the 70s, computing power was pathetic. only with the rise in computing power was it possible to calculate every milimeter of surface area and which direction it should face. we also had the manufacturing capability to presisely lay composite in the way the design called for. and out of that we got the b2.

now the difference between low observability aircraft and stealth aircraft is more a matter of tactics than actual capability. a stealth aircraft is designed to avoid detection at all cost. its tactics are specifically designed for this. a low observability aircraft is designed to give it an advantage in combat (or whatever other misssion it may be designed for), so that it may get the first shot. now the actual radar cross sections of the planes are classified, noone on this board knows what they are and none of us are qualified to make judgments on which plane is stealthyer. we can only make assumptions.

I agree with everything you say and simply would like to augment it

consider that on the f-117 the stealth goes to hell when the bomb bay doors open <citing ben rich's memoirs, "skunk works"> the doors form a 90* angle with the belly of the plane <I'm too lazy for unicode> wwhich lights up like christmas on radar, the the pilot has to time everything around deployment of his very limited payload very precisly so as to not get turned into burning carbon streaks

in an f-35 if you compromise our stealth signature your worrying about someone locking on you a few seconds sooner, or being able to lock onto you at all <don't know how low observable it is>

[aldo_14]

Either the 51st American state or the 51st European state (so to speak).

if your not going to go after power for your selves, your going to have to make alliances with someone who does, so you have three options, join the bigger closer empire, the further more powerful empire, or make your own empire.

which is it going to be?

Empire building is Bad(TM), didn't you know? Part of what's wrong with this country is that the "caring" side of the political spectrum is too caring.

Of course empire building is bad - what else could the subjugation of other peoples be?

[vyper]

Either the 51st American state or the 51st European state (so to speak).

if your not going to go after power for your selves, your going to have to make alliances with someone who does, so you have three options, join the bigger closer empire, the further more powerful empire, or make your own empire.

which is it going to be?

Empire building is Bad(TM), didn't you know? Part of what's wrong with this country is that the "caring" side of the political spectrum is too caring.

Of course empire building is bad - what else could the subjugation of other peoples be?

That depends on how you think of it. Look at India. Would it be where it is today without us?

[aldo_14]

That depends on how you think of it. Look at India. Would it be where it is today without us?

Perhaps we should invite the Americans or Chinese to administer the UK, then?

Look at Zimbabwe.  Look at apartheid South Africa or the invention of the concentation camp during the Boer War.  Or Afghanistan and Iraq.  For example.

If we credit the British empire with Indias growth since independence, do we credit it with these 'achievements'? 

Perhaps we should consider how many places volunteered to remain under British dominion?  I mean, because i'm sure you wouldn't wish for a system that ignored the vast majority in favour of imposing a 'superior culture', would you?

[vyper]

That depends on how you think of it. Look at India. Would it be where it is today without us?

Perhaps we should invite the Americans or Chinese to administer the UK, then?

Look at Zimbabwe.  Look at apartheid South Africa or the invention of the concentation camp during the Boer War.  Or Afghanistan and Iraq.  For example.

If we credit the British empire with Indias growth since independence, do we credit it with these 'achievements'? 

Perhaps we should consider how many places volunteered to remain under British dominion?  I mean, because i'm sure you wouldn't wish for a system that ignored the vast majority in favour of imposing a 'superior culture', would you?

In comparison to the other "empires" of the day, the British Empire was the most conscientious and humanitarian. Of course it had it's dark moments - and when innocent women and children suffered it's obviously wrong. However, what you are doing is trying to define the entire empire by those events. That's like defining the USA by it's actions in Iraq. You're missing out huge portions of the big picture.

The number of states that elected to remain under British rule, direct or otherwise, is not really a reflection of the historical rights and wrongs of imperialism - the empire was falling apart thanks to WW2 and a god awful economic in the UK mainland; This created economic incentive to seek independence. There is however a more interesting basis for the break up of the British Empire: The nations we previously ruled had developed strong, well organised state apparatus at our hands - which inevitably meant that complete local governance become an almost automatic evolutionary step in said nation's development.

On your last point, regarding "superior culture" being imposed on others:
Would you accept that the culture of the United Kingdom is superior to that of a state that practises stoning of women for adultery, or the decapitation of those who insult the state sponsored religion? If so then of course I believe that the imposition of one culture upon another is acceptable. But that's not what the empire was about.

No the empire, in the context of your question, was about power. It started with individuals seeking financial gain, and thus personal power, and evolved into imperial power as the nation began to nurture the sum of those individual ventures to become something bigger, and more unified.

[aldo_14]

So in other words, the vaunted superiority of the Uk comes down to 'lets screw them in case they screw us'?  So would you accept a US heagemony?  Becuase the US can cite superiority in certain ways, y'know - for one thing they have a constitution - and really superiority is a question of the beholder.

A lot of the instability, incidentally, in places like Africa can be traced to the forcible creation of nation states from a culture based on smaller tribal societies.  how many African countries are models of democratic justice?  It's been suggested that 40 million deaths from famine in India in 1769-73 were due to the destruction of traditional indian agriculture following the East India company imposing minimal wages and high taxation; is that an acceptable price for progress?

I'd suggest that you can only weight an empire by how it treats its occupied territories; an empire exists for one reason and one reason only - to subjugate an exterior population for the benefit of the interior (something wihich alone prevents equality and fair justice).  The US holds territory to benefit the US, the British Empires' only interest in Anglofying the likes of India was to try and make a more compliant population that could be better taken advantage of.

(incidentally, Burma/Myanmar can be another former empire territory to consider - now one of the worlds most repressive regimes.  Sudan is another former territory)

[vyper]

So in other words, the vaunted superiority of the Uk comes down to 'lets screw them in case they screw us'?  So would you accept a US heagemony?  Becuase the US can cite superiority in certain ways, y'know - for one thing they have a constitution - and really superiority is a question of the beholder.

Rather because they have more guns, and a bigger economy.

[aldo_14]

So in other words, the vaunted superiority of the Uk comes down to 'lets screw them in case they screw us'?  So would you accept a US heagemony?  Becuase the US can cite superiority in certain ways, y'know - for one thing they have a constitution - and really superiority is a question of the beholder.

Rather because they have more guns, and a bigger economy.

So it's not about actual moral or social superiority, but military or economic power used to force ideology.  Like the British empire.

[Quest_techie]

I'd accept jamaican hegemony......
what, no takers?

seriously though, the british empire was good for some nation states, it was terrible for others, the interaction of the cultures just worked that way, and that's how it will always work, it's not that empires are universally bad, or universally good, it is that they are a tool only useful in certain situations, mostly protecting itt bity nations from much larger hungry territorial nations

empires also foster greeat social integration which is nice, provides awesome real fusion cuisine, instead of that b.s. they try to pass off as fusion a lot of places, music too, but food was the first concept to mind

overall though, definitly in the bad category, necessary evil, but still evil

[aldo_14]

I'd accept jamaican hegemony......
what, no takers?

seriously though, the british empire was good for some nation states, it was terrible for others, the interaction of the cultures just worked that way, and that's how it will always work, it's not that empires are universally bad, or universally good, it is that they are a tool only useful in certain situations, mostly protecting itt bity nations from much larger hungry territorial nations

By having a larger hungry territorial nation taking it over? (!)

[vyper]

So in other words, the vaunted superiority of the Uk comes down to 'lets screw them in case they screw us'?  So would you accept a US heagemony?  Becuase the US can cite superiority in certain ways, y'know - for one thing they have a constitution - and really superiority is a question of the beholder.

Rather because they have more guns, and a bigger economy.

So it's not about actual moral or social superiority, but military or economic power used to force ideology.  Like the British empire.

I never implied that the actual foundation of empire building was anything but technical superiority. I have merely pointed out the positive effects of that empire.

[Gank]

Wha, like the illegal drug running into china, slave trading and turning whole continents into penal colonies? How did your empire benefit the Mauris or Aboriginies? Or american indians for that matter? Apartheid South Africa and the current Israeli-Palestine problem are both attributable to the british empire, likewise the problems in my own country. Indias a bad example to be using for your civilising effect, they had their own empires when you boys were pegging stones at the romans. A few unintended side effects cant be used to validate the whole thing, it was done for the benefit of the British people, nobody else. Instead of asking where would they be without you, maybe you should ask where would you be without them, would your country really be in the position its in today without the wealth its overseas enterprises brought in?

[Flipside]

So in other words, the vaunted superiority of the Uk comes down to 'lets screw them in case they screw us'?  So would you accept a US heagemony?  Becuase the US can cite superiority in certain ways, y'know - for one thing they have a constitution - and really superiority is a question of the beholder.

Rather because they have more guns, and a bigger economy.

Thing is, this has been going on since the village of Ug drove out the people of Og because they didn't worship the right tree or built their houses the wrong way or simply because they had more land to grow crops on.

Love it or hate it, Empire is here to stay, yesterday it was us, today it is the US, tomorrow it may be China (not that they really ever lost their Empire, the whole country is more or less an Empire by itself), or the Middle East or Russia again.

Empires are usually remembered by their atrocities, and the closer they are, the better documented those atrocities are. Rome is looked upon as a benevolent Empire, yet performed some terrible acts in the name of that Benevolence. People are so concerned about the size and speed of Alexander's Empire, that no-one remembers many of the acts performed in order to create that Empire so quickly. The difference is that the British Empire was around just as Media was starting to become far more available, thanks, in part, to a British invention (The Caxton Press and later on, the Television), that is why our atrocoties are recorded for all time, whereas before that stage, history was written by the victors, not by journalists.