Originally posted by OOE
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Hey Indians, want some no questions asked yellowcake?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by nvishal View PostI have so many questions.
Originally posted by nvishal View PostSo, a phizzzle nuke is not a working nuke and hence not a nuke? So, assisting a state to develop a phizzzle nuke is okay before signing NPT? Since it is not a working nuke?
Originally posted by nvishal View PostWhat happens if country A "helped" country B for a full one mega ton nuclear bum design and it phizzzled out to just 500 kilo ton? or 100 kilo ton? Is this phizzzled nuke a working nuke or a not working nuke?
Originally posted by nvishal View Postlol says who? The NSG? The NPT? The UN? The micky mouse club?
Originally posted by nvishal View PostSo the consensus coming from the compulsions of a few dozen destitute states of the world equates to moral authority?
About the only thing that got me concerned was Obama's new guidelines that a nuke response is no longer automatic vis-a-vi a bio-chem attack. However, this was done with the Allies' OK. In other words, Australia did not object to this new guideline.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aussiegunner View PostDago, just in case you make the mistake of thinkng that our antipodean peacenik knows what he is talking about regarding the capabilities of the modern Australian Army, we bought the Abrams in 2007. A few of his kindred journalists did web searches on the type and seeing the weight of the heaviest model and the capacity of the door ramps on our amphibious transports, concluded that they couldn't be deployed. Surpisingly the Army had thought of that, had bought a lighter model and the Navy had the door ramps strengthened. They can be deployed just fine. This is a prime example of the uninformed hysteria we get whenever we spend some money on defence.
That being said, Australia will never deploy those tanks unless under Coalition conditions. If the American air cover can't or won't protect Australian tanks, Australian tanks ain't leaving Australia.
Comment
-
Originally posted by S2 View Post"Good to be back, Steve, have not been able to participate due to my situation. Ex-wife didn't help. I may not be able to teach anything new, but the old lessons still apply."
God love you, sir. I'm very, very happy to have you here. It's, in fact, a complete joy.:)In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.
Leibniz
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aussiegunner View PostThe US can't have its cake and eat it, it either has to make good on the deal to provide a nuclear umbrella or face more proliferation.
It either starts getting rid of its remaining 10,000 odd nukes post haste or be ready to face more proliferation from existing and new/potential nuclear powers in one violent mushrooming snowball.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aussiegunner View PostAs far as doing it all legal and proper like, you might be naive enough to think that that is the way international relations are conducted but I am not. If we pulled out of the treaty then sought nukes the major powers would make life so difficult for us that we would never get them. If we already had them by the time they found out it would be fait accompli ... we might cop a few sanctions for a while but our position as a dominant global supplier of several major minerals would mean that our major trading partners would have to deal with us before long.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by OOE View PostAbout the only thing that got me concerned was Obama's new guidelines that a nuke response is no longer automatic vis-a-vi a bio-chem attack. However, this was done with the Allies' OK. In other words, Australia did not object to this new guideline.
I was Google Image searching and the pictures are frankly HORRIFIC. Generations forward in the case of Agent Orange.Last edited by vsdoc; 19 Dec 11,, 07:54.
Comment
-
Originally posted by OOE View PostI never took that line seriously. If the ABRAMs can get to Australia, then it stands to reason that they can get out of Australia.
That being said, Australia will never deploy those tanks unless under Coalition conditions. If the American air cover can't or won't protect Australian tanks, Australian tanks ain't leaving Australia.
Nice to have you back sir. Time to take names & kick ass methinks.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doktor View PostBF,
I am not sure if I follow you correct, but every country has hysteric and chilled types messing around with public opinion and saying stupid irrational things.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by Bigfella View PostTrying to keep these things in the field by ourselves would pretty much max out our logistics - we can't do it without coalition support (got that from two separate guys who drive the things).
Anyway, in my experience Australian soldiers always whinge about not having the absolute most and best of everything at all times, but when we actually go to war the Government generally purchases the extra kit they need and they get on with the job. Remember that these things are about as complex as the various pieces of mine machinery working Australian earth right now and we would deploy a dozen at the most. We will be able to deploy them if we have to."There is no such thing as society" - Margaret Thatcher
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aussiegunner View Post
Yeah, that is the definition of preparedness but try telling that to the typical antipodean peacenik of which we have a specimin before us. This peculiar variety of peacenik is convinced that if it's fellow Australians would just stop being a bunch of dumb, racist clods and would sit around singing kumbi fuckin' ya with our neighbours to our north, that they will never be tempted to solve thier economic or political problems at our expense. As you can see it's preferred mode of argument is to critisise former decision makers for preparing for every risk that never happenned. It is a wonder that it wears seatbelts when travelling or bother to lock thier doors at night, because clearly a smart person should have perfect foresight of what will go wrong and will only prepare for those eventualities
Consequently the fact that we enter alliances that mean that we end up in the odd war beside our allies and spend the World beating proportion of less than 2 percent of GDP on defence is a travesty to the antipodean peacenik. It also likes to point out how more evolved countries like Sweden or the Swiss do things so much better than us with thier neutrality. It always seems to overlook the fact that those countries have avoided war for more than a century by spending a much bigger proportion on defence than we do, ensuring that action against them is too much of a bother. Oh, and by selling iron ore to the Nazis or conducting no questions asked banking for senior members of that party.
Specimins like this are wilfully ignorant in such matters and debating them on these matters is a waste of time. I'm not going to any more on this thread, there are heaps of people here who will offer more interesting conversation anyway.
Having spent the better part of a week & two threads making a prime goose of yourself my advice is simple: quit while you are behind.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
-
Originally posted by Aussiegunner View PostYup, a tank driver would be the first person who I would talk to about the logistic capabilities of the Australian Army ...
I figured you go for 'the guys who run them don't know a thing', so I saved an ace in my back pocket. Hows about a logistics expert and DoD official (dealing with logistics) who has 35 years experience in the British & Australian armies - including...wait for it...handling logistics in the Falklands? let me guess, he doesn't know a thing either.
Without the Yanks backing up our logistics those things aren't going to get within a bull's roar of combat. But tha twas always the point anyway.
I like you AG. You funny.sigpic
Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C
Comment
Comment