Discussion:
Wanna See How Iran or China Will Kick Our Butts?
(too old to reply)
Too_Many_Tools
2007-03-23 22:17:45 UTC
Permalink
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?

If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.

And when the oil stops, the US economy will too.

As for China...want to bet that these missiles could carry tactical
nukes?

Too bad we can't buy one at Walmart....

TMT


Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile Tony
Capaccio Fri Mar 23


March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of
warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending
aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile,
according to current and former officials and Defense Department
documents.

The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed
by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it
will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.

The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so
serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's
chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production
of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was
addressed.

``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who
evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its
purpose.''

``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said.
China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines
designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence
spokesman Robert Althage.

A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia
also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale
has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the
ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through
which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.

Fast and Low-Flying

``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral
Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be
visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time
it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to
handle this sort of missile.''

The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and
destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect
aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and
former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by
Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and
intercepting the Sizzler.

``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas
Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from
mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.

`A Major Issue'

``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I
had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and
production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help
develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''

The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-
dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without
some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a
threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.

The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler
``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a
developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon
said in an e-mail.

Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of
the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable
alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a
layered defense capability that can defend against various missile
threats,'' Mann said.

Raising Concerns

McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns
about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8,
2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He
also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.

In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was
addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for
production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop
Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the
$36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop
and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6
billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.

Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense
contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B,
starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its
target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three
times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet)
above sea level.

Final Approach

On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very
high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office
of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.

The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent
agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense
issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles
fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them
easier to track and target.

McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of
our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded
to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest
in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.

`Aggressively Marketing'

The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in
Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at
international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with
the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research
organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last
month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he
said.

Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the
missile.

Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-
export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to
comment.

McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler
``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in
the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense
information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and
Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a
sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.

That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested
anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing
in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats
Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines
``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''

The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the
Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler
that could be used for testing.

``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.
NeverExpectPowerAlways
2007-03-23 23:17:29 UTC
Permalink
Yeah, but...

The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
Geno2341
2007-03-23 23:29:53 UTC
Permalink
Think so?
Or is that just a Hitler wet dream?
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against a
US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
NeverExpectPowerAlways
2007-03-23 23:38:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geno2341
Think so?
Or is that just a Hitler wet dream?
That's just a realistic assessment of the situation. Look who has his
finger on the Big Red Button.
Geno2341
2007-03-24 01:24:36 UTC
Permalink
You know maybe America has become lucky.
Bush being color blind can't distinglish red from blue,
I have heard that a CIA agent has put cards on the buttons and the blue
button is red and connected to Bush's seat in the Oval office.
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Post by Geno2341
Think so?
Or is that just a Hitler wet dream?
That's just a realistic assessment of the situation. Look who has his
finger on the Big Red Button.
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 01:55:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
the Democrats won't let us. No way would the liberals allow us to win a
war.

Or do you really believe that some dirty terrorist have beaten our
Army, our Navy, our nuclear weapons, and our ability to bomb them from
the stone age to the mud hut age with iron bombs?! If we can't win in
Iraq because of the Kerry's, Kennedy's and Pelosi's, we have no hope
against China.

It's the fifth columnist here at home who are the enemy we have to beat
if we are to survive as a nation.
Winston_Smith
2007-03-24 02:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
the Democrats won't let us.
Give me a break. Bush had years of lap dog Congress and unlimited
money. He's had longer than it took to beat Hitler. All he has done
is gotten us in deeper.


--
NEW version of address, my ISP is playing games again.
W§ mostly in m.s - http://www.1stconnect.com/anozira/default.htm
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 03:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
the Democrats won't let us.
Give me a break. Bush had years of lap dog Congress and unlimited
money. He's had longer than it took to beat Hitler. All he has done
is gotten us in deeper.
Bush is just to the right of Al Gore and John Kerry.

Al Gore was caught with a $300,000 bribe from the Chinese Red Army.
That's just what he was caught taking. Given that he's been a good stoge
of the communist ever since then, there appears to be some that he wasn't.

Kerry always wanted to run for political office, but he was spokesman
for Vietnam Veterans against the War, most of who's leadership was
openly communist. Kerry made at least two trips to vist with our
communist enemies during war - which is a felony. IF Kerry wanted to run
for office, and he announced an intent to do so before he joined the
Navy, then he wouldn't have joined the communist party. However, he was
clearly sympathetic to the communist cause.

So we have Bush to the left of two traitors and communist. That doesn't
say much for Bush, does it?

However, had it not been for the traitors in this country, we would have
elected a real American for president. Q.E.D.
Winston_Smith
2007-03-24 04:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
the Democrats won't let us.
Neat snipping of your own words. You wrote:
||> We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
||>the Democrats won't let us. No way would the liberals allow us to win a
||>war.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Winston_Smith
Give me a break. Bush had years of lap dog Congress and unlimited
money. He's had longer than it took to beat Hitler. All he has done
is gotten us in deeper.
Bush is just to the right of Al Gore and John Kerry.
So don't give us this "the Democrats" stuff. And do admit to your
originally, two posts ago, blaming the "liberals".

Bush is a NeoCon. NeoCons are ultra liberal, look at the track
record, and I'm actually coming to believe, anti-America. But still
you defend him, until challenged when you change your own words.

snip>
Post by s***@comcast.net
So we have Bush to the left of two traitors and communist. That doesn't
say much for Bush, does it?
So why do you write it's all the Dems fault? Be a big boy and take
responsibility for the fact that the NeoCon you love to defend is the
one that screwed it up. NeoCons are such victims. It's always
someone else's fault. Usually someone who wasn't even in power.
Post by s***@comcast.net
However, had it not been for the traitors in this country, we would have
elected a real American for president. Q.E.D.
The voters?


--
NEW version of address, my ISP is playing games again.
W§ mostly in m.s - http://www.1stconnect.com/anozira/default.htm
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 17:00:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
the Democrats won't let us.
||> We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
||>the Democrats won't let us. No way would the liberals allow us to win a
||>war.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Winston_Smith
Give me a break. Bush had years of lap dog Congress and unlimited
money. He's had longer than it took to beat Hitler. All he has done
is gotten us in deeper.
Bush is just to the right of Al Gore and John Kerry.
So don't give us this "the Democrats" stuff. And do admit to your
originally, two posts ago, blaming the "liberals".
What are you gibbering about? The Democrat party is the prefered party
of the liberal. Other liberals join the "Green", "Socialist" and
"Communist" parties. There is no contradiction there.
Post by Winston_Smith
Bush is a NeoCon.
Neocons are Jews and Catholics who defected from the liberal cause and
have taken on some of the policies of the conservatives.

Bush is not a Jew nor a Catholic. Ergo, he is not a Neocon.

Perhaps a more literal interpretation of the word "neocon" is New
Conservative. This would imply Bush is a conservative. In what why is he
a conservative?! He spends more than the budget - liberals do that, not
consrvatives. He cares more about the enemey than he does our troops -
liberals do that too. He likes little brown law breakers - liberals love
all little brown people, especially law breakers. As I pointed out
before, and you ignored, he's not a conservative, he's a socialist just
to the right of hard core communist like Kerry and Gore that he ran
against. Bush cannot be new to something that he never was.

You like to gibber the word "neocon" because it sounds cool to you; you
believe it makes you sound more intelligent to use a jargon word. Your
problem is (1) when you use it wrong, it makes you look stupid and (2)
being a faker is no substitute for a good rational argument.

Bush is not even a conservative; he is a moderate liberal. .
Post by Winston_Smith
NeoCons are ultra liberal, look at the track
record, and I'm actually coming to believe, anti-America.
Since you've already demonstrated you don't know what a neocon is, one
can only wonder what you're gibbering about here.
Post by Winston_Smith
But still
you defend him, until challenged when you change your own words.
Where did you get the idea that I defend Bush?! You're delusional and
delusion is a sign of insanity.
Post by Winston_Smith
snip>
Post by s***@comcast.net
So we have Bush to the left of two traitors and communist. That doesn't
say much for Bush, does it?
So why do you write it's all the Dems fault?
I said the Democrats won't let us. How did you get to the idea I said it
is all the Democrats fault? You're delusional again.

Bush can share in the blame, as can many Republicans. However, the
Democrats would vote in a block to allow the Chinese to attack us.

It is the Demcorats who are voting right now to give a victory to a
bunch of dirty 7th century terrorist - a victory they could not have
gotten on the battlefield against the full might of the American military.

It was a Democrat who signed over the Loral missile secrets that enabled
Chinese communist missles to use MIRV war heads. It was the same
Democrat who held the FBI at bay while the Chinese stole our MIRV
warhead technology, enabling them to build an test a warhead with our
MIRV warhead's exact signature.

There may be liberals in the Republican party, but it is the Democrat
who will not let us win a war.
Post by Winston_Smith
Be a big boy and take
responsibility for the fact that the NeoCon you love to defend is the
one that screwed it up. NeoCons are such victims. It's always
someone else's fault. Usually someone who wasn't even in power.
You're gibbering about your delusion, and you're not even gibbering
about your delusion in a rational or informed way.
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by s***@comcast.net
However, had it not been for the traitors in this country, we would have
elected a real American for president. Q.E.D.
The voters?
--
NEW version of address, my ISP is playing games again.
W§ mostly in m.s - http://www.1stconnect.com/anozira/default.htm
Winston_Smith
2007-03-24 18:12:43 UTC
Permalink
snip
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Winston_Smith
So don't give us this "the Democrats" stuff. And do admit to your
originally, two posts ago, blaming the "liberals".
What are you gibbering about? The Democrat party is the prefered party
of the liberal. Other liberals join the "Green", "Socialist" and
"Communist" parties. There is no contradiction there.
I love the way you go to 'gibbering' when you really don't want to
address the question.

I'm saying you wrote 'liberals' in your rant and then snipped that
back to 'dems' in your reply.

That left you pull one of your favorite debating tricks. You rant
about liberals and you defend and support Bush. When called on it,
you simply say Bush is a liberal and that's what you meant all along.

You are here to debate, not to try and explore anything. You are
bogus.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Winston_Smith
Bush is a NeoCon.
Neocons are Jews and Catholics who defected from the liberal cause and
have taken on some of the policies of the conservatives.
Bush is not a Jew nor a Catholic. Ergo, he is not a Neocon.
Neat slithering.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Perhaps a more literal interpretation of the word "neocon" is New
Conservative.
We all know exactly what 'NeoCon' means in today's political arena.

snip
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Winston_Smith
So why do you write it's all the Dems fault?
I said the Democrats won't let us. How did you get to the idea I said it
is all the Democrats fault? You're delusional again.
A distinction without a difference.

snip
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by s***@comcast.net
However, had it not been for the traitors in this country, we would have
elected a real American for president. Q.E.D.
The voters?
No answer? You must think it's the voters who are the traitors. They
alone have the responsibility to elect the President and the Congress.
They did what they did. Live with it.


--
NEW version of address, my ISP is playing games again.
W§ mostly in m.s - http://www.1stconnect.com/anozira/default.htm
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 18:34:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
snip
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Winston_Smith
So don't give us this "the Democrats" stuff. And do admit to your
originally, two posts ago, blaming the "liberals".
What are you gibbering about? The Democrat party is the prefered party
of the liberal. Other liberals join the "Green", "Socialist" and
"Communist" parties. There is no contradiction there.
I love the way you go to 'gibbering' when you really don't want to
address the question.
I point out your irrational postings. An irrational posting says
nothing, it neither affirms your argument nor does it refute mine. An
irrational posting is gibber.

I pointed out your loaded question was irrational, because it was not
what I said. As a loaded question, it is irrational and therefore
gibber. The irrational part is where you said I blame the Democrats for
everything, when what I really said was that the Democrats won't let us
win.

The Democrats are not letting us win in Iraq, they are voting for us to
lose. Yes, it is true that Bush hasn't the balls to try and win the war,
but he won't lose it either.

< snip gibber >

Stop using the word neocon incorrectly.
EFill4Zaggin
2007-03-24 13:20:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
the Democrats won't let us.
The war was lost long before the Democrats took congress. You're
re-writing history.
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 17:11:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
the Democrats won't let us.
The war was lost long before the Democrats took congress. You're
re-writing history.
The Democrats took congress because of Bush's refusal to win the war. He
refused to win the war to please the Democrats.

Had he destroyed the enemy instead of asking them to vote, the war would
have been over before his first term was out.

Bush didn't do that. Bush is an idiot and a fool; a self proclaimed
"uniter" who said he could "work with the Democrats". Any bargain made
with the devil is no bargain at all.

Wars are horrible. You fight them to win. To win, you have to let the
enemy realize that his cause is hopeless, that his choices are being
pointlessly slaughtered, and living well but without power. Bush has no
concept of war. He's infantile and naive.
John R. Carroll
2007-03-24 18:29:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
the Democrats won't let us.
The war was lost long before the Democrats took congress. You're
re-writing history.
The Democrats took congress because of Bush's refusal to win the war. He
refused to win the war to please the Democrats.
So the Bush administrattion has been working hrd to pleae the democrats?
LMFAO
You sure are a dumb ass Stuart.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Had he destroyed the enemy instead of asking them to vote, the war would
have been over before his first term was out.
Enemy? What enemy?
Post by s***@comcast.net
Bush didn't do that. Bush is an idiot and a fool; a self proclaimed
"uniter" who said he could "work with the Democrats". Any bargain made
with the devil is no bargain at all.
Liar.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Wars are horrible. You fight them to win. To win, you have to let the
enemy realize that his cause is hopeless, that his choices are being
pointlessly slaughtered, and living well but without power. Bush has no
concept of war. He's infantile and naive.
Neither do you Mr. coward. You and Bush could be twins.
Tell me Stuart. Why on earth do you tell such whoppers? Your lies are so
easily proved to be lies.
Save yourself some typing in the future and just type "LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE"
and leave it at that.
Your crap will read quicker.

J
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 18:43:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery
system
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
the Democrats won't let us.
The war was lost long before the Democrats took congress. You're
re-writing history.
The Democrats took congress because of Bush's refusal to win the war. He
refused to win the war to please the Democrats.
So the Bush administrattion has been working hrd to pleae the democrats?
LMFAO
You sure are a dumb ass Stuart.
You'll have to do better than laughing mindlessly to make an argument.
You come off like a lunitic.

yes, as a matter of fact, Bush has been trying to please the Democrats.
He said he would do so before he was elected. His big "uniter" speech
and his claims that he worked with the Democrats in the Texas
legislature were his evidence he would work with the Democrats. Sadly,
he did not break his promise to do so.


While he has been pro-tax cuts, he's also not cut the Democrats pet
socialist programs. Thus, massive overspending.

He abanded his promise to fix socialist security when the Democrats
objected.

His "No child left behind" act was an outright appeal to the Democrats.
No true conservative would violate the constitution so boldly with an
act that the constitution forbids.

Only when the Republican base was in open revolt did he make a gesture
of the unfunded boarder fence to stop the Mexican colonization of the
United States. Democrats love the illegal alien flood because the little
brown bastards are almost all communist.

Hell, the man's own father is calling Bill Clinton one of his sons!
They're all Skull and Bonesmen.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by s***@comcast.net
Had he destroyed the enemy instead of asking them to vote, the war would
have been over before his first term was out.
Enemy? What enemy?
Only a useful idiot of the commies would think that we are at war with
no enemy.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by s***@comcast.net
Bush didn't do that. Bush is an idiot and a fool; a self proclaimed
"uniter" who said he could "work with the Democrats". Any bargain made
with the devil is no bargain at all.
Liar.
Make your case that I lied, or was even wrong, or stop gibbering on the
usenet.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by s***@comcast.net
Wars are horrible. You fight them to win. To win, you have to let the
enemy realize that his cause is hopeless, that his choices are being
pointlessly slaughtered, and living well but without power. Bush has no
concept of war. He's infantile and naive.
Neither do you Mr. coward. You and Bush could be twins.
State how we are the same. I've listed many policies where I disagree
very strongly with Bush. See above for a few. You are clearly a liar.

< snip ape gibberish >
J. Carroll
2007-03-24 18:55:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery
system
State how we are the same.
You both think you have an answer without making any effort to discern the
question.
Ergo, you are both ignorant in your pronouncements and oblivious to the
obvious result.

I seem to remember you posting that you had a web page up that laid out the
relationship between the CPUSA and the Democrats. Was that a lie as well or
can you post a URL?
I never know, what with you being such a bull shitter and all.
I'm considering that it might be worth while to see if your drooling is
persuasive and sensible or as retarded and paranoid as your posts.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Jack A. Lopes
2007-03-24 22:02:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
the Democrats won't let us.
The war was lost long before the Democrats took congress. You're
re-writing history.
The Democrats took congress because of Bush's refusal to win the war. He
refused to win the war to please the Democrats.
Good lord - do you really believe Bush ever did ANYTHING in order to
please the democrats? You are seriously delusional.
--
1+1+1+1...
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-25 00:32:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jack A. Lopes
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
We can't even win against a bunch of filthy Iraqi ragheads, because
the Democrats won't let us.
The war was lost long before the Democrats took congress. You're
re-writing history.
The Democrats took congress because of Bush's refusal to win the war. He
refused to win the war to please the Democrats.
Good lord - do you really believe Bush ever did ANYTHING in order to
please the democrats? You are seriously delusional.
Of course, you chose not to refute any of the examples I gave, and
instead went off on an unsupported rant.

Come back when you can explain your thoughts and don't foam at the mouth
with rabid hate.
Too_Many_Tools
2007-03-24 03:07:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined.
LOL...and this greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery
system of all the rest of the world combined did WHAT for the US when
9/11 occurred?
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
A deadly missile strike against a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
And if Bush would decide to attack Iran, doesn't Iran have the right
and responsibility to protect itself?


Yeah...life gets complicated, doesn't it?

TMT
Nick Hull
2007-03-24 13:51:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined.
LOL...and this greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery
system of all the rest of the world combined did WHAT for the US when
9/11 occurred?
9/11 had fewer casualties than 3 months worth of traffic accidents. We
could have ignored it completely. Maybe we should have. ;)
Committees of Correspondence Web page:- tinyurl.com/y7th2c
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 17:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nick Hull
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined.
LOL...and this greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery
system of all the rest of the world combined did WHAT for the US when
9/11 occurred?
9/11 had fewer casualties than 3 months worth of traffic accidents. We
could have ignored it completely. Maybe we should have. ;)
If we had ignored pearl harbor, you'd be a lampshade by now. The only
reason why you're not a lampshade, is that few people listened to
gibbering apes in 1941 who claimed we could ignore pearl harbor. If the
decision was left up to you, you'd win a Darwin award.

9=11 killed more Americans than Pearl Harbor. I guess you lake the
mental capacity to understand the difference between an act of war, and
a traffic accident.
Post by Nick Hull
Committees of Correspondence Web page:- tinyurl.com/y7th2c
Terryc
2007-03-24 04:56:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
Seriously, do you really think it works that way?

Perhaps you've ignore the warning from Putkin, who could afford to take
more hits that the USA because the area of the USA is soo much greater.

Then there isthe issue of what the rest of the world would do.
fiend999
2007-03-24 15:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
So where will you get oil after that?
--
~~~
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 17:18:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by fiend999
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
So where will you get oil after that?
(1) We get very little oil from the Middle East. Most US imported oil
comes from Canada. Yes, that prissy little nation of cat murderers...

(2) We have over 500 years (at our present consumption) of Coal. We also
have 500 years worth of uranium. With breeder reactors, we can go an
even longer period. All we need to do is get rid of the lying, idiot
greenies. We have no need for foreign oil.
fiend999
2007-03-24 22:05:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by fiend999
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
So where will you get oil after that?
(1) We get very little oil from the Middle East. Most US imported oil
comes from Canada. Yes, that prissy little nation of cat murderers...
Got a cite for that? If we got enough oil from Canada, we wouldn't be
messing around in the middle east now would we?
Post by s***@comcast.net
(2) We have over 500 years (at our present consumption) of Coal. We also
have 500 years worth of uranium.
Last time I checked cars don't run on those fuels and plastic can't be
made fro them.
Post by s***@comcast.net
With breeder reactors, we can go an
even longer period. All we need to do is get rid of the lying, idiot
greenies. We have no need for foreign oil.
No need for foreign oil eh? You should probably inform our government
of this.
--
~~~
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-25 00:41:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by fiend999
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by fiend999
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
So where will you get oil after that?
(1) We get very little oil from the Middle East. Most US imported oil
comes from Canada. Yes, that prissy little nation of cat murderers...
Got a cite for that? If we got enough oil from Canada, we wouldn't be
messing around in the middle east now would we?
Questions state nothing, of course; but then, your second question is a
loaded question, isn't it?

I've never been lax in trying to educate Democrats:

From https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ca.html

Canada is the US' largest foreign supplier of energy, including oil,
gas, uranium, and electric power.

End Quote.

Now, for your loaded question about "messing around in the Middle East";
your logic is clearly flawed, given that what I said is true. Perhaps
you should re-visit whatever thought process you used to reach that
conclusion.
Post by fiend999
Post by s***@comcast.net
(2) We have over 500 years (at our present consumption) of Coal. We also
have 500 years worth of uranium.
Last time I checked cars don't run on those fuels and plastic can't be
made fro them.
My frustration with the rampant ignorance of chemistry and science would
lead me to insult you, but it is the fault of public schools that you
know neither logic nor science.

Coal can be made into Gasoline. The Nazis did it during WW II, so it's
technology over a half century old. One such process for doing this is
called the "Fischer-Tropsch". Look it up in Wikipedia.

Cars can also be made to run on electricity. This, too, is very old
technology. You should research electric cars yourself.
Post by fiend999
Post by s***@comcast.net
With breeder reactors, we can go an
even longer period. All we need to do is get rid of the lying, idiot
greenies. We have no need for foreign oil.
No need for foreign oil eh? You should probably inform our government
of this.
The government knows full well about our not needing foreign oil. Your
pathetic gibbering in sarcasm is worthy of a clown, like the Marx
brothers. The scary part is, you intend it to be your argument - at
least the Marx brothers didn't take their jokes seriously as you do.
l***@cs.com
2007-03-24 18:47:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by fiend999
Post by NeverExpectPowerAlways
Yeah, but...
The US has the greatest nuclear arsenal and the greatest delivery system
of all the rest of the world combined. A deadly missile strike against
a US carrier would be fatal to the country that launched it.
So where will you get oil after that?
To whatever MORE EXPENSIVE ALTERNATIVES are left.. of course.
Control is control.
Lawrence Glickman
2007-03-23 23:50:45 UTC
Permalink
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.

anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.

Unless China can move Beijing out of the way in 20 minutes and hide it
somewhere so it can't be found...and unless Iran can move Tehran out
of the way, off the map/surface of the globe in 20 minutes and hide it
somewhere so it can't be found, attacking a carrier is the equivalent
of committing suicide.

So, they can do it if they want to. What do you think is holding them
back? Why haven't they done it YET? could it have something to do
with what I just mentioned?

Lg
Geno2341
2007-03-24 01:26:28 UTC
Permalink
And Washington isn't in the sights of China's Nukes?
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Unless China can move Beijing out of the way in 20 minutes and hide it
somewhere so it can't be found...and unless Iran can move Tehran out
of the way, off the map/surface of the globe in 20 minutes and hide it
somewhere so it can't be found, attacking a carrier is the equivalent
of committing suicide.
So, they can do it if they want to. What do you think is holding them
back? Why haven't they done it YET? could it have something to do
with what I just mentioned?
Lg
Jeff McCann
2007-03-24 01:36:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geno2341
And Washington isn't in the sights of China's Nukes?
Unless it is smuggled in via shipping container or something, the answer
would be "no" to the best of my knowledge. But the West coast is within
reach of their ICBMs.

Jeff
Vandar
2007-03-24 04:50:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Geno2341
And Washington isn't in the sights of China's Nukes?
Unless it is smuggled in via shipping container or something, the answer
would be "no" to the best of my knowledge. But the West coast is within
reach of their ICBMs.
The DF-5A can reach DC.
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 02:00:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
Möbius Pretzel
2007-03-24 02:03:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
We're simply too sick as a nation,
too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
You're one of the sick fucks, asshole.

Real Americans don't hate America.
They hate the Bush Regime.
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 02:07:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Möbius Pretzel
Post by s***@comcast.net
We're simply too sick as a nation,
too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
You're one of the sick fucks, asshole.
Ah yes! The infamous liberal reasoning... deny it, and make perverted
sexual references.

Thanks for proving my point.
Post by Möbius Pretzel
Real Americans don't hate America.
They hate the Bush Regime.
Real American hate liberals, because liberals are traitors.
J. Carroll
2007-03-24 02:20:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense
against this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with
regular thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier
is dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead.
It is called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not
going to go all out over a carrier group.
Stuart,
I'm sure this will pain you mightily, icing on the cake for me, but I
essentially agree with your statement.
9/11 fits any definition of an attack with WMD on the US that I know of and
the Bush administration has bugled exactly this for years. Not nuking
Afghanistan means we won't nuke anyone. MAD is dead.
Post by s***@comcast.net
We're simply too sick as a
nation, too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
Then you post this garbage and prove yourself yet again to be little more
than terrible dusturbed and ubstable.
We aren't to sick - we are to smart ( I hope ) to cut off our nose to spite
our face.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Vandar
2007-03-24 04:52:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
it!
Afghanistan didn't attack us.
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 17:04:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first. anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is
dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from it!
Afghanistan didn't attack us.
You're an idiot.

Al Qaeda was the military arm of the Afghanistan government; Afghanistan
being the first state to become part of Al Qaeda's new Caliphate; Al
Qaeda was a multi-national but all Wahabi muslem terrorist/military
organization.

Afghanistan gave safe harbor to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda put the Afghan
government in power.

Your ignorance snd/or support for the enemy is noted.
l***@cs.com
2007-03-24 18:51:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Al Qaeda was the military arm of the Afghanistan government;
That's a falsehood.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Afghanistan
being the first state to become part of Al Qaeda's new Caliphate;
Fantasy.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Al
Qaeda was a multi-national but all Wahabi muslem terrorist/military
organization.
More truthful, finally. And the seat of Wahhabiism is .. tad-dah!..
Saudi Arabia.
(Bush's buds)
Post by s***@comcast.net
Afghanistan gave safe harbor to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda put the Afghan
government in power.
No, wrong again. Pakistan put the Talibans in power in Afghanistan.
(Pakistan is Bush's ally also)
Post by s***@comcast.net
Your ignorance snd/or support for the enemy is noted
Your disinformation is noted.
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 19:18:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by l***@cs.com
Post by s***@comcast.net
Al Qaeda was the military arm of the Afghanistan government;
That's a falsehood.
Al Qaeda has it's orgins in the Carter Administration's efforts to
support resistance movements against the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan. Many of the members were foreigners, like bin Laden.

They are, indeed, a military arm of the Afghan government, and have a
long history in Afghanistan.
Post by l***@cs.com
Post by s***@comcast.net
Afghanistan
being the first state to become part of Al Qaeda's new Caliphate;
Fantasy.
A fantasy of Bin Ladens.

BTW, you need to stop making unsupported (and obviously wrong)
statements. Support what you say or shut the fuck up.

I say STFU because if you cannot explain your position, you're not
adding to the discussion and there is nothing to learn from you. Only
your fellow ignorant idiot is going to agree with you unless you have
reasons for what you say. Without reasons, you gibber.
Post by l***@cs.com
Post by s***@comcast.net
Al
Qaeda was a multi-national but all Wahabi muslem terrorist/military
organization.
More truthful, finally. And the seat of Wahhabiism is .. tad-dah!..
Saudi Arabia.
(Bush's buds)
Yes. The Saudi's own many Republicans and all the Democrats.
Post by l***@cs.com
Post by s***@comcast.net
Afghanistan gave safe harbor to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda put the Afghan
government in power.
No, wrong again. Pakistan put the Talibans in power in Afghanistan.
(Pakistan is Bush's ally also)
Prove it. Once again, support what you say.
Post by l***@cs.com
Post by s***@comcast.net
Your ignorance snd/or support for the enemy is noted
Your disinformation is noted.
Like I said, you gibber.
Vandar
2007-03-25 00:36:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by l***@cs.com
Post by s***@comcast.net
Al Qaeda was the military arm of the Afghanistan government;
That's a falsehood.
Al Qaeda has it's orgins in the Carter Administration's efforts to
support resistance movements against the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan. Many of the members were foreigners, like bin Laden.
al Qaeda was formed in 1988.
It changed it's name in 2002. Let's see if you can figure out what they
changed it to.
Post by s***@comcast.net
They are, indeed, a military arm of the Afghan government, and have a
long history in Afghanistan.
They are not now and have never been an arm of the Afghan government.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by l***@cs.com
Post by s***@comcast.net
Afghanistan
being the first state to become part of Al Qaeda's new Caliphate;
Fantasy.
A fantasy of Bin Ladens.
BTW, you need to stop making unsupported (and obviously wrong)
statements. Support what you say or shut the fuck up.
Practice what you preach, asshole.
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-25 00:51:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by l***@cs.com
Post by s***@comcast.net
Al Qaeda was the military arm of the Afghanistan government;
That's a falsehood.
Al Qaeda has it's orgins in the Carter Administration's efforts to
support resistance movements against the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan. Many of the members were foreigners, like bin Laden.
al Qaeda was formed in 1988.
It changed it's name in 2002. Let's see if you can figure out what they
changed it to.
You're gibbering irrelevancies. You've already proven yourself to be an
idiot, by your own standards.
Post by Vandar
Post by s***@comcast.net
They are, indeed, a military arm of the Afghan government, and have a
long history in Afghanistan.
They are not now and have never been an arm of the Afghan government.
Yes, You've proven you didn't know this in a post to which I've already
replied.
Post by Vandar
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by l***@cs.com
Post by s***@comcast.net
Afghanistan
being the first state to become part of Al Qaeda's new Caliphate;
Fantasy.
A fantasy of Bin Ladens.
BTW, you need to stop making unsupported (and obviously wrong)
statements. Support what you say or shut the fuck up.
Practice what you preach, asshole.
Vandar
2007-03-25 00:26:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Vandar
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first. anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is
dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from it!
Afghanistan didn't attack us.
You're an idiot.
Allow me to demonstrate that the idiot is you...
Post by s***@comcast.net
Al Qaeda was the military arm of the Afghanistan government;
The military arm of the Taliban government was the Taliban.
Ever heard of the 055 Brigade? Didn't think so.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Afghanistan
being the first state to become part of Al Qaeda's new Caliphate;
al Qaeda has never had a state.
al Qaeda has no caliphate.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Al Qaeda was a multi-national but all Wahabi muslem terrorist/military
organization.
Afghanistan gave safe harbor to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda put the Afghan
government in power.
The Taliban put themselves in power.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Your ignorance snd/or support for the enemy is noted.
Your ignorance is astounding.
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-25 00:50:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Vandar
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first. anybody who hits one of our carrier groups
is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is
a far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far
from it!
Afghanistan didn't attack us.
You're an idiot.
Allow me to demonstrate that the idiot is you...
Post by s***@comcast.net
Al Qaeda was the military arm of the Afghanistan government;
The military arm of the Taliban government was the Taliban.
Ever heard of the 055 Brigade? Didn't think so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/055_Brigade

The 055 Brigade was an elite guerrilla organization sponsored and
trained by Al Qaeda that was integrated into the Taliban army between
1997 and 2001.

End Quote.

Your demonstration is noted, and your proof that you're an idiot
accepted. Thank you for proving my point.
Post by Vandar
Post by s***@comcast.net
Afghanistan being the first state to become part of Al Qaeda's new
Caliphate;
al Qaeda has never had a state.
al Qaeda has no caliphate.
Yes, yes. You start with a straw dog, and then go on to show you are as
ignorant about Al Qaeda as you are about Afghanistan. You've already
proven that.
Post by Vandar
Post by s***@comcast.net
Al Qaeda was a multi-national but all Wahabi muslem terrorist/military
organization.
Afghanistan gave safe harbor to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda put the Afghan
government in power.
The Taliban put themselves in power.
Post by s***@comcast.net
Your ignorance snd/or support for the enemy is noted.
Your ignorance is astounding.
Irony.
EFill4Zaggin
2007-03-24 13:24:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
This is a lie, a complete lie. Bush started the Iraq war. You can't
blame someone else for losing it.
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 17:12:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
This is a lie, a complete lie. Bush started the Iraq war. You can't
blame someone else for losing it.
Bush started it, and indeed, Bush refused to win it. The Democrats are
out to lose it.

Starting a war and winning or losing a war are two different things.
EFill4Zaggin
2007-03-24 17:20:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
This is a lie, a complete lie. Bush started the Iraq war. You can't
blame someone else for losing it.
Bush started it, and indeed, Bush refused to win it. The Democrats are
out to lose it.
Starting a war and winning or losing a war are two different things.
The Bush gov planned it and implemented a failed war - what's wrong
with blaming them for that?
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 18:22:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
This is a lie, a complete lie. Bush started the Iraq war. You can't
blame someone else for losing it.
Bush started it, and indeed, Bush refused to win it. The Democrats are
out to lose it.
Starting a war and winning or losing a war are two different things.
The Bush gov planned it and implemented a failed war - what's wrong
with blaming them for that?
Nothing. I blame the Democrats for Bush, as they didn't run anything
other than out and out communist against Bush.

Bush is no conservative. He is simply the liberal that was to the right
of the two radical communist he ran against.
fiend999
2007-03-24 15:45:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
What did the republicans do to the perpetrators of the attacks on NY
and DC? It kind of looks like they let them go. You blame the
democrats for this - why?
--
~~~
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 17:24:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by fiend999
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
What did the republicans do to the perpetrators of the attacks on NY
and DC? It kind of looks like they let them go. You blame the
democrats for this - why?
It looks like they let them go?! WE sent troops to Afghanistan and we
killed all we could find. "Find" seemed to involve letting them shoot at
us and then killing them - and idiot's tactic that was developed under
the Democrats during the Viet Nam war.

So, it is not true we let them go. We killed them as best as the
Democrats would allow. Or are you saying that you would approve of MY
tactics, which would be to bomb Afghanistan until the people believe
that I really don't care if they surrender or are exterminated, so they
surrender? Such tactics worked against the Bushido ethic of the
Japanese, it worked against the Prussian military ethic of the Germans,
and it sure as hell will work against the weenie, conniving cowardly
tactics of the Moslems. I know it will work because the Koran tells them
EXACTLY that: surrender and make nice with the Infidel until the moslems
can again get the upper hand.

Quite frankly, You don't have the balls to support a win the war policy.
fiend999
2007-03-24 22:07:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by fiend999
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
What did the republicans do to the perpetrators of the attacks on NY
and DC? It kind of looks like they let them go. You blame the
democrats for this - why?
It looks like they let them go?! WE sent troops to Afghanistan and we
killed all we could find. "Find" seemed to involve letting them shoot at
us and then killing them - and idiot's tactic that was developed under
the Democrats during the Viet Nam war.
So Bush is a democrat? That's a new one to me.
Why did he decide to stop going after bin Laden and al Qaeda in
Afghanistan?
Post by s***@comcast.net
So, it is not true we let them go. We killed them as best as the
Democrats would allow.
So it was the democrats' idea to bail out of Afghanistan and go to
Iraq? You are a very strange person.
--
~~~
Vandar
2007-03-25 00:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by fiend999
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by fiend999
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
What did the republicans do to the perpetrators of the attacks on NY
and DC? It kind of looks like they let them go. You blame the
democrats for this - why?
It looks like they let them go?! WE sent troops to Afghanistan and we
killed all we could find. "Find" seemed to involve letting them shoot at
us and then killing them - and idiot's tactic that was developed under
the Democrats during the Viet Nam war.
So Bush is a democrat? That's a new one to me.
Why did he decide to stop going after bin Laden and al Qaeda in
Afghanistan?
He never started.
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-25 00:45:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by fiend999
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by fiend999
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Sure, striking against a carrier group is an act of war. However,
striking against a civilian target in an undeclared sneak attack is a
far worse act, and we didn't wipe Afghanistan off the map... far from
it! We are giving the murdering 7th century bastards tribute to bring
their backwards civilization out of the stone age; we're propping up
their regime to keep the moderate wackos in power and keep the
primitives from taking back over... Far from the "MAD" that you think
would apply. If we won't go all out over New York, then we're not going
to go all out over a carrier group. We're simply too sick as a nation,
too many American hating Democrats to ever win a war again.
What did the republicans do to the perpetrators of the attacks on NY
and DC? It kind of looks like they let them go. You blame the
democrats for this - why?
It looks like they let them go?! WE sent troops to Afghanistan and we
killed all we could find. "Find" seemed to involve letting them shoot at
us and then killing them - and idiot's tactic that was developed under
the Democrats during the Viet Nam war.
So Bush is a democrat?
No, he is a Republican. You don't read for comprehension, do you?
Post by fiend999
That's a new one to me.
Your delusion is caused from either your inability to read, or your
delusion insanity, I care not which.
Post by fiend999
Why did he decide to stop going after bin Laden and al Qaeda in
Afghanistan?
He didn't stop looking for bin Laden in Afghanistan. The problem, of
course, is that bin Laden fled to Pakistan. There never was a decision
to stop looking for him. Again, your delusion.

But lets be honest: you are not delusion, you're just a very bad liar
trying to be both funny and irritating. That's because you've never been
taught how to form a rational argument.
Post by fiend999
Post by s***@comcast.net
So, it is not true we let them go. We killed them as best as the
Democrats would allow.
So it was the democrats' idea to bail out of Afghanistan and go to
Iraq? You are a very strange person.
Your silly straw dogs are noted. You don't need me, you seem to have
your own little argument going on with yourself.
Too_Many_Tools
2007-03-24 03:17:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Unless China can move Beijing out of the way in 20 minutes and hide it
somewhere so it can't be found...and unless Iran can move Tehran out
of the way, off the map/surface of the globe in 20 minutes and hide it
somewhere so it can't be found, attacking a carrier is the equivalent
of committing suicide.
So, they can do it if they want to. What do you think is holding them
back? Why haven't they done it YET? could it have something to do
with what I just mentioned?
Lg
So, they can do it if they want to. What do you think is holding them
back? Why haven't they done it YET? could it have something to do
with what I just mentioned?
Well why doesn't some conservative tell me why after being in office
for over six years why the Navy is STILL wide open to this threat?
Hasn't Bush and the Republican Congress been given a blank check to
improve the military? As the article notes...nothing has been done.

TMT
EFill4Zaggin
2007-03-24 13:21:57 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:50:45 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Unless China can move Beijing out of the way in 20 minutes and hide it
somewhere so it can't be found...and unless Iran can move Tehran out
of the way, off the map/surface of the globe in 20 minutes and hide it
somewhere so it can't be found, attacking a carrier is the equivalent
of committing suicide.
So, they can do it if they want to. What do you think is holding them
back? Why haven't they done it YET? could it have something to do
with what I just mentioned?
The best thing to do would be not to put the U.S carrier in danger by
NOT attacking Iran in the first place. It's a bad idea.
Lawrence Glickman
2007-03-24 19:16:10 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 13:21:57 +0000, EFill4Zaggin
Post by EFill4Zaggin
On Fri, 23 Mar 2007 18:50:45 -0500, Lawrence Glickman
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
you need to develop some critical thinking skills. start with regular
thinking skills first.
anybody who hits one of our carrier groups is dead. so the carrier is
dead, all aboard are dead, and then whomever did this is dead. It is
called MAD, i.e. mutually assured destruction.
Unless China can move Beijing out of the way in 20 minutes and hide it
somewhere so it can't be found...and unless Iran can move Tehran out
of the way, off the map/surface of the globe in 20 minutes and hide it
somewhere so it can't be found, attacking a carrier is the equivalent
of committing suicide.
So, they can do it if they want to. What do you think is holding them
back? Why haven't they done it YET? could it have something to do
with what I just mentioned?
================================================================
Post by EFill4Zaggin
The best thing to do would be not to put the U.S carrier in danger by
NOT attacking Iran in the first place. It's a bad idea.
Everything that's been going on has been a bad idea. I didn't send
any carrier groups to the Persian Gulf. Maybe you should talk to the
nitwit that did.

Lg
m.s.
Scotius
2007-03-24 00:03:58 UTC
Permalink
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
I strongly doubt that the USN has no defense against a sea
skimming missile just because it's a newer, faster one.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
And when the oil stops, the US economy will too.
As for China...want to bet that these missiles could carry tactical
nukes?
Too bad we can't buy one at Walmart....
TMT
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile Tony
Capaccio Fri Mar 23
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of
warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending
aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile,
according to current and former officials and Defense Department
documents.
The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed
by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it
will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.
The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so
serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's
chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production
of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was
addressed.
``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who
evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its
purpose.''
``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said.
China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines
designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence
spokesman Robert Althage.
A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia
also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale
has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the
ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through
which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.
Fast and Low-Flying
``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral
Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be
visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time
it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to
handle this sort of missile.''
The US Navy and other armed services have been working on, and
deploying drones for more than ten years already, not to mention the
fact that the E2-C Hawkeye carries a very capable multi-mode radar
which can track hundreds of targets, as well as sea skimming missiles.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and
destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect
aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and
former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by
Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and
intercepting the Sizzler.
``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas
Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from
mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.
`A Major Issue'
``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I
had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and
production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help
develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''
The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-
dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without
some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a
threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.
The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler
``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a
developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon
said in an e-mail.
The US Navy tried to buy a batch of Moskits a few years back,
or was it Sunburns? I think it was the Sunburn actually... pardon moi.
Anyway, they don't really need to buy a batch to test successfully
against them. All they need to know are it's exact specs.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of
the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable
alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a
layered defense capability that can defend against various missile
threats,'' Mann said.
Raising Concerns
McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns
about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8,
2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He
also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.
In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was
addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for
production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop
Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the
$36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop
and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6
billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.
Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense
contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B,
starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its
target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three
times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet)
above sea level.
I doubt that. The Moskit was new in the '90s. This is probably
the same missile, or a slightly advanced version of it. I suppose it's
possible, but even if that's for real, the US Navy here is pretending
that all they have to defend with are the shipboard radars, etc. The
E2-C Hawkeye has been called a "mini-AWACS", and that's pretty much
what it is.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Final Approach
On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very
high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office
of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.
The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent
agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense
issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles
fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them
easier to track and target.
McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of
our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded
to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest
in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.
`Aggressively Marketing'
The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in
Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at
international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with
the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research
organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last
month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he
said.
I think Canada ought to buy it. Then next time some EU member
nations ships are here overfishing out territorial waters, we can take
them right out of the briny, and we'll see if their spokespeople want
to try again saying what they did last time; "...we don't recognize
the jurisdiction,,,"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the
missile.
Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-
export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to
comment.
McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler
``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in
the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense
information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and
Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a
sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.
I don't believe it's a new missile. If it was offered in the
'90s, that means it's the Moskit. This might be a slightly upgraded
version of the Moskit, but the Moskit is a mach 2 missile, not mach 3.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested
anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing
in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats
Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines
``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''
The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the
Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler
that could be used for testing.
``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.
J. Carroll
2007-03-24 01:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
I strongly doubt that the USN has no defense against a sea
skimming missile just because it's a newer, faster one.
Good point. The reason defending against this is tough is that the targets
are in the Persian Gulf and that the missiles are land, not sea, based.

At any rate, Iran can't use what it doesn't have. They do, however, have the
Exocet deployed and these things scare the shit out of any surface fleet,
ours included. There truly isn't a defense against a land based Exocet if is
less than 50 miles from a ship. They cruise along at mach 3+ and they are
evaders. Unless you detect the launch from a fair distance, you're toast.
Even an AWACS doesn't see a Persian Gulf launch early enough to matter
'cause you'd have to see the order being given to fire the thing to knopw in
enough time to do anything much.

OTOH, they can use what they do, and what they have tested and now deployed
is a 250 mph land and sea based torpedo.
About the only thing the US can do if the shit hits the fan in the Persian
gulf is leave quickly or loose every single asset on the and under water -
including and perhaps especially - any subs in the Gulf. The Gulf is a
terrible place to have a deep water navy deployed and that is what the
United States has. It is shallow, noisy and easily observable. You can drive
a carrier around in less than a third of it and it isn't deep or cold enough
to have the temperature gradient our subs need for concealment.

Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will be the
withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
They'd be sitting ducks.

Oh, by the way. The US isn't prepared to pop a nuke should this actually
happen. It isn't and never has been part of any SIOP or OPLAN and goober
can't launch on his own. I doubt that there is a single person in the
National Command Authority chain that would authenticate the validity of a
launch release order if Bush gave it. Not with Rumsfeld gone.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Jeff McCann
2007-03-24 01:15:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
I strongly doubt that the USN has no defense against a sea
skimming missile just because it's a newer, faster one.
Good point. The reason defending against this is tough is that the targets
are in the Persian Gulf and that the missiles are land, not sea, based.
At any rate, Iran can't use what it doesn't have. They do, however, have the
Exocet deployed and these things scare the shit out of any surface fleet,
ours included. There truly isn't a defense against a land based Exocet if is
less than 50 miles from a ship. They cruise along at mach 3+
My understanding was that the MM40s (and all Exocet variants) were subsonic.
Post by J. Carroll
and they are evaders.
My understanding was that the Exocet has no evasive capacity at present,
other than it's preprogrammed flight path, but that the Block 3 variant
would have some reactive evasion capacity.
Post by J. Carroll
Unless you detect the launch from a fair distance, you're toast.
They do seem to have a rather high failure rate in actual use, although that
*may* be at least in part attributable to certain, ahem, technological
defenses. Moreover, their warheads just aren't that large. More than a few
hits would be required to sink anything as big and robust as a CVN.
Post by J. Carroll
Even an AWACS doesn't see a Persian Gulf launch early enough to matter
'cause you'd have to see the order being given to fire the thing to knopw in
enough time to do anything much.
OTOH, they can use what they do, and what they have tested and now deployed
is a 250 mph land and sea based torpedo.
I'm very sceptical of that claim about the Iranians' new toy. The Russians
had a very high speed torpedo, the "Schkal" or something like that, based on
supercavitation technology. But it had a range of less than 5 nm, due to
the huge fuel consumption required. I doubt the Iranians could do much
better, even with expert Russian help. What are the odds a launching
platform could get that close?
Post by J. Carroll
About the only thing the US can do if the shit hits the fan in the Persian
gulf is leave quickly or loose every single asset on the and under water -
including and perhaps especially - any subs in the Gulf. The Gulf is a
terrible place to have a deep water navy deployed and that is what the
United States has. It is shallow, noisy and easily observable. You can drive
a carrier around in less than a third of it and it isn't deep or cold enough
to have the temperature gradient our subs need for concealment.
Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will be the
withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
They'd be sitting ducks.
Good observation. Another alternative we might see is a sudden ans
sustained multiplatform attack intended to so degrade Iranian anti-shipping
assets as to make Gulf a reasonably safe operational environment for USN
warships.

Jeff
Post by J. Carroll
Oh, by the way. The US isn't prepared to pop a nuke should this actually
happen. It isn't and never has been part of any SIOP or OPLAN and goober
can't launch on his own. I doubt that there is a single person in the
National Command Authority chain that would authenticate the validity of a
launch release order if Bush gave it. Not with Rumsfeld gone.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
J. Carroll
2007-03-24 01:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense
against this.
I strongly doubt that the USN has no defense against a sea
skimming missile just because it's a newer, faster one.
Good point. The reason defending against this is tough is that the
targets are in the Persian Gulf and that the missiles are land, not
sea, based.
At any rate, Iran can't use what it doesn't have. They do, however, have the
Exocet deployed and these things scare the shit out of any surface
fleet, ours included. There truly isn't a defense against a land
based Exocet if is
less than 50 miles from a ship. They cruise along at mach 3+
My understanding was that the MM40s (and all Exocet variants) were subsonic.
Post by J. Carroll
and they are evaders.
My understanding was that the Exocet has no evasive capacity at
present, other than it's preprogrammed flight path, but that the
Block 3 variant would have some reactive evasion capacity.
Jeff you're right. Iran deployed Silkworms in 1999.
There are indeed supersonic Exocet's however. They just aren't sea launched.
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
Unless you detect the launch from a fair distance, you're toast.
They do seem to have a rather high failure rate in actual use,
although that *may* be at least in part attributable to certain,
ahem, technological defenses. Moreover, their warheads just aren't
that large. More than a few hits would be required to sink anything
as big and robust as a CVN.
Post by J. Carroll
Even an AWACS doesn't see a Persian Gulf launch early enough to
matter 'cause you'd have to see the order being given to fire the
thing to knopw in
enough time to do anything much.
OTOH, they can use what they do, and what they have tested and now deployed
is a 250 mph land and sea based torpedo.
I'm very sceptical of that claim about the Iranians' new toy. The
Russians had a very high speed torpedo, the "Schkal" or something
like that, based on supercavitation technology. But it had a range
of less than 5 nm, due to the huge fuel consumption required. I
doubt the Iranians could do much better, even with expert Russian
help. What are the odds a launching platform could get that close?
Pretty good. They land based variant sits on the end of a 1200 mph solid
fuel missile.
I wonder what they do on entry?
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
About the only thing the US can do if the shit hits the fan in the
Persian gulf is leave quickly or loose every single asset on the and
under water - including and perhaps especially - any subs in the
Gulf. The Gulf is a terrible place to have a deep water navy
deployed and that is what the United States has. It is shallow,
noisy and easily observable. You can drive
a carrier around in less than a third of it and it isn't deep or cold enough
to have the temperature gradient our subs need for concealment.
Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will
be the withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
They'd be sitting ducks.
Good observation. Another alternative we might see is a sudden ans
sustained multiplatform attack intended to so degrade Iranian
anti-shipping assets as to make Gulf a reasonably safe operational
environment for USN warships.
I'm sure that's in a plan somewhere but land based air assets are a better
choice if we have it out with the Iranians.
I know a couple of former naval commanders from GWI and the thing they all
agreed on was that they didn't eat much or sleep well when they were
operating in the Gulf.

Personally, I can't imagine circumstances under which such a thing, an all
out conflict, would happen - in the real world anyway.
Not withstanding any particular course or outcome in Iraq, I can easily
imagine the beginning of normalized diplomatic and economic relations with
Iran in the next 5 years. You might laugh at that but my own first hand
knoweledge of Iranians is the basis. They are not unfriendly to America and
are in fact increasingly western in many ways. We need to be patient and
wise enough to let these "kids" grow up. Things are changing and as the old
farts pass from the stage, anything will be possible.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Jeff McCann
2007-03-24 02:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense
against this.
I strongly doubt that the USN has no defense against a sea
skimming missile just because it's a newer, faster one.
Good point. The reason defending against this is tough is that the
targets are in the Persian Gulf and that the missiles are land, not
sea, based.
At any rate, Iran can't use what it doesn't have. They do, however, have the
Exocet deployed and these things scare the shit out of any surface
fleet, ours included. There truly isn't a defense against a land
based Exocet if is
less than 50 miles from a ship. They cruise along at mach 3+
My understanding was that the MM40s (and all Exocet variants) were subsonic.
Post by J. Carroll
and they are evaders.
My understanding was that the Exocet has no evasive capacity at
present, other than it's preprogrammed flight path, but that the
Block 3 variant would have some reactive evasion capacity.
Jeff you're right. Iran deployed Silkworms in 1999.
There are indeed supersonic Exocet's however. They just aren't sea launched.
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
Unless you detect the launch from a fair distance, you're toast.
They do seem to have a rather high failure rate in actual use,
although that *may* be at least in part attributable to certain,
ahem, technological defenses. Moreover, their warheads just aren't
that large. More than a few hits would be required to sink anything
as big and robust as a CVN.
Post by J. Carroll
Even an AWACS doesn't see a Persian Gulf launch early enough to
matter 'cause you'd have to see the order being given to fire the
thing to knopw in
enough time to do anything much.
OTOH, they can use what they do, and what they have tested and now deployed
is a 250 mph land and sea based torpedo.
I'm very skeptical of that claim about the Iranians' new toy. The
Russians had a very high speed torpedo, the "Schkal" or something
like that, based on supercavitation technology. But it had a range
of less than 5 nm, due to the huge fuel consumption required. I
doubt the Iranians could do much better, even with expert Russian
help. What are the odds a launching platform could get that close?
Pretty good. They land based variant sits on the end of a 1200 mph solid
fuel missile.
I wonder what they do on entry?
The Aegis system should be a reasonably effective defense during the aerial
segment, and other countermeasures can be deployed during the underwater
segment.
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
About the only thing the US can do if the shit hits the fan in the
Persian gulf is leave quickly or loose every single asset on the and
under water - including and perhaps especially - any subs in the
Gulf. The Gulf is a terrible place to have a deep water navy
deployed and that is what the United States has. It is shallow,
noisy and easily observable. You can drive
a carrier around in less than a third of it and it isn't deep or cold enough
to have the temperature gradient our subs need for concealment.
Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will
be the withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
They'd be sitting ducks.
Good observation. Another alternative we might see is a sudden and
sustained multiplatform attack intended to so degrade Iranian
anti-shipping assets as to make Gulf a reasonably safe operational
environment for USN warships.
I'm sure that's in a plan somewhere but land based air assets are a better
choice if we have it out with the Iranians.
Perhaps. But the Navy has the advantages of location, secrecy, and weight.
The USN can simply get closer to targets in and around Iran than land based
assets can. Also, any activity at American land based facilities in the
Mid-East suggestive of a pending attack is probably being monitored rather
closely by Iranian intelligence, but attack preparations at sea would be
much harder for the Iranians to detect. Lastly, any such attack would rely
heavily on cruise missiles, which the USN has in plentiful supply, as well
as tactical strike A/C, which the Navy also has available much closer to
likely targets.
Post by J. Carroll
I know a couple of former naval commanders from GWI and the thing they all
agreed on was that they didn't eat much or sleep well when they were
operating in the Gulf.
That's fully understandable. It's the worst sort of environment imaginable
for our Blue-Water Navy to have to fight in. The military always seems to
suffer from being better prepared for the last war than the next one.
Post by J. Carroll
Personally, I can't imagine circumstances under which such a thing, an all
out conflict, would happen - in the real world anyway.
Not withstanding any particular course or outcome in Iraq, I can easily
imagine the beginning of normalized diplomatic and economic relations with
Iran in the next 5 years. You might laugh at that but my own first hand
knoweledge of Iranians is the basis. They are not unfriendly to America and
are in fact increasingly western in many ways. We need to be patient and
wise enough to let these "kids" grow up. Things are changing and as the old
farts pass from the stage, anything will be possible.
We have very similar views on this.

Jeff
J. Carroll
2007-03-24 02:25:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
I'm sure that's in a plan somewhere but land based air assets are a
better choice if we have it out with the Iranians.
Perhaps. But the Navy has the advantages of location, secrecy, and
weight. The USN can simply get closer to targets in and around Iran
than land based assets can.
Not secretly. You can see a long way out into the Gulf even with binoculars
Jeff.
Ever stood on a hill outside of Beirut?
Post by Jeff McCann
Also, any activity at American land
based facilities in the Mid-East suggestive of a pending attack is
probably being monitored rather closely by Iranian intelligence, but
attack preparations at sea would be much harder for the Iranians to
detect. Lastly, any such attack would rely heavily on cruise
missiles, which the USN has in plentiful supply, as well as tactical
strike A/C, which the Navy also has available much closer to likely
targets.
Hard to defend against a couple hunded cruise missiles all at once.
I just don't see a slam dunk, however, and I think mutual pulverization
would be a real possibility.
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
I know a couple of former naval commanders from GWI and the thing
they all agreed on was that they didn't eat much or sleep well when
they were operating in the Gulf.
That's fully understandable. It's the worst sort of environment
imaginable for our Blue-Water Navy to have to fight in. The military
always seems to suffer from being better prepared for the last war
than the next one.
Post by J. Carroll
Personally, I can't imagine circumstances under which such a thing,
an all out conflict, would happen - in the real world anyway.
Not withstanding any particular course or outcome in Iraq, I can
easily imagine the beginning of normalized diplomatic and economic
relations with Iran in the next 5 years. You might laugh at that but
my own first hand knoweledge of Iranians is the basis. They are not
unfriendly to America and
are in fact increasingly western in many ways. We need to be patient
and wise enough to let these "kids" grow up. Things are changing and
as the old
farts pass from the stage, anything will be possible.
We have very similar views on this.
Jeff
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Jeff McCann
2007-03-24 02:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
I'm sure that's in a plan somewhere but land based air assets are a
better choice if we have it out with the Iranians.
Perhaps. But the Navy has the advantages of location, secrecy, and
weight. The USN can simply get closer to targets in and around Iran
than land based assets can.
Not secretly. You can see a long way out into the Gulf even with binoculars
Jeff.
True, but being able to figure out what's actually going on is an altogether
different kettle of fish.
Post by J. Carroll
Ever stood on a hill outside of Beirut?
Post by Jeff McCann
Also, any activity at American land
based facilities in the Mid-East suggestive of a pending attack is
probably being monitored rather closely by Iranian intelligence, but
attack preparations at sea would be much harder for the Iranians to
detect. Lastly, any such attack would rely heavily on cruise
missiles, which the USN has in plentiful supply, as well as tactical
strike A/C, which the Navy also has available much closer to likely
targets.
Hard to defend against a couple hunded cruise missiles all at once.
I just don't see a slam dunk, however, and I think mutual pulverization
would be a real possibility.
Me neither. Lots of idiots spew about "nuking Iran" without being able to
grasp even the tactical, let alone the strategic, economic and political
ramifications. Were we to attack Iran, I'd expect to lose some ships and
A/C, and the relative loss of ships to be far greater than A/C. I'm not
certain that we would even prevail tactically, but I am even less confident
that it would turn out to anything other than a fiasco dwarfing the Iraq
occupation in the long run.

Jeff
Too_Many_Tools
2007-03-24 03:30:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
I'm sure that's in a plan somewhere but land based air assets are a
better choice if we have it out with the Iranians.
Perhaps. But the Navy has the advantages of location, secrecy, and
weight. The USN can simply get closer to targets in and around Iran
than land based assets can.
Not secretly. You can see a long way out into the Gulf even with binoculars
Jeff.
True, but being able to figure out what's actually going on is an altogether
different kettle of fish.
Post by J. Carroll
Ever stood on a hill outside of Beirut?
Post by Jeff McCann
Also, any activity at American land
based facilities in the Mid-East suggestive of a pending attack is
probably being monitored rather closely by Iranian intelligence, but
attack preparations at sea would be much harder for the Iranians to
detect. Lastly, any such attack would rely heavily on cruise
missiles, which the USN has in plentiful supply, as well as tactical
strike A/C, which the Navy also has available much closer to likely
targets.
Hard to defend against a couple hunded cruise missiles all at once.
I just don't see a slam dunk, however, and I think mutual pulverization
would be a real possibility.
Me neither. Lots of idiots spew about "nuking Iran" without being able to
grasp even the tactical, let alone the strategic, economic and political
ramifications. Were we to attack Iran, I'd expect to lose some ships and
A/C, and the relative loss of ships to be far greater than A/C. I'm not
certain that we would even prevail tactically, but I am even less confident
that it would turn out to anything other than a fiasco dwarfing the Iraq
occupation in the long run.
Jeff- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Too_Many_Tools
2007-03-24 03:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
I'm sure that's in a plan somewhere but land based air assets are a
better choice if we have it out with the Iranians.
Perhaps. But the Navy has the advantages of location, secrecy, and
weight. The USN can simply get closer to targets in and around Iran
than land based assets can.
Not secretly. You can see a long way out into the Gulf even with binoculars
Jeff.
True, but being able to figure out what's actually going on is an altogether
different kettle of fish.
Post by J. Carroll
Ever stood on a hill outside of Beirut?
Post by Jeff McCann
Also, any activity at American land
based facilities in the Mid-East suggestive of a pending attack is
probably being monitored rather closely by Iranian intelligence, but
attack preparations at sea would be much harder for the Iranians to
detect. Lastly, any such attack would rely heavily on cruise
missiles, which the USN has in plentiful supply, as well as tactical
strike A/C, which the Navy also has available much closer to likely
targets.
Hard to defend against a couple hunded cruise missiles all at once.
I just don't see a slam dunk, however, and I think mutual pulverization
would be a real possibility.
Me neither. Lots of idiots spew about "nuking Iran" without being able to
grasp even the tactical, let alone the strategic, economic and political
ramifications. Were we to attack Iran, I'd expect to lose some ships and
A/C, and the relative loss of ships to be far greater than A/C. I'm not
certain that we would even prevail tactically, but I am even less confident
that it would turn out to anything other than a fiasco dwarfing the Iraq
occupation in the long run.
Jeff- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'm not
certain that we would even prevail tactically, but I am even less confident
that it would turn out to anything other than a fiasco dwarfing the Iraq
occupation in the long run.
The first would be the total termination of Mideast oil...the second
would be the sound of the US economy grinding to a halt...the third
would be our Chinese creditors wanting their money.

Yep...life would really get interesting.

TMT
l***@cs.com
2007-03-24 01:41:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
My understanding was that the Exocet has no evasive capacity at present,
other than it's preprogrammed flight path, but that the Block 3 variant
would have some reactive evasion capacity.
Nobody would be looney enough to put much reliance in an Exocet
variant asset.

Here's some more info about the 'sizzler':
"In 2005~06, the PLA Navy (PLAN) received six improved Project 636M
(Kilo class) diesel-electric submarines which are fitted with the
advanced 'Club' anti-ship weapon complex designed by Russian Novator
Bureau. The system features the 3M-54E (NATO codename: SS-N-27
Sizzler) subsonic anti-ship cruise missile (ASCM) with a maximum range
of 220~300km. The 'Club' weapon system is available in two versions:
the surface-ship-based Club-N and the submarine-based Club-S, both of
which employs unified combat assets - two types of anti-ship cruise
missiles and a type of ballistic anti-submarine missile.

The 'Club' weapon system includes a number of different variant
missiles including the anti-ship variants 3M-54 and 3M-54E1, and the
anti-submarine variant 91RE1. It is still not clear which variant the
PLAN is operating on its Project 636M Kilo class submarines. The
3M-54E1 is a 300km-range subsonic anti-ship cruise variant similar to
the U.S. Tomahawk. The 3M-54E variant with a shorter range is based on
the subsonic stage of the 3M-54E1 but use a rocket-propelled second
stage which is released 20~60km from the target. This second stage
then accelerates to Mach 3 to defeat ship defences. Both missiles in
the 'Club' weapon complex use a common active radar guidance system
and both fly a low-altitude sea-skimming mission profile. The missile
is launched from the torpedo tubes of the submarine."
http://www.sinodefence.com/navy/navalmissile/3m54.asp

Good range, but slow until close in.
Post by Jeff McCann
I'm very sceptical of that claim about the Iranians' new toy. The Russians
had a very high speed torpedo, the "Schkal" or something like that, based on
supercavitation technology. But it had a range of less than 5 nm, due to
the huge fuel consumption required. I doubt the Iranians could do much
better, even with expert Russian help. What are the odds a launching
platform could get that close?
It's the 'Shkval'.
Yes, deployment by an iranian asset would be problematic.
Rubber boats are not suitable platforms.
Post by Jeff McCann
Good observation. Another alternative we might see is a sudden ans
sustained multiplatform attack intended to so degrade Iranian anti-shipping
assets as to make Gulf a reasonably safe operational environment for USN
warships.
Jeff
There is another and greater threat to US naval assets than the
'sizzler'. Much greater:

""Nonsense!" you are probably thinking. That's impossible. How could a
few picayune destroyers threaten the US Pacific fleet?" Here is where
the story thickens: Summer Pulse amounted to a tacit acknowledgement,
obvious to anyone paying attention, that the United States has been
eclipsed in an important area of military technology, and that this
qualitative edge is now being wielded by others, including the
Chinese; because those otherwise very ordinary destroyers were, in
fact, launching platforms for Russian-made 3M-82 Moskit anti-ship
cruise missiles (NATO designation: SS-N-22 Sunburn), a weapon for
which the US Navy currently has no defense. Here I am not suggesting
that the US status of lone world Superpower has been surpassed. I am
simply saying that a new global balance of power is emerging, in which
other individual states may, on occasion, achieve "an asymmetric
advantage" over the US. And this, in my view, explains the immense
scale of Summer Pulse. The US show last summer of overwhelming
strength was calculated to send a message."
http://www.rense.com/general59/theSunburniransawesome.htm
Nick Hull
2007-03-24 13:59:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
I'm very sceptical of that claim about the Iranians' new toy. The Russians
had a very high speed torpedo, the "Schkal" or something like that, based on
supercavitation technology. But it had a range of less than 5 nm, due to
the huge fuel consumption required. I doubt the Iranians could do much
better, even with expert Russian help. What are the odds a launching
platform could get that close?
If it were pre-positioned on the bottom it would only have to wait for a
CVN to get within 5 miles. A dozen pre-positioned units would make the
persian gulf too hazardous to enter ;)
Committees of Correspondence Web page:- tinyurl.com/y7th2c
EFill4Zaggin
2007-03-24 13:28:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Carroll
Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will be the
withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
They'd be sitting ducks.
Another advantage Iran would have in the event of war is a massive
coast line from which to launch missile and rockets attacks against
U.S forces. Is there any way the U.S could negate Iran's ability - for
24/7- to fire off the coast at the U.S boats?
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 17:15:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by J. Carroll
Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will be the
withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
They'd be sitting ducks.
Another advantage Iran would have in the event of war is a massive
coast line from which to launch missile and rockets attacks against
U.S forces. Is there any way the U.S could negate Iran's ability - for
24/7- to fire off the coast at the U.S boats?
Yes. We could bomb them back to the mud hut age. Too bad about
exterminating the Persians, but there it is. The Persians have chosen
once again to go down the suicidal path of pestering Western Civilization.

We have to do to them what they will do to us, or accept our own death.

I can see that people like me are going to have to ride this out, until
your lot is all dead. Then we can take care of business without
interference from deluded idiot who think they're smarter than the rest
of us.
EFill4Zaggin
2007-03-24 17:29:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by J. Carroll
Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will be the
withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
They'd be sitting ducks.
Another advantage Iran would have in the event of war is a massive
coast line from which to launch missile and rockets attacks against
U.S forces. Is there any way the U.S could negate Iran's ability - for
24/7- to fire off the coast at the U.S boats?
Yes. We could bomb them back to the mud hut age.
Imagine what they could do to your troops in Iraq? Imagine what Iran
could do to Israel i.e. fire cruise missiles at Tel Aviv all day long?
Imagine what affect all this would have on your relations with Russia
and China? I don't think you actually understand the consequences of
your "bomb Iran to the stone age" recommendation.
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-24 18:30:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by J. Carroll
Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will be the
withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
They'd be sitting ducks.
Another advantage Iran would have in the event of war is a massive
coast line from which to launch missile and rockets attacks against
U.S forces. Is there any way the U.S could negate Iran's ability - for
24/7- to fire off the coast at the U.S boats?
Yes. We could bomb them back to the mud hut age.
Imagine what they could do to your troops in Iraq?
The couldn't do anything if the war was fought properly.

For each enemy held area, I'd drop leaflets in Arabic telling all the
women and children to get the hell out. Then I'd bomb the enemy held
villages to mud clods. Afterwards, I'd send in the infantry, and if
there is any AT ALL resistance, pull them out and napalm the place.

To win a war, the enemy must be convinced that his choices are to die
stupidly and helplessly or to live well under your rule.
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Imagine what Iran
could do to Israel i.e. fire cruise missiles at Tel Aviv all day long?
Imagine what affect all this would have on your relations with Russia
and China? I don't think you actually understand the consequences of
your "bomb Iran to the stone age" recommendation.
What do you think the Russians, bless their savage souls, have been
doing in Chetchnia? What the hell do you think the Chinese have been
doing in their western provinces to their own muslem terrorist? Do you
think the Russians or Chinese give a damn what WE think when they do this?

I don't CARE what they do to their moslems, and neither do YOU (if you
even KNOW about what they are doing...). YOU only care what we do to
Iraqi terrorist because you don't want us to win. You don't mind if the
Russians or Chinese win, you only care that we LOSE.

And quite frankly, without Democrats like you, no one in the US would
give a damn if we defeated the enemy. Only people like YOU care about
the hypocritical propaganda put out by the Chinese or the Russians.
EFill4Zaggin
2007-03-24 20:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by J. Carroll
Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will be the
withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
They'd be sitting ducks.
Another advantage Iran would have in the event of war is a massive
coast line from which to launch missile and rockets attacks against
U.S forces. Is there any way the U.S could negate Iran's ability - for
24/7- to fire off the coast at the U.S boats?
Yes. We could bomb them back to the mud hut age.
Imagine what they could do to your troops in Iraq?
The couldn't do anything if the war was fought properly.
For each enemy held area, I'd drop leaflets in Arabic
Might not be much use given the Iranians don't speak Arabic.
J. Carroll
2007-03-24 20:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by J. Carroll
Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign
will be the withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
They'd be sitting ducks.
Another advantage Iran would have in the event of war is a massive
coast line from which to launch missile and rockets attacks
against U.S forces. Is there any way the U.S could negate Iran's
ability - for 24/7- to fire off the coast at the U.S boats?
Yes. We could bomb them back to the mud hut age.
Imagine what they could do to your troops in Iraq?
The couldn't do anything if the war was fought properly.
For each enemy held area, I'd drop leaflets in Arabic
Might not be much use given the Iranians don't speak Arabic.
I doubt that Stuarts idea of "leafletting them to death" would fly anyway.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-25 00:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by s***@comcast.net
Yes. We could bomb them back to the mud hut age.
Imagine what they could do to your troops in Iraq?
The couldn't do anything if the war was fought properly.
For each enemy held area, I'd drop leaflets in Arabic
Might not be much use given the Iranians don't speak Arabic.
True enough. However, Iranians don't live in Iraq, where the Arabs do
speak Arabic. The idea is to get the Arab women and children out of the
areas in Iraq, and then bomb the shit out of the enemy that remains. If
the Iranians are there and don't speak arabic, so much the better.
Vandar
2007-03-25 00:40:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by J. Carroll
Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will be the
withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
They'd be sitting ducks.
Another advantage Iran would have in the event of war is a massive
coast line from which to launch missile and rockets attacks against
U.S forces. Is there any way the U.S could negate Iran's ability - for
24/7- to fire off the coast at the U.S boats?
Yes. We could bomb them back to the mud hut age. Too bad about
exterminating the Persians, but there it is. The Persians have chosen
once again to go down the suicidal path of pestering Western Civilization.
We have to do to them what they will do to us, or accept our own death.
I can see that people like me are going to have to ride this out, until
your lot is all dead. Then we can take care of business without
interference from deluded idiot who think they're smarter than the rest
of us.
My dog is smarter than you.
s***@comcast.net
2007-03-25 00:53:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Vandar
Post by s***@comcast.net
Post by EFill4Zaggin
Post by J. Carroll
Should the US ever really go to war with Iran, the first sign will be the
withdrawal of US naval forces from the Persian Gulf.
They'd be sitting ducks.
Another advantage Iran would have in the event of war is a massive
coast line from which to launch missile and rockets attacks against
U.S forces. Is there any way the U.S could negate Iran's ability - for
24/7- to fire off the coast at the U.S boats?
Yes. We could bomb them back to the mud hut age. Too bad about
exterminating the Persians, but there it is. The Persians have chosen
once again to go down the suicidal path of pestering Western
Civilization.
We have to do to them what they will do to us, or accept our own death.
I can see that people like me are going to have to ride this out,
until your lot is all dead. Then we can take care of business without
interference from deluded idiot who think they're smarter than the
rest of us.
My dog is smarter than you.
It is a waste of time to reply to you, because you're so stupid. A smart
person would be able to back up what he said and wouldn't make childish
remarks.

< PLONK >

Geno2341
2007-03-24 01:33:06 UTC
Permalink
Satilites in the earths atmosphere really makes ship guidence systems
redundant.
Also as soon as the ships fire the missiles their positions are exposed.
Post by Lawrence Glickman
On 23 Mar 2007 15:17:45 -0700, "Too_Many_Tools"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
I strongly doubt that the USN has no defense against a sea
skimming missile just because it's a newer, faster one.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
And when the oil stops, the US economy will too.
As for China...want to bet that these missiles could carry tactical
nukes?
Too bad we can't buy one at Walmart....
TMT
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile Tony
Capaccio Fri Mar 23
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of
warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending
aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile,
according to current and former officials and Defense Department
documents.
The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed
by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it
will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.
The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so
serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's
chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production
of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was
addressed.
``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who
evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its
purpose.''
``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said.
China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines
designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence
spokesman Robert Althage.
A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia
also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale
has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the
ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through
which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.
Fast and Low-Flying
``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral
Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be
visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time
it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to
handle this sort of missile.''
The US Navy and other armed services have been working on, and
deploying drones for more than ten years already, not to mention the
fact that the E2-C Hawkeye carries a very capable multi-mode radar
which can track hundreds of targets, as well as sea skimming missiles.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and
destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect
aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and
former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by
Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and
intercepting the Sizzler.
``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas
Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from
mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.
`A Major Issue'
``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I
had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and
production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help
develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''
The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-
dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without
some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a
threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.
The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler
``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a
developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon
said in an e-mail.
The US Navy tried to buy a batch of Moskits a few years back,
or was it Sunburns? I think it was the Sunburn actually... pardon moi.
Anyway, they don't really need to buy a batch to test successfully
against them. All they need to know are it's exact specs.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of
the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable
alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a
layered defense capability that can defend against various missile
threats,'' Mann said.
Raising Concerns
McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns
about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8,
2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He
also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.
In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was
addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for
production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop
Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the
$36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop
and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6
billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.
Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense
contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B,
starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its
target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three
times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet)
above sea level.
I doubt that. The Moskit was new in the '90s. This is probably
the same missile, or a slightly advanced version of it. I suppose it's
possible, but even if that's for real, the US Navy here is pretending
that all they have to defend with are the shipboard radars, etc. The
E2-C Hawkeye has been called a "mini-AWACS", and that's pretty much
what it is.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Final Approach
On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very
high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office
of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.
The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent
agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense
issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles
fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them
easier to track and target.
McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of
our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded
to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest
in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.
`Aggressively Marketing'
The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in
Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at
international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with
the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research
organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last
month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he
said.
I think Canada ought to buy it. Then next time some EU member
nations ships are here overfishing out territorial waters, we can take
them right out of the briny, and we'll see if their spokespeople want
to try again saying what they did last time; "...we don't recognize
the jurisdiction,,,"
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the
missile.
Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-
export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to
comment.
McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler
``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in
the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense
information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and
Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a
sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.
I don't believe it's a new missile. If it was offered in the
'90s, that means it's the Moskit. This might be a slightly upgraded
version of the Moskit, but the Moskit is a mach 2 missile, not mach 3.
Post by Too_Many_Tools
That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested
anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing
in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats
Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines
``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''
The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the
Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler
that could be used for testing.
``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.
Jeff McCann
2007-03-24 00:38:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
Actually, we have several. First, there is deterrence. Were the PLAN
(People's Liberation Army's Navy) actually to succeed in taking out a U.S.
Carrier, it most certainly would provoke a response about equivalent to
nuking the U.S. mainland. That is to say, they'd better have a very deep
hole to hide in and no assets or interests that we can find, reach and
destroy. China would be made to suffer and bleed rather badly for such
hubris.

Second, the SS-N-27B needs a launching platform, i.e., a submarine, to get
it within range of the prime target at the center of a Carrier Battle Group.
To do that, the attacking sub needs to avoid detection and destruction while
closing to within about 100nm, against the best and heaviest concentration
of ASW systems and platforms to be found anywhere in the world, i.e., a USN
Carrier Battle Group. This certainly can be accomplished, provided enough
skill and luck. But just one attempt by one Russian-built PLAN Kilo (the
likeliest platform for the SS-N-27B) ain't gonna get 'er done. The PLAN
will have to commit several or all of their available Kilos, as well as lots
of other valuable assets to the attack, if they expect to have a decent
chance of success. Many of these won't be coming back.

Third, assuming the launching platform survives to launch before becoming
the basis for someone's Navy Cross, the missile has to actually find, reach
and either destroy the target or at least degrade it enough to make the
undertaking worthwhile. Until it's terminal approach, it's just another
cruise missile, and subject to all the usual countermeasures. Moreover, this
isn't the first supposed "superweapon" we've heard were in either final
design or actual production in Russia or China. Often, reported
capabilities are wildly exaggerated or made up from whole cloth to suit
someone's agenda. Remember the "Missile Gap"?


Jeff
J. Carroll
2007-03-24 01:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
Actually, we have several. First, there is deterrence. Were the PLAN
(People's Liberation Army's Navy) actually to succeed in taking out a
U.S. Carrier, it most certainly would provoke a response about
equivalent to nuking the U.S. mainland. That is to say, they'd
better have a very deep hole to hide in and no assets or interests
that we can find, reach and destroy. China would be made to suffer
and bleed rather badly for such hubris.
The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
They just don't.
Iran is another story.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Jeff McCann
2007-03-24 01:24:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
Actually, we have several. First, there is deterrence. Were the PLAN
(People's Liberation Army's Navy) actually to succeed in taking out a
U.S. Carrier, it most certainly would provoke a response about
equivalent to nuking the U.S. mainland. That is to say, they'd
better have a very deep hole to hide in and no assets or interests
that we can find, reach and destroy. China would be made to suffer
and bleed rather badly for such hubris.
The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
They just don't.
Iran is another story.
Um, their core military strategy, especially the naval aspects, focuses on
Taiwan. To forcibly "reunite" Taiwan with the mainland, they have to, and
do, recognize that their biggest obstacle is the USN. They plan
accordingly.

See, e.g., http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2005/11/1153293 "China's
military buildup is primarily, if not exclusively, focused on what Beijing
refers to as the Taiwan problem"

Jeff
J. Carroll
2007-03-24 01:50:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense
against this.
Actually, we have several. First, there is deterrence. Were the
PLAN (People's Liberation Army's Navy) actually to succeed in
taking out a U.S. Carrier, it most certainly would provoke a
response about equivalent to nuking the U.S. mainland. That is to
say, they'd better have a very deep hole to hide in and no assets
or interests that we can find, reach and destroy. China would be
made to suffer and bleed rather badly for such hubris.
The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
They just don't.
Iran is another story.
Um, their core military strategy, especially the naval aspects,
focuses on Taiwan. To forcibly "reunite" Taiwan with the mainland,
they have to, and do, recognize that their biggest obstacle is the
USN. They plan accordingly.
In the end Jeff, we won't actually do a thing. There is a difference between
a "bear hug" and war.
The two countries are becoming increasingly intertwined economically and the
key to all of this in my opinion will be not to "disturb" the big money in
Taiwan. The two countries resemble each other in this regard. The PRC's
political leadership will tolerate anything that doesn't threaten their hold
and the Taiwanese business community can live with anything that preserves
their stature.
Post by Jeff McCann
See, e.g., http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2005/11/1153293 "China's
military buildup is primarily, if not exclusively, focused on what
Beijing refers to as the Taiwan problem"
What the Mainland Chinese leaders fear most is a farmers rebellion. They are
upgrading their military for sure. Not hurriedly. They aren't spending much
and it's as likely as not that they would use their latest weapons on their
own.
There are now something like 40,000 "joint venture" partnerships on the
mainland where one partner is Taiwanese.
There isn't a "Taiwan problem" really but a solution, if you will, is in
process. Money and power, not ideology, are the root of the situation.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Jeff McCann
2007-03-24 02:59:58 UTC
Permalink
"J. Carroll" <***@haha.cam> wrote in message news:Xt%Mh.1164$***@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
[snip]
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by J. Carroll
The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
They just don't.
Iran is another story.
Um, their core military strategy, especially the naval aspects,
focuses on Taiwan. To forcibly "reunite" Taiwan with the mainland,
they have to, and do, recognize that their biggest obstacle is the
USN. They plan accordingly.
In the end Jeff, we won't actually do a thing. There is a difference between
a "bear hug" and war.
The two countries are becoming increasingly intertwined economically and the
key to all of this in my opinion will be not to "disturb" the big money in
Taiwan. The two countries resemble each other in this regard. The PRC's
political leadership will tolerate anything that doesn't threaten their hold
and the Taiwanese business community can live with anything that preserves
their stature.
Over time, it seems that the PRC and the ROC will greatly expand their
economic relations and co-dependence, making any war an ever-increasing
mutual detriment.

It's a good thing that idiots and psychopaths never find their way into
power, international relations are never bungled, national leaders always
behave rationally, no one ever bluffs or calls someone else's bluff, and
crises are always averted, right?

And things do have the capacity to change very rapidly, indeed. Ask the
residents of Sarajevo, in the former Yugoslavia, about the stark difference
in the life of their city between the optimism of 1984, when they hosted the
Winter Olympics, and the desperation of 1992, when the siege of Sarajevo
began. What a difference a few years can make, eh?

Jeff
J. Carroll
2007-03-24 03:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jeff McCann
[snip]
Post by J. Carroll
The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
They just don't.
Iran is another story.
Over time, it seems that the PRC and the ROC will greatly expand their
economic relations and co-dependence, making any war an
ever-increasing mutual detriment.
Thousands of years of history in common also count. They really are one
people - even if they won't yet embrace that fully.
Taiwan and the PRC remind me of our Democrats and Republicans were the
gloves ever to truly come off in a genuine civil insurrection with the split
along party lines.
Post by Jeff McCann
It's a good thing that idiots and psychopaths never find their way
into power, international relations are never bungled, national
leaders always behave rationally, no one ever bluffs or calls someone
else's bluff, and crises are always averted, right?
LOL
Amazingly good! <Cough>
I was thinking not long ago that the WWII generation and the young pols of
the late depression years dominated the political landscape in the United
States for decades and that the Baby Boomers look to be passing from the
stage after just two Presidencies. The former knew real hardship and
personal sacrifice. The latter didn't. The difference in their ability to
govern successfully has been striking. A generation of moderates begat one
of bullies. Who would have thought such an outcome was possible. I'd almost
be willing to bet we've seen the last of the boomers in the WH. There might
be one more but that will be it.
Post by Jeff McCann
And things do have the capacity to change very rapidly, indeed. Ask
the residents of Sarajevo, in the former Yugoslavia, about the stark
difference in the life of their city between the optimism of 1984,
when they hosted the Winter Olympics, and the desperation of 1992,
when the siege of Sarajevo began. What a difference a few years can
make, eh?
They did what the Soviets had unnaturally prevented them from continuing to
do. The divisions there are the same ones that beset the Middle east.
Exactly the same ones.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Geno2341
2007-03-24 01:53:21 UTC
Permalink
Iran isn't going to strike first. America has threatend that, Should America
do so Iran will destroy the Saudi and Iraqi oil intra-structures.
Then there is the invasion of Iran. That is nearly imposible. Any troop ship
intering the Persian gulf would quickly be sunk,
Also Iran could quickly launch a Army into Iraq and also make the Green Zone
a turkey shoot.
Also outside of Israel what other county would allow Bush to burn them
again.
Also Iran has already stated what would happen to Israel.
So be carefull what you wish for.
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
Actually, we have several. First, there is deterrence. Were the PLAN
(People's Liberation Army's Navy) actually to succeed in taking out a
U.S. Carrier, it most certainly would provoke a response about
equivalent to nuking the U.S. mainland. That is to say, they'd
better have a very deep hole to hide in and no assets or interests
that we can find, reach and destroy. China would be made to suffer
and bleed rather badly for such hubris.
The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
They just don't.
Iran is another story.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
g***@houston.rr.com
2007-03-24 03:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
Actually, we have several. First, there is deterrence. Were the PLAN
(People's Liberation Army's Navy) actually to succeed in taking out a
U.S. Carrier, it most certainly would provoke a response about
equivalent to nuking the U.S. mainland. That is to say, they'd
better have a very deep hole to hide in and no assets or interests
that we can find, reach and destroy. China would be made to suffer
and bleed rather badly for such hubris.
The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
They just don't.
Do you recall ever hearing of a place called Taiwan?

All that holds them back is the quite reasonable perception that they
are unlikely to WIN any encounter over Taiwan.

If - IN THEIR PERCEPTION - that equation changes - they might very
well attack a "US interest".
Post by J. Carroll
Iran is another story.
J. Carroll
2007-03-24 03:38:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by g***@houston.rr.com
Post by J. Carroll
Post by Jeff McCann
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense
against this.
Actually, we have several. First, there is deterrence. Were the
PLAN (People's Liberation Army's Navy) actually to succeed in
taking out a U.S. Carrier, it most certainly would provoke a
response about equivalent to nuking the U.S. mainland. That is to
say, they'd better have a very deep hole to hide in and no assets
or interests that we can find, reach and destroy. China would be
made to suffer and bleed rather badly for such hubris.
The PRC has no interest in an attack on US forces or US interests.\
They just don't.
Do you recall ever hearing of a place called Taiwan?
All that holds them back is the quite reasonable perception that they
are unlikely to WIN any encounter over Taiwan.
If - IN THEIR PERCEPTION - that equation changes - they might very
well attack a "US interest".
LOL
Taiwan is much more of a Chinese interest than an American one and in the
event, the US isn't likely to go beyond a certain point. It would not be in
our interests to do so. It's a lose - lose.
You also aren't likely to see real conflict between India and Pakistan for
the same reason. The world can't afford to loose Bangalore.

It's high time for the US to grow the hell up and rejoin the world community
to create something, not force it.
We've become something of an international outlaw at this point. Feared by
all and respected by none.
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
l***@cs.com
2007-03-24 00:43:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
And when the oil stops, the US economy will too.
As for China...want to bet that these missiles could carry tactical
nukes?
Too bad we can't buy one at Walmart....
TMT
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile Tony
Capaccio Fri Mar 23
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of
warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending
aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile,
according to current and former officials and Defense Department
documents.
The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed
by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it
will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.
The Defense Department's weapons-testing office judges the threat so
serious that its director, Charles McQueary, warned the Pentagon's
chief weapons-buyer in a memo that he would move to stall production
of multibillion-dollar ship and missile programs until the issue was
addressed.
``This is a carrier-destroying weapon,'' said Orville Hanson, who
evaluated weapons systems for 38 years with the Navy. ``That's its
purpose.''
``Take out the carriers'' and China ``can walk into Taiwan,'' he said.
China bought the missiles in 2002 along with eight diesel submarines
designed to fire it, according to Office of Naval Intelligence
spokesman Robert Althage.
A Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Russia
also offered the missile to Iran, although there's no evidence a sale
has gone through. In Iranian hands, the Sizzler could challenge the
ability of the U.S. Navy to keep open the Strait of Hormuz, through
which an estimated 25 percent of the world's oil traffic flows.
Fast and Low-Flying
``This is a very low-flying, fast missile,'' said retired Rear Admiral
Eric McVadon, a former U.S. naval attache in Beijing. ``It won't be
visible until it's quite close. By the time you detect it to the time
it hits you is very short. You'd want to know your capabilities to
handle this sort of missile.''
The Navy's ship-borne Aegis system, deployed on cruisers and
destroyers starting in the early 1980s, is designed to protect
aircraft-carrier battle groups from missile attacks. But current and
former officials say the Navy has no assurance Aegis, built by
Lockheed Martin Corp., is capable of detecting, tracking and
intercepting the Sizzler.
``This was an issue when I walked in the door in 2001,'' Thomas
Christie, the Defense Department's top weapons-testing official from
mid-2001 to early 2005, said in an interview.
`A Major Issue'
``The Navy recognized this was a major issue, and over the years, I
had continued promises they were going to fully fund development and
production'' of missiles that could replicate the Sizzler to help
develop a defense against it, Christie said. ``They haven't.''
The effect is that in a conflict, the U.S. ``would send a billion-
dollar platform loaded with equipment and crew into harm's way without
some sort of confidence that we could defeat what is apparently a
threat very near on the horizon,'' Christie said.
The Navy considered developing a program to test against the Sizzler
``but has no plans in the immediate future to initiate such a
developmental effort,'' Naval Air Systems Command spokesman Rob Koon
said in an e-mail.
Lieutenant Bashon Mann, a Navy spokesman, said the service is aware of
the Sizzler's capabilities and is ``researching suitable
alternatives'' to defend against it. ``U.S. naval warships have a
layered defense capability that can defend against various missile
threats,'' Mann said.
Raising Concerns
McQueary, head of the Pentagon's testing office, raised his concerns
about the absence of Navy test plans for the missile in a Sept. 8,
2006, memo to Ken Krieg, undersecretary of defense for acquisition. He
also voiced concerns to Deputy Secretary England.
In the memo, McQuery said that unless the Sizzler threat was
addressed, his office wouldn't approve test plans necessary for
production to begin on several other projects, including Northrop
Grumman Corp.'s new $35.8 billion CVN-21 aircraft-carrier project; the
$36.5 billion DDG-1000 destroyer project being developed by Northrop
and General Dynamics Corp.; and two Raytheon Corp. projects, the $6
billion Standard Missile-6 and $1.1 billion Ship Self Defense System.
Charts prepared by the Navy for a February 2005 briefing for defense
contractors said the Sizzler, which is also called the SS-N-27B,
starts out flying at subsonic speeds. Within 10 nautical miles of its
target, a rocket-propelled warhead separates and accelerates to three
times the speed of sound, flying no more than 10 meters (33 feet)
above sea level.
Final Approach
On final approach, the missile ``has the potential to perform very
high defensive maneuvers,'' including sharp-angled dodges, the Office
of Naval Intelligence said in a manual on worldwide maritime threats.
The Sizzler is ``unique,'' the Defense Science Board, an independent
agency within the Pentagon that provides assessments of major defense
issues, said in an October 2005 report. Most anti-ship cruise missiles
fly below the speed of sound and on a straight path, making them
easier to track and target.
McQueary, in a March 16 e-mailed statement, said that ``to the best of
our knowledge,'' the Navy hasn't started a test program or responded
to the board's recommendations. ``The Navy may be reluctant to invest
in development of a new target, given their other bills,'' he said.
`Aggressively Marketing'
The Sizzler's Russian maker, state-run Novator Design Bureau in
Yekaterinburg, is ``aggressively marketing'' the weapon at
international arms shows, said Steve Zaloga, a missile analyst with
the Teal Group, a Fairfax, Virginia-based defense research
organization. Among other venues, the missile was pitched at last
month's IDEX 2007, the Middle East's largest weapons exposition, he
said.
Zaloga provided a page from Novator's sales brochure depicting the
missile.
Alexander Uzhanov, a spokesman for the Moscow-based Russian arms-
export agency Rosoboronexport, which oversees Novator, declined to
comment.
McVadon, who has written about the Chinese navy, called the Sizzler
``right now the most pertinent and pressing threat the U.S. faces in
the case of a Taiwan conflict.'' Jane's, the London-based defense
information group, reported in 2005 in its publication ``Missiles and
Rockets'' that Russia had offered the missile to Iran as part of a
sale in the 1990s of three Kilo- class submarines.
That report was confirmed by the Pentagon official who requested
anonymity. The Office of Naval Intelligence suggested the same thing
in a 2004 report, highlighting in its assessment of maritime threats
Iran's possible acquisition of additional Russian diesel submarines
``with advanced anti-ship cruise missiles.''
The Defense Science Board, in its 2005 report, recommended that the
Navy ``immediately implement'' a plan to produce a surrogate Sizzler
that could be used for testing.
``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.
I don't know if there is a real problem here..
Two years ago the Army successfully field-tested a new Laser defence
system that tracked incoming artillery shells... and then fried them
before they impacted.

I doubt very much that the 'sizzler' might be faster or more difficult
to intercept than a howitzer shell.
Notan
2007-03-24 00:49:31 UTC
Permalink
***@cs.com wrote:

<snip>
Post by l***@cs.com
I don't know if there is a real problem here..
Two years ago the Army successfully field-tested a new Laser defence
system that tracked incoming artillery shells... and then fried them
before they impacted.
*Assuming* this is true, for each "successful" test, there's a shitload of duds.

Personally, I have very little confidence in this country's defense system(s).
--
Notan
h***@hotmail.com
2007-03-24 01:09:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
And when the oil stops, the US economy will too.
As for China...want to bet that these missiles could carry tactical
nukes?
Too bad we can't buy one at Walmart....
TMT
Buy one what? We have all of the offensive weapons needed. What the
articles appears to be reporting is a defence weakness. Don't you
read the stuff you post?
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile Tony
Capaccio Fri Mar 23
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of
warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending
aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile,
according to current and former officials and Defense Department
documents.
The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed
by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it
will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.
Just what the world needs to know - how our carrier defences will
operate...
Post by Too_Many_Tools
``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.
So is secrecy. Why blab our weakenesses and our countermeasures all
over the world?

Sometimes I think that you're an idiot, but I'm probably wrong.
You're probably an idiot all of the time.
Winston_Smith
2007-03-24 05:45:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
And when the oil stops, the US economy will too.
As for China...want to bet that these missiles could carry tactical
nukes?
Too bad we can't buy one at Walmart....
TMT
Buy one what? We have all of the offensive weapons needed. What the
articles appears to be reporting is a defence weakness. Don't you
read the stuff you post?
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile Tony
Capaccio Fri Mar 23
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of
warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending
aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile,
according to current and former officials and Defense Department
documents.
The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed
by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it
will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.
Just what the world needs to know - how our carrier defences will
operate...
Why do you think the Deputy Secretary of Defense wants the answer made
publicly? Cites?
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Too_Many_Tools
``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.
So is secrecy. Why blab our weakenesses and our countermeasures all
over the world?
Why do you think the board wants the answer made publicly? Cites?
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Sometimes I think that you're an idiot, but I'm probably wrong.
You're probably an idiot all of the time.
Interesting coming from someone that doesn't see the difference
between the Navy having a plan to defend it's ships and sailors and
putting the details on the 6 o'clock news.



--
NEW version of address, my ISP is playing games again.
W§ mostly in m.s - http://www.1stconnect.com/anozira/default.htm
Too_Many_Tools
2007-03-24 06:30:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
And when the oil stops, the US economy will too.
As for China...want to bet that these missiles could carry tactical
nukes?
Too bad we can't buy one at Walmart....
TMT
Buy one what? We have all of the offensive weapons needed. What the
articles appears to be reporting is a defence weakness. Don't you
read the stuff you post?
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile Tony
Capaccio Fri Mar 23
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of
warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending
aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile,
according to current and former officials and Defense Department
documents.
The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed
by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it
will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.
Just what the world needs to know - how our carrier defences will
operate...
Why do you think the Deputy Secretary of Defense wants the answer made
publicly? Cites?
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Too_Many_Tools
``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.
So is secrecy. Why blab our weakenesses and our countermeasures all
over the world?
Why do you think the board wants the answer made publicly? Cites?
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Sometimes I think that you're an idiot, but I'm probably wrong.
You're probably an idiot all of the time.
Interesting coming from someone that doesn't see the difference
between the Navy having a plan to defend it's ships and sailors and
putting the details on the 6 o'clock news.
--
NEW version of address, my ISP is playing games again.
W§ mostly in m.s -http://www.1stconnect.com/anozira/default.htm- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I will give you a clue....the bad guys already know.

It is likely worse than the story protrays.

The story was likely published in the hopes that the Government will
get off its thumbs and do something before IT happens.

Will we see a repeat of Pearl Harbor...with Bush's name associated
with it?

TMT
h***@hotmail.com
2007-03-24 19:06:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
And when the oil stops, the US economy will too.
As for China...want to bet that these missiles could carry tactical
nukes?
Too bad we can't buy one at Walmart....
TMT
Buy one what? We have all of the offensive weapons needed. What the
articles appears to be reporting is a defence weakness. Don't you
read the stuff you post?
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile Tony
Capaccio Fri Mar 23
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of
warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending
aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile,
according to current and former officials and Defense Department
documents.
The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed
by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it
will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.
Just what the world needs to know - how our carrier defences will
operate...
Why do you think the Deputy Secretary of Defense wants the answer made
publicly? Cites?
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Too_Many_Tools
``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.
So is secrecy. Why blab our weakenesses and our countermeasures all
over the world?
Why do you think the board wants the answer made publicly? Cites?
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Sometimes I think that you're an idiot, but I'm probably wrong.
You're probably an idiot all of the time.
Interesting coming from someone that doesn't see the difference
between the Navy having a plan to defend it's ships and sailors and
putting the details on the 6 o'clock news.
--
NEW version of address, my ISP is playing games again.
W§ mostly in m.s -http://www.1stconnect.com/anozira/default.htm-Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I will give you a clue....the bad guys already know.
It is likely worse than the story protrays.
The story was likely published in the hopes that the Government will
get off its thumbs and do something before IT happens.
So TMT is pro-active and pro-war?
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Will we see a repeat of Pearl Harbor...with Bush's name associated
with it?
TMT
Hillary will likely be president if/when it happens. Yes?
h***@hotmail.com
2007-03-24 19:03:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
And when the oil stops, the US economy will too.
As for China...want to bet that these missiles could carry tactical
nukes?
Too bad we can't buy one at Walmart....
TMT
Buy one what? We have all of the offensive weapons needed. What the
articles appears to be reporting is a defence weakness. Don't you
read the stuff you post?
Do you think Too Many Beers ever reads the stuff he snips and posts?
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Navy Lacks Plan to Defend Against `Carrier-Destroying' Missile Tony
Capaccio Fri Mar 23
March 23 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Navy, after nearly six years of
warnings from Pentagon testers, still lacks a plan for defending
aircraft carriers against a supersonic Russian-built missile,
according to current and former officials and Defense Department
documents.
The missile, known in the West as the ``Sizzler,'' has been deployed
by China and may be purchased by Iran. Deputy Secretary of Defense
Gordon England has given the Navy until April 29 to explain how it
will counter the missile, according to a Pentagon budget document.
Just what the world needs to know - how our carrier defences will
operate...
Why do you think the Deputy Secretary of Defense wants the answer made
publicly? Cites?
Perhaps he lacks insight?
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Post by Too_Many_Tools
``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.
So is secrecy. Why blab our weakenesses and our countermeasures all
over the world?
Why do you think the board wants the answer made publicly? Cites?
Perhaps they are foolish?
Post by Winston_Smith
Post by h***@hotmail.com
Sometimes I think that you're an idiot, but I'm probably wrong.
You're probably an idiot all of the time.
Interesting coming from someone that doesn't see the difference
between the Navy having a plan to defend it's ships and sailors and
putting the details on the 6 o'clock news.
When you deliver the plan and the details via the 6 o'clock news, you
can count on having dead sailors and sunken ships.
Post by Winston_Smith
--
NEW version of address, my ISP is playing games again.
W§ mostly in m.s -http://www.1stconnect.com/anozira/default.htm
They're out to get you.
Tom Gardner
2007-03-24 03:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
If you can read, you will see that the US Navy has NO defense against
this.
Not a problem, the Democrats will surrender to them as soon as they get
enough pork on the surrender bill.
RONSERESURPLUS
2007-03-24 13:02:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
GEE
"TOO MANY FOOLS", wonder where the Chinese got most of the
electronics and upgrades to most of thier weaponry? I know you LOVE TO
IGNORE all the DEALS that Billy Clintoon and AL "OUT OF HIS MIND
GLOBAL WARMING" Gore did while they were infesting the white house?
News to you asshole, they have had and upgrade all the time, would
they and will they use them? Thats all a matter of how hard the push
for Taiwan goes? I know that you'd love to blame everything from a
Rainstorm to herpies on the Bush administration, but in the end, we
see you for that which you are, a partasian Dickhead with a Mook Lib
Leftist Agenda! Tell us all more of what your wonderful Dems have done
while they have had control of the House and Senate? Other than show
Trials, Cut and Cut Policy, Whining about how they want to raise taxes
and obstruction of anything real? LOL Yea, we sure are glad those
Fools are in there, think your side will win in 08? With Who? Queen
Hillery? Osama Obama? Gore? Stop it, your making us all laugh too
hard! As for the House and Senate, next elections on those have a good
chance of flying right out of your hands again? LOL YUP< live it Up
foolish one, your days are numbered!



RON
J. Carroll
2007-03-24 13:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by RONSERESURPLUS
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
GEE
"TOO MANY FOOLS", wonder where the Chinese got most of the
electronics and upgrades to most of thier weaponry? I know you LOVE TO
IGNORE all the DEALS that Billy Clintoon and AL "OUT OF HIS MIND
GLOBAL WARMING" Gore did while they were infesting the white house?
News to you asshole, they have had and upgrade all the time, would
they and will they use them? Thats all a matter of how hard the push
for Taiwan goes? I know that you'd love to blame everything from a
Rainstorm to herpies on the Bush administration, but in the end, we
see you for that which you are, a partasian Dickhead with a Mook Lib
Leftist Agenda! Tell us all more of what your wonderful Dems have done
while they have had control of the House and Senate? Other than show
Trials, Cut and Cut Policy, Whining about how they want to raise taxes
and obstruction of anything real? LOL Yea, we sure are glad those
Fools are in there, think your side will win in 08? With Who? Queen
Hillery? Osama Obama? Gore? Stop it, your making us all laugh too
hard! As for the House and Senate, next elections on those have a good
chance of flying right out of your hands again? LOL YUP< live it Up
foolish one, your days are numbered!
Want a little cheese with that whine RON?
LOL
--
John R. Carroll
Machining Solution Software, Inc.
Los Angeles San Francisco
www.machiningsolution.com
Too_Many_Tools
2007-03-24 14:18:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by RONSERESURPLUS
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
GEE
"TOO MANY FOOLS", wonder where the Chinese got most of the
electronics and upgrades to most of thier weaponry? I know you LOVE TO
IGNORE all the DEALS that Billy Clintoon and AL "OUT OF HIS MIND
GLOBAL WARMING" Gore did while they were infesting the white house?
News to you asshole, they have had and upgrade all the time, would
they and will they use them? Thats all a matter of how hard the push
for Taiwan goes? I know that you'd love to blame everything from a
Rainstorm to herpies on the Bush administration, but in the end, we
see you for that which you are, a partasian Dickhead with a Mook Lib
Leftist Agenda! Tell us all more of what your wonderful Dems have done
while they have had control of the House and Senate? Other than show
Trials, Cut and Cut Policy, Whining about how they want to raise taxes
and obstruction of anything real? LOL Yea, we sure are glad those
Fools are in there, think your side will win in 08? With Who? Queen
Hillery? Osama Obama? Gore? Stop it, your making us all laugh too
hard! As for the House and Senate, next elections on those have a good
chance of flying right out of your hands again? LOL YUP< live it Up
foolish one, your days are numbered!
RON
I wondering when the Clinton card would be played...try answering why
more technology has been transferred to China UNDER BUSH than all that
occurred under the Clinton Administration. And you might want to look
at the trade deficit too...the Chinese are using our money to buy
weapons that will be used against the United States.

So much for the Republicans and a strong America...they just want
money to line their coffins.....

TMT
Jerry Kraus
2007-03-24 20:41:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Post by RONSERESURPLUS
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
GEE
"TOO MANY FOOLS", wonder where the Chinese got most of the
electronics and upgrades to most of thier weaponry? I know you LOVE TO
IGNORE all the DEALS that Billy Clintoon and AL "OUT OF HIS MIND
GLOBAL WARMING" Gore did while they were infesting the white house?
News to you asshole, they have had and upgrade all the time, would
they and will they use them? Thats all a matter of how hard the push
for Taiwan goes? I know that you'd love to blame everything from a
Rainstorm to herpies on the Bush administration, but in the end, we
see you for that which you are, a partasian Dickhead with a Mook Lib
Leftist Agenda! Tell us all more of what your wonderful Dems have done
while they have had control of the House and Senate? Other than show
Trials, Cut and Cut Policy, Whining about how they want to raise taxes
and obstruction of anything real? LOL Yea, we sure are glad those
Fools are in there, think your side will win in 08? With Who? Queen
Hillery? Osama Obama? Gore? Stop it, your making us all laugh too
hard! As for the House and Senate, next elections on those have a good
chance of flying right out of your hands again? LOL YUP< live it Up
foolish one, your days are numbered!
RON
I wondering when the Clinton card would be played...try answering why
more technology has been transferred to China UNDER BUSH than all that
occurred under the Clinton Administration. And you might want to look
at the trade deficit too...the Chinese are using our money to buy
weapons that will be used against the United States.
So much for the Republicans and a strong America...they just want
money to line their coffins.....
TMT- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
That "they just want money to line their coffins" line is quite good.
Nicely summarizes the neocon philosophy.
Too_Many_Tools
2007-03-24 14:26:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by RONSERESURPLUS
Post by Too_Many_Tools
Anybody want to lose a carrier or two?
GEE
"TOO MANY FOOLS", wonder where the Chinese got most of the
electronics and upgrades to most of thier weaponry? I know you LOVE TO
IGNORE all the DEALS that Billy Clintoon and AL "OUT OF HIS MIND
GLOBAL WARMING" Gore did while they were infesting the white house?
News to you asshole, they have had and upgrade all the time, would
they and will they use them? Thats all a matter of how hard the push
for Taiwan goes? I know that you'd love to blame everything from a
Rainstorm to herpies on the Bush administration, but in the end, we
see you for that which you are, a partasian Dickhead with a Mook Lib
Leftist Agenda! Tell us all more of what your wonderful Dems have done
while they have had control of the House and Senate? Other than show
Trials, Cut and Cut Policy, Whining about how they want to raise taxes
and obstruction of anything real? LOL Yea, we sure are glad those
Fools are in there, think your side will win in 08? With Who? Queen
Hillery? Osama Obama? Gore? Stop it, your making us all laugh too
hard! As for the House and Senate, next elections on those have a good
chance of flying right out of your hands again? LOL YUP< live it Up
foolish one, your days are numbered!
RON
Yea, we sure are glad those
Post by RONSERESURPLUS
Fools are in there, think your side will win in 08? With Who? Queen
Hillery? Osama Obama? Gore? Stop it, your making us all laugh too
hard! As for the House and Senate, next elections on those have a good
chance of flying right out of your hands again? LOL YUP< live it Up
foolish one, your days are numbered!
RON
Laugh...laugh...laugh...

Still hurting from that beating you took in November 2006?

Well all indications are that the Republicans will be looking back on
that as the good old days on December 2008 when they lose more
Congressional seats AND the White House.

Meanwhile Ron I suggest you start practicing the phase "Yes Ms.
President".

Laugh...laugh...laugh...

TMT
Neolibertarian
2007-03-24 22:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Too_Many_Tools
``Time is of the essence here,'' the board said.
Plea for funding is of the essence here.

Having impregnable carrier fleets is worth it, of course.

United States aircraft carries have been preventing wars for half a
century. Mostly because they're impregnable.
--
NeoLibertarian

"Both oligarch and tyrant mistrust the people,
and therefore deprive them of their arms."
---Aristotle
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...