Comments on: US Electronic Fingerprints in Syria?

By: WR

WR — Wed, 07 May 2008 19:24:17 +0000

“Whatever, WR, baby. “
Aha. A concession, babe.

By: Brad

Brad — Tue, 06 May 2008 23:45:27 +0000

Roy, Bakuninite = anarchist after Bakunin. Don’t worry, you are just a nutcase6.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Tue, 06 May 2008 23:23:27 +0000

how do I know if I’m a Bakunite if I don’t know what the hell it means?
Israel makes great weapons from what they have to work with.There is nothing wrong with the Israelis as people.They are engaging in both self-defense & survival.There is however a group of global elitist,who have poisoned the governments of Europe,North America,& Israel.Olmert is one of these idiots who had no problem whatsoever with sacrificing Israeli lives needlessly as he did during the 2006 war with Lebanese Hizbollah & Palestinian Hamas,& how he doing with Israeli cities being bombarded by Katyusha Rockets from Gaza.He divides up Israeli Jews between European Jews & African/Asian Jews by giving favored status towards the European/North American/South American Jews over the other Jews.He discriminates against his own people.Peres,Netanyahu,& Barak are no better,just like our choices between Obama,Clinton,&/or McCain are really no choices at all.

By: Brad

Brad — Tue, 06 May 2008 22:56:36 +0000

Whatever, WR, baby.
So long as the Truthers, the Bakunities, the New Left, Islamofascists, and antisemites (but I repeat myself) stay in their padded cells, I’m cool stomping on “dissent.”

By: WR

WR — Tue, 06 May 2008 21:17:16 +0000

CR: “Isn’t it funny how if you even think of questioning the Israelis you’re automatically branded an antisemite.…..“
Brad: “No. It stopped being funny long ago.“
It is certainly strange and prejudicial as questioning something does not automatically qualify someone as “anti-(whatever the person is questioning)” as you, Brad, are seemingly doing.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Tue, 06 May 2008 20:45:18 +0000

I don't want to sound overly simplistic,but I think that the best solution would be for the F-35B to come out first.It is the most versatile of the 3 models planned.If the Air Force is serious about replacing the A-10 Thunderbolt,then it should be with the F-35B instead of the F-35A.because of its V/STOL capabilities,it could stay with the ground forces.It could land in the same fields as the Apache Helicopters for refueling & would not need to fly back to some air field over 100 or more miles away.It does not need paved or metaled runways to operate.Again,this may sound overly simplistic,but it could land & take off from freeways,parking lots,top of buildings,where ever large helicopters like CH-53 or CH-47s could take off & land.The A-10 may have more armor,but the F-35B has the ability to take-off & land in more places & could respond much quicker to ground units needing immediate air support(because it would be much closer to the front). The only reason that the F-14 was too old & expensive to run is because the Pentagon & Congress closed the assembly lines making them & "broke the molds" so that new ones could not be made.They were also too invested in the F/A-18 to pay for upgrades.Now they pretty much smashed up EVERY F-14 Tomcat we ever had because of the [made up & bogus] fear of Iran "getting a hold of them thar' F-14s.The only legitimate fear they had was that we'd find out what a useless piece of s**t the F/A-18A/B/C/D/E/F Hornet/Super Hornet was,& they wanted us to be stuck with it by smashing up all of the Tomcats so that we couldn't go back to them.Maybe they'll reinvent the wheel like they are doing with the nuclear powered cruiser.Maybe they'll state the obvious,"the Super Hornet isn't working,we need something'BETTER',& we need to piss more money down this black hole to get it." You have two scenarios,neither pretty.Either you have globalist elitists wanting to neuter our country so that a one world government can come into place,or......you have a bunch of spoiled brat "children" breaking their "toys" so that they can get newer,"better," & shinier toys.Neither scenario is pretty,in fact they pretty much both suck.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Tue, 06 May 2008 18:45:23 +0000

Roy Smith,
What good is EW if everybody & their brother, sister, mama, etc. can see it streaking through the air? ;) Even IF anybody could “see” a stealth aircraft, what can the do about it? ;)
I agree that the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet was a complete & utter fraud. BUT the fraud was not about lining pockets but making sure that even though it was INFERIOR to the aircraft it was replacing that it was the only choice so the USN & Congress HAD to accept it. The A-6 did need a replacement & most of the F-14 were getting old & “too expensive” to maintain.
With the end of the cold war we no longer needed 3 dozen cruisers so we decommissioned all but the 22 newest/youngest Ticonderoga class. And the next class of cruisers may be nuclear powered because the DOD wants them to have a major ABM capability which requires a significantly larger ship & for a warship of ~26,000 tons nuclear power has LOWER projected total life-cycle costs. Plus the the ~$800 million greater procurement cost for nuclear power is not so significant when the ship even without nuclear power costs more than $4 billion.
“Why can we not just replace our single seat F-16s with the F-35 & then, upgrade our 2-seat F-16s to F-16I standards &/or the F-16s Block 52+/60 that we are selling to Poland, Greece, UAE & that we are proposing to sell to India?” Because there aren’t enough two-seat F-16s (& they are usually busy being used for training) & just like all F-16s, they can not fly forever.

By: Camp

Camp — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:28:31 +0000

coolhand77,
I thought about that as well… The greatest threats of contamination would be to the Euphrates via the cooling system. And for airborne particles, I have great doubts the NK vessel design is engineered to provide collapse containment during a catastrophe. As such you’d definitely see a release of radiation into the air… as for how much, who knows. And it would be easy to demonise Israel for the contamination…
But if that’s the case, is the precedent to only destroy non-operational reactors? What if Syria had an operational reactor in Damascus, or a large population center? Would Israel be so worried about world outrage, they wouldn’t take action?
That said, the reactor fuel (I’m assuming) still has to be somewhere. As well as the scientist & remaining equipment…
So technically the program is set back, but remains a threat. What’s to prevent Syria from building underground… or dispersing it’s program?
“RBMK Reactor“
http://www.nucleartourist.com/type/rbmk.htm

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:28:00 +0000

Bruce Willis & the latest “Die Hard” movie made me a believer in the V/STOL F-35.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Tue, 06 May 2008 16:26:35 +0000

I never said that the F-16I should replace the F-15E,I feel that it would complement & supplement the strike fighter/fighter bomber capabilities of of the F-15E AND the use of B-1 bombers for strike missions.The F-16I(I’m using the I model as an example) can fly nap of the earth like the old F-111 use to.With digital camouflage,the outline of the F-16 can be distorted & hidden from any enemy aircraft flying over head of it.Having electronic countermeasures installed will also help it.Both external & conformal fuel tanks will give it long range.As far as the F-35 goes,we should concentrate on the V/STOL model first,like what the Israelis are requesting.If we were ever to meet with an enemy that has a competent air force,we’d want a jet that can get off the ground without benefit of have to take off from a bombed out runway(just like Israel expects that they will face in another war).I can see the F-22 operating as a dedicated Fighter-Interceptor,because of their thrust vectoring capabilities,both at night & in the daytime.Of all the models of the F-35,the V/STOL version is the MOST important version to get out first.