[vyper]

No matter what you lot make, the UK will just build a new Jump-Jet

[Ace Pace]

Sandwich, could you dredge up those articles?

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by Ace Pace
Sandwich, could you dredge up those articles?

No problem:

IDF - USAF EXERCISES, MED, 5 May 99

In mock air battles during training exercises held about 2 months ago in the Negev between Israeli and US air force, Israeli pilots "shot down" 220 US aircraft, compared to 20 Israeli aircraft "shot down" by American pilots. The exercise was the first time Israeli pilots trained against foreign pilots on such a wide scale. In the past, the IAF objected to such exercises for fear it would expose IAF tactics. However in recent years, IAF commander General Eitan Ben Eliyahu has increased such exercises to help train Israeli pilots against new tactics.

The US pilots flew F14 & F18 jets against the Israeli F15 & F16 jets. While the Israeli pilots drew much praise from the Americans, the Israeli side played down the one-sided results saying that the mock battles were mostly in close air battles - which is a particular strength of the Israelis.

[Ace Pace]

now make that live fire, and the world will attack us out of fear

[Zeronet]

The Americans may be leaders in technology, but their military forces suffer from a lack of discipline.(which leads to them blowing up so many friendly targets, how the heck you can mistake a Challenger with a massive big yellow flag for a T-72 is beyond me)

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
Well, one man with the right technology (or knowledge, in other words) can in theory take on the whole world and win with almost mathematical certainty.

Hm, unless you're considering some kind of future technology, that is not even close to mathematical certainty. I'd say that it's closer to zero probability...

[CP5670]

Hm, unless you're considering some kind of future technology, that is not even close to mathematical certainty. I'd say that it's closer to zero probability...

um, yes it is; probably about 99.9999%. You think that large mobs can beat hydrogen bombs?

[Zeronet]

Originally posted by CP5670


um, yes it is; probably about 99.9999%. You think that large mobs can beat hydrogen bombs?

A large mob could beat up the people deploying it.

[CP5670]

Not if it's launched from the moon or something.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
um, yes it is; probably about 99.9999%. You think that large mobs can beat hydrogen bombs?

What you fail to realize is that you'll need:
1. Several hydrogen bombs
2. Ability to launch it from out of range of the "angry mobs"
3. Complete assurance that you're the only one with such abilities

As the world is today, the instant you launch an intercontinental missile, there will be most likely several others coming right at your direction. You'll cause some damage, yes, but you won't live to see any of it. I can hardly call that a victory.

[CODEDOG ND]

Close Air fighting is not an American strong point, because we don't really ever get that close to enemy fighters.  However, you the Isreali's are also using American made or American based on designs.  The biggest worry are those of the Mirages, MiGs, and SUs.  Why shoot a guy with your guns when you can blast him at 50 miles with a Pheonix?  We also have mass numbers of fighters as well, even though a lot of countries can out fight the US, we can out number you pretty quick.  Iraq is a good example, in mock battles they beat the **** out of US fighters in Dogfighting, but when US fighters engaged them for real over Iraq, those Mirage's and MiG fled to Iran after being murdered by long range missiles, and their lack of ground based radar to give off US Aircraft positions, since Wild Weasels and A-10's kinda fixed those.  And of course, the A-10 and Apache helicopter kinda handed the Iraqi mighty T-72's there own ass.  Persian Gulf also showed how much better the British and American tanks are compared to the Russians and their mighty T-72's and T-84's.  

Lack of military discipline?

The British have never sent 100 special forces into an area and been surrounded by thousands of armed Somoli militia either, and fight their way out.   And go into 2 hot zones and fight them off so they can recover dead bodies from mutalation.   Thank God for Pakistan for once.

Actually, last time I checked, Adid was more afriad of the 20,000 US Marines that were there over any of the UN forces including British.  Once those Marines pulled out then he got brave.  And then got his ass shot off, until "Our Great Almighty President Clinton", decided to remove those troops and those Rangers and Delta Force died for nothing.

I don't know what you guys think is the best aircraft.  I still say the AC-130 Spectre gunship 0wnz j00!!!!!!:D

[CP5670]

What you fail to realize is that you'll need:
1. Several hydrogen bombs
2. Ability to launch it from out of range of the "angry mobs"
3. Complete assurance that you're the only one with such abilities

As the world is today, the instant you launch an intercontinental missile, there will be most likely several others coming right at your direction. You'll cause some damage, yes, but you won't live to see any of it. I can hardly call that a victory.

Um, yes, remember that this is only one man with the right technology; as I said, he could just launch all of his missiles from the moon or something and then run to some other planet or blow up the enemy missiles in space using more missiles, where they would be almost useless due to the lack of an atmosphere.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by CODEDOG ND
Close Air fighting is not an American strong point, because we don't really ever get that close to enemy fighters...

While Israel usually wouldn't have a choice, considering that there is no point in Israel that is more than 30 miles from a border.

[daveb]

Nuclear weapons are inherently a deterrent. But this deterrent works on the assumption that the countries wielding them are rational. Countries such as Iraq (as led by Hussein) are _not_ rational and therefore require "special" attention.

[LtNarol]

Originally posted by daveb
Nuclear weapons are inherently a deterrent. But this deterrent works on the assumption that the countries wielding them are rational. Countries such as Iraq (as led by Hussein) are _not_ rational and therefore require "special" attention.

i sure hope this "special" attention you speak of doesnt involve use of weapons of mass destruction...that could end up very nasty

[daveb]

No. The point was - rational nations use deterrance as a valid political end. Countries like Iraq are arguably 10x as likely to employ nuclear weapons for the purpose of military offense.

I meant "special" attention in the case of Iraq in the context of the clear US buildup and intent to oust Saddam. You know, all the "interventionist" stuff that Europe likes to whine about. There will be a FANTASTIC amount of blustering and blithering from the European left as the US goes in a installs a new, less insane regime. Deep down though, they'll realize that if this isn't done, they'll be facing the tips of Saddam's missiles in 10-15 years. Then things get _really_ ugly. Ounce of prevention and all that.

Saddam has been in power for _decades_. In 15 years its conceivable that he'll have thermonuclear weapons. To put this in perspective, 15 years ago the two most powerful nations in the world (the US and the Soviet Union) had enough weapons pointed at each other on hair trigger to flatten the planet 5 times over. These days, we're best buddies! Take this sort of shift and assume we do what the whiny UN will inevitably demand and leave Saddam alone. It is entirely conceivable that in 15 years Iran and Iraq (both developing Nukes rapidly) will flip flop and be best buddies. Iran is on the cusp of a secular revolution which will endear them to Iraq. Heck, throw in moderate (teehee) Saudi Arabia and maybe Pakistan in the mix. Now you've got all the superpowers-of-the-desert with giant armies and nukes a few thousand miles from Europe. You can bet that "regime replacement" will be absolutely _mild_ compared to what will be going through the minds of Europeans then when sights are turned West.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by daveb
Deep down though, they'll realize that if this isn't done, they'll be facing the tips of Saddam's missiles in 10-15 years.

10-15 years? Try months, bro - months.

[daveb]

I was speaking more along the lines of strategic nuclear weapons. That is to say, Saddam may churn out a WMD or two in the short term and have the ability to hold a country hostage, terrorist-style - but that's peanuts in the big scheme of things. If the major, traditionally radical ME countries continue along the lines they have now, in 10-15 years they could have significant arsenals of nuclear weapons which will change the whole concept of "terrorism". If they find themselves coddled by the UN (that is, not smacked down HARD when supporting terrorism) they'll learn that terrorism and threats pay. And then we won't be talking about 100,000 dead, or even a flattened city of millions. We're talking the ability to scour entire countries or continents (read : Europe).

[CP5670]

Dave: I completely agree there; couldn't have said it any better.

[LtNarol]

Yup, dave's been doing his research....