Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
New on the space-based weaponry front
Topic Started: May 18 2005, 10:29 AM (313 Views)
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
May 23 2005, 11:31 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
May 23 2005, 10:41 AM
That's a valid point, Dwayne.

No other country is trying to compete with us in terms of naval projection. Even China, after buying surplus Russian equipment is still a "brown water" navy.

No other country can come even close regarding air forces either. While the EU has the Eurofighter and China is trying to reverse engineer Russian and Israeli designs, nothing comes close to either the F-22 or the F-35, especially in the numbers in which we plan to build them.

Land forces. While the new Israeli tank is the equivalent of the Abrams, our numbers overwhelm. No other land army on Earth has attempted to come up with a competing design.

Man for man, the only country that could compete would be Israel.

This is why certain rogue nations are trying to develop ICBMs and nuclear weaponry; to put them on a par with American striking power.

I have a question to ask, and it is meant to be answered rationally, not with the same old "I hate the US" rhetoric: "Is it a good idea for North Korea or Iran to have nuclear weapons, and why?"

If they are such impotent potential adversaries why does the USA need to militarise and weaponise space (well near earth orbit out to GSO distances) , unless to use these new weapons to threaten and cajole any opponents and to blackmail them ?

I still have not seen a convincing argument for doing this other than the planetary protection aspect.

All it will do is start another arms race (like we need that again) , another cold war (this time it could be even more polarising that the last one) , and it will not lead to a more stable global security situation.
This will not stop terrorist attacks, and missile attacks are not likely anyway (as to engage in a missile attack is to commit national suicide).

If other countries can not compete with us militarily, how will this start a new arms race if they can't afford to do so? Aren't you contradicting yourself?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
May 23 2005, 12:40 PM
somerled
May 23 2005, 11:31 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
May 23 2005, 10:41 AM
That's a valid point, Dwayne.

No other country is trying to compete with us in terms of naval projection. Even China, after buying surplus Russian equipment is still a "brown water" navy.

No other country can come even close regarding air forces either. While the EU has the Eurofighter and China is trying to reverse engineer Russian and Israeli designs, nothing comes close to either the F-22 or the F-35, especially in the numbers in which we plan to build them.

Land forces. While the new Israeli tank is the equivalent of the Abrams, our numbers overwhelm. No other land army on Earth has attempted to come up with a competing design.

Man for man, the only country that could compete would be Israel.

This is why certain rogue nations are trying to develop ICBMs and nuclear weaponry; to put them on a par with American striking power.

I have a question to ask, and it is meant to be answered rationally, not with the same old "I hate the US" rhetoric: "Is it a good idea for North Korea or Iran to have nuclear weapons, and why?"

If they are such impotent potential adversaries why does the USA need to militarise and weaponise space (well near earth orbit out to GSO distances) , unless to use these new weapons to threaten and cajole any opponents and to blackmail them ?

I still have not seen a convincing argument for doing this other than the planetary protection aspect.

All it will do is start another arms race (like we need that again) , another cold war (this time it could be even more polarising that the last one) , and it will not lead to a more stable global security situation.
This will not stop terrorist attacks, and missile attacks are not likely anyway (as to engage in a missile attack is to commit national suicide).

If other countries can not compete with us militarily, how will this start a new arms race if they can't afford to do so? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

There is nothing to stop other countries from engaging in another arms race with the USA , they could do it by having deficits (just like before) or just printng more money.

They don't probably because they choose to focus on improving the lot of there people rather and choose not to compete.

Can you prove otherwise ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
May 23 2005, 12:08 PM
Admiralbill_gomec
May 23 2005, 12:40 PM
somerled
May 23 2005, 11:31 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
May 23 2005, 10:41 AM
That's a valid point, Dwayne.

No other country is trying to compete with us in terms of naval projection. Even China, after buying surplus Russian equipment is still a "brown water" navy.

No other country can come even close regarding air forces either. While the EU has the Eurofighter and China is trying to reverse engineer Russian and Israeli designs, nothing comes close to either the F-22 or the F-35, especially in the numbers in which we plan to build them.

Land forces. While the new Israeli tank is the equivalent of the Abrams, our numbers overwhelm. No other land army on Earth has attempted to come up with a competing design.

Man for man, the only country that could compete would be Israel.

This is why certain rogue nations are trying to develop ICBMs and nuclear weaponry; to put them on a par with American striking power.

I have a question to ask, and it is meant to be answered rationally, not with the same old "I hate the US" rhetoric: "Is it a good idea for North Korea or Iran to have nuclear weapons, and why?"

If they are such impotent potential adversaries why does the USA need to militarise and weaponise space (well near earth orbit out to GSO distances) , unless to use these new weapons to threaten and cajole any opponents and to blackmail them ?

I still have not seen a convincing argument for doing this other than the planetary protection aspect.

All it will do is start another arms race (like we need that again) , another cold war (this time it could be even more polarising that the last one) , and it will not lead to a more stable global security situation.
This will not stop terrorist attacks, and missile attacks are not likely anyway (as to engage in a missile attack is to commit national suicide).

If other countries can not compete with us militarily, how will this start a new arms race if they can't afford to do so? Aren't you contradicting yourself?

There is nothing to stop other countries from engaging in another arms race with the USA , they could do it by having deficits (just like before) or just printng more money.

They don't probably because they choose to focus on improving the lot of there people rather and choose not to compete.

Can you prove otherwise ?

Sorry, but times have changed.

Countries aren't just going to print more money. That inflationary idea went out with U Thant. As for going into deficit, as I remember the EU (as an example) can not have a budget deficit exceeding 3% of GDP. With any of those nations' economies, it would not be enough to compete with the US.

Times have changed. In today's global economy, most larger nations have chosen butter over guns. The US is one of the few economies that can do both for now. Name one country with an economy that is close to ours in size? Japan? Japan has chosen by constitutional measure to limit the size of its armed forces. China? Their factories are too busy trying to manufacture "butter" goods, if not to the US, to their own BILLION consumers. India? Their economy is focusing on technology, although their two carriers (Vikram and Viraat) are antiquated. Russia? They have enough troubles. North Korea? Delaware has a larger economy. Hell, Houston, Texas has a larger economy than North Korea. So, in essence, NO COUNTRY could even hope to REALISTICALLY compete. You can come up with what-if ideas, but if they have no basis in reality they are not feasible, and they therefore render your argument meaningless.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
Quote:
 
... or just printng more money.

Did this really occur recently? How can this occur without the gold to back it up? Would it not be worthless?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Technically, you can base your currency on the ability to pay your debts, as opposed to a specific standard. This is why countries in South America used to have problems with triple digit inflation in recent decades. They printed money, currency traders (and their own citizens) lost faith in the nation's ability to pay debt, and the currency massively devalued while prices sourced. Case in point, Brazil during the 1970s.

You could base your currency on any standard. For example: gold, silver, wheat, hydrogen.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Fesarius
Member Avatar
Admiral
^^^
Very informative. Unfortunately, I have not had an economics class--definitely one of my deficiencies while in college.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
I believe that America in its youth had that problem. The government printed out money, but nobody had any faith in it so it was not even worth the paper that it was printed on.

The same thing happened to the Confederacy. When their economy started to go downhill, they printed out tons of cash. But that just caused the value of their currency to plummet.

The big problem with printing out gobs and gobs of money is that it will, unless you have something of physical value to bolster it, cause prices to go up accordingly. Pretty much you just have more of something that is worth the same amount as when it was less. So therefore all that happens is that it will take more of that something to buy something else.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
doctortobe
May 23 2005, 03:20 PM
I believe that America in its youth had that problem. The government printed out money, but nobody had any faith in it so it was not even worth the paper that it was printed on.


The phrase "not worth a Continental" described the problems the infant United States had during the revolution due to the worthlessness of the Continental Dollar.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums with no limits on posts or members.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · Science and Technology · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus