K, well this is D&ST, perhaps better for General Discussion/Junk Drawer/Everything Else.
Would be interesting to see just how successful that test was. They have such a great track record...
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
if we are talking about the patriot here, then they only missed because the enemy rockets came in at such a low angle that they teared up in the atmosphere effectively reducing the accuracy of the scud by a 100km (it was a modified scud with a much smaller warhead and a crappy engine, but it was not made for long range fligts so it would get a bad angle and disintegrate and the patriot is designed to hit the biggest object and since they have all disintegrated or split the biggest object in this case would be the fuel tank)nukchebi0 wrote:
Will they not miss as much as the first ones did? (Patriot 2)
America is still better than you all.
Hey! I didn't know we were all countries?!M@rC.ExE wrote:
America is still better than you all.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I think the PAC 3's record in OIF was on the order of 100% on ballistic missiles.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Well yeah... That's kind of what Iran is going for here. They're afraid we're going to kick their ass.LT.Victim wrote:
Wouldn't something like NORAD be defensive..usmarine2005 wrote:
They are a very good defense if you understand warfare.LT.Victim wrote:
How are missiles defensive?
Missiles are offensive.. unless you threaten to use them against other nations to keep them from invading.
Oh, my bad. Thanks for the information.motherdear wrote:
if we are talking about the patriot here, then they only missed because the enemy rockets came in at such a low angle that they teared up in the atmosphere effectively reducing the accuracy of the scud by a 100km (it was a modified scud with a much smaller warhead and a crappy engine, but it was not made for long range fligts so it would get a bad angle and disintegrate and the patriot is designed to hit the biggest object and since they have all disintegrated or split the biggest object in this case would be the fuel tank)nukchebi0 wrote:
Will they not miss as much as the first ones did? (Patriot 2)
I must have missed the warning about this development in the NIE.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
That's your opinion. My opinion is that Bush is a right-wing Christian simpleton, who for all we know might secretly will the end of the world so he can see the rapture in his lifetime and hence in my book is a few marbles short also.Stingray24 wrote:
As I said before MAD requires that all players at the table be in possession of all their mental marbles. The leader of Iran is a few short.
Not au fait with the need for deterrency or the ability to strike back at any superior military enemies like Israel who have a history of 'pre-emptively' attacking countries around them? Not to mention the US on either side of them, baying for their blood/oil...Stingray24 wrote:
Bit big and range a bit long for defense.Braddock wrote:
How dare they spend money on defence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisi … _Peninsula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_wa … air_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War#Invasion
If the United States of America placed my country on an imaginary "Axis of Evil" I'd be arming the shit out of myself too.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
Lol - Another way to phrase "I'm tired of Iran"Stingray24 wrote:
K, well this is D&ST, perhaps better for General Discussion/Junk Drawer/Everything Else.
yes, like a deterrent. which is defensive.LT.Victim wrote:
Missiles are offensive.. unless you threaten to use them against other nations to keep them from invading.
What? Khrushchev, Breznev, Stalin and Reagan didn't seem to have all their marbles and MAD stopped them from killing each other.Stingray24 wrote:
As I said before MAD requires that all players at the table be in possession of all their mental marbles. The leader of Iran is a few short.
Go ArmyFEOS wrote:
I think the PAC 3's record in OIF was on the order of 100% on ballistic missiles.
Well, if that's your opinion, you need to research Christian beliefs about the end times a bit more. We believe it is God who decides when the world ends and that we as humans can do nothing to "trigger" the rapture. In stark contrast, Ahmedinutjob wants his government to play a primary role in ushering in the 12th imam and his beliefs tell him he CAN trigger it. Researching what is necessary for that to occur, based on traditional Muslim belief, it does not sound too encouraging that he wants nukes. Also, the ballistic missile is the preferred delivery method for said nukes.Braddock wrote:
That's your opinion. My opinion is that Bush is a right-wing Christian simpleton, who for all we know might secretly will the end of the world so he can see the rapture in his lifetime and hence in my book is a few marbles short also.Stingray24 wrote:
As I said before MAD requires that all players at the table be in possession of all their mental marbles. The leader of Iran is a few short.
Last edited by Stingray24 (2007-12-13 10:58:01)
Here we go...CameronPoe wrote:
Not au fait with the need for deterrency or the ability to strike back at any superior military enemies like Israel who have a history of 'pre-emptively' attacking countries around them? Not to mention the US on either side of them, baying for their blood/oil...Stingray24 wrote:
Bit big and range a bit long for defense.Braddock wrote:
How dare they spend money on defence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisi … _Peninsula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_wa … air_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War#Invasion
again.
Israel used ballistic missiles capable of carrying a nuclear warhead in all those conflicts to defend themselves? No? You don’t say. Well, in that case, your links have absolutely nothing to do with my OP.
The way I see it... If Israel can have nukes, then why can't Iran? The same goes for ballistic missiles.
How in the name of all things Holy can you put President Regan and Stalin in the same sentence and inference? /pfftTeamZephyr wrote:
What? Khrushchev, Breznev, Stalin and Reagan didn't seem to have all their marbles and MAD stopped them from killing each other.Stingray24 wrote:
As I said before MAD requires that all players at the table be in possession of all their mental marbles. The leader of Iran is a few short.
nuff said...
We'd have to be crazy to attack Iran right now. Only time will tell who the true crazies are in this scenario....
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...CameronPoe wrote:
Not au fait with the need for deterrency or the ability to strike back at any superior military enemies like Israel who have a history of 'pre-emptively' attacking countries around them? Not to mention the US on either side of them, baying for their blood/oil...Stingray24 wrote:
Bit big and range a bit long for defense.Braddock wrote:
How dare they spend money on defence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisi … _Peninsula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Opera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_day_wa … air_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War#Invasion
I know and I agree, too. Just like stirring up the pot.Turquoise wrote:
We'd have to be crazy to attack Iran right now. Only time will tell who the true crazies are in this scenario....
Well if Iran can have nukes then I don't see why I personally can't go buy one.Turquoise wrote:
The way I see it... If Israel can have nukes, then why can't Iran? The same goes for ballistic missiles.