Israeli submarine sails Suez canal
David E. Powell
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5621XZ20090703
JERUSALEM (Reuters) - An Israeli submarine sailed the Suez Canal to
the Red Sea as part of a naval drill last month, defense sources said
on Friday, describing the unusual maneuver as a show of strategic
reach in the face of Iran.
Israel long kept its three Dolphin-class submarines, which are widely
assumed to carry nuclear missiles, away from Suez so as not to expose
them to the gaze of Egyptian harbormasters.
It was unclear when last month the vessel left the Mediterranean. One
source said the voyage was planned for months and so was not related
to unrest after the June 12 re-election of President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, whom the Israelis see as promoting the pursuit of nuclear
weapons to threaten them.
Sailing to the Gulf without using Suez would oblige the diesel-fueled
Israeli submarines, normally based in the Mediterranean, to
circumnavigate Africa -- a weeks-long voyage. That would have limited
use in signaling Israel's readiness to retaliate should it ever come
under an Iranian nuclear attack.
Shorter-term, the submarines' conventional missiles could also be
deployed in any Israeli strikes on Iran's atomic sites, which Tehran
insists have only civilian energy purposes.
A defense source said the Israeli navy held an exercise off Eilat last
month and that a Dolphin took part, having traveled to the Red Sea
port though Suez. Israel has a naval base at Eilat, a 10-km (6-mile)
strip of coast between Egypt and Jordan, but officials say it has no
submarine dock there.
"This was definitely a departure from policy," said the source, who
declined to give further details on the drill or say whether the
Dolphin had undergone Egyptian inspections in the canal, through which
the submarine sailed unsubmerged.
A military spokeswoman had no immediate comment on the voyage, first
reported on Friday by the Jerusalem Post.
Jack Linthicum
wrote:
Did it come back or go to Eilat?
William Black
> Israel long kept its three Dolphin-class submarines, which are widely
> assumed to carry nuclear missiles,
Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
--
William Black
Jack Linthicum
Andrew Chaplin
news:h2liot$7hm$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
According to the Federation of American Scientists, yes.
The Israelis have nukes and they have the technology to produce something like
Tomahawk. AFAIK, they are not bound by treaty from marrying a nuke to a cruise
missile. They have had the time to perform the marriage and to modify DOLPHIN
and her sisters, and little to inhibit them.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)
William Black
They also sound a touch confused about which missile they're talking about
and the information is several years old, and, let's be honest, the FAS
isn't what you'd call an unbiased source...
--
William Black
Dennis
> http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE5621XZ20090703
>
> Sailing to the Gulf without using Suez would oblige the diesel-fueled
> Israeli submarines, normally based in the Mediterranean, to
> circumnavigate Africa -- a weeks-long voyage. That would have limited
> use in signaling Israel's readiness to retaliate should it ever come
> under an Iranian nuclear attack.
>
> Shorter-term, the submarines' conventional missiles could also be
> deployed in any Israeli strikes on Iran's atomic sites, which Tehran
> insists have only civilian energy purposes.
Right on cue! We were just talking about this a few threads ago.
Obviously they're dropping a hint.
Dennis
David E. Powell
> William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :
> :Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
> :
>
> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
>
> Israel has also reportedly successfully mounted nuclear weapons on
> their Harpoon missiles, which I would think would be more difficult.
Not to mention that there is a Sub-Harpoon, and if Israel didn't buy a
sub-capable version, they could probably modify one. Israel is quite a
few generations into their warheads, which should allow for some
pretty serious miniturizaion. A Harpoon warhead would mean a Tomahawk
style one should be doable too. Maybe even a fusion bomb.
I wonder what the range is on their missiles?
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :
> :Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
> :
>
> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
>
> Israel has also reportedly successfully mounted nuclear weapons on
> their Harpoon missiles, which I would think would be more difficult.
They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to terrorise
civilians and shot 1500 people in Jenin...
People commenting on Israel often have a point of view.
--
William Black
dott.Piergiorgio
mmmmm.....
Aside that is feasible to circumnavigate Africa with a small boat, even
with all waters hostile (done by the Perla, a 600-ton Italian boat whose
left Massaua few days prior the fall of the sieged city, and reach
Bordeaux with only the uncertain resupply from German Hilfkreuzer) I
guess that Mr. Murabak's life expectancy is now a bit reduced (lest he
can demonstrate that he obtained in exchange advantages for *all*
muslims (and not only Egypt) and that now Eilat is a bit on the
crosshairs (whose worried me, because Italy have in area a flotilla
under UN colours..)
Best regards from Italy,
Dott. Piergiorgio.
hcobb
> William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :civilians
>
> Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jc0DHbDsRG83m4stW9JdpHz3hxSw
White phosphorus is not illegal if used as a smokescreen in open areas
"but it should not be used in a densely populated area as it was used
here," Rovera told AFP, adding that her team saw Palestinians with
"hideous burns" from white phosphorus shells.
> :People commenting on Israel often have a point of view.
>
> Yes, and US authorities have commented that Israel has indeed fitted
> nuclear warheads to their Harpoon missiles. Israel reportedly has
> nuclear weapons as small as a few hundred kilograms, so any weapon
> that takes a warhead larger than that is a candidate for getting a
> nuclear payload.
Which US officials have broached Israel's strategic ambiguity on the
record?
As for American policy on Israel so far I have every single official
has dodged this question:
"A Two-State Solution will require a border between the two states.
Which side is it that you believe can renounce all claims to the
Temple Mount and retain the respect of their population?"
-HJC
Mark Borgerson
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :
> :> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :> :
> :> :Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
> :> :
> :>
> :> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
> :>
> :> Israel has also reportedly successfully mounted nuclear weapons on
> :> their Harpoon missiles, which I would think would be more difficult.
> :
> :They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to terrorise
> :civilians
>
> Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
Is it? It seems that the Israeli army has admitted using white
phosphorus, according to WikiPedia:
On 15 January, the United Nations compound, housing numerous refugees in
Gaza City, was reportedly struck by Israeli White phosphorus artillery
shells, setting fire to pallets of relief materials and igniting several
large fuel storage tanks. A UN spokesperson indicated that there were
difficulties in attempting to extinguish the fires and stated "You can=3Ft
put it [White phosphorus] out with traditional methods such as fire
extinguishers. You need sand but we do not have any sand in the
compound."[33][34] Senior Israeli defense officials maintain that the
shelling was in response to Israeli military personnel being fired upon
by Hamas fighters who were in proximity to the UN headquarters.[35] The
Israeli army is investigating improper use of WP in this conflict,
particularly in one incident in which 20 WP shells were fired in a
built-up area of Beit Lahiya.[36]
On 17 January, Peter Herby, head of the International Committee of the
Red Cross Arms Unit , confirmed the use of white phosphorous weapons by
Israel in Gaza, outlined the rules applicable to phosphorous weapons and
explained the ICRC's approach to the issue.[37]
On January 20, Paul Wood of the BBC reports from Gaza on what appears to
be white phosphorus use near the vicinity of civilian areas. Amnesty
team weapon expert Christopher Cobb-Smith, who witnessed the shelling
during the conflict, reported "we saw streets and alleyways littered
with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including still-burning
wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters fired by the Israeli
army." [38]
On January 26, the Israel's Ministry of Defence confirmed speculations
about the use of white phosphorous in the Israeli-Gaza conflict.[39][40
"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5575070.ece
http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/01/25-4
>
> :
> :... and shot 1500 people in Jenin...
> :
>
> Which there is apparently no evidence for.
>
> :
> :People commenting on Israel often have a point of view.
> :
>
> Yes, and US authorities have commented that Israel has indeed fitted
> nuclear warheads to their Harpoon missiles. Israel reportedly has
> nuclear weapons as small as a few hundred kilograms, so any weapon
> that takes a warhead larger than that is a candidate for getting a
> nuclear payload.
>
> Note that Harpoon Block II can be used for land attack and is not just
> an antiship weapon.
>
> Taking the view that there is equivalence between the two things you
> dredge up and the Israeli nuclear program is just a bit insane,
> Willie.
>
Mark Borgerson
hcobb
> hcobb <henry.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
> :Which US officials have broached Israel's strategic ambiguity on the
> :record?
>
> "In October 2003, unidentified senior U.S. and Israeli officials were
> quoted as saying that Israel had successfully modified nuclear
> warheads to fit its Harpoon missiles."
>
> http://www.nti.org/db/submarines/israel/index.html
I.e. nobody has violated the Israeli-American policy of strategic
ambiguity on the record.
-HJC
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :
> :> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :> :
> :> :Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
> :> :
> :>
> :> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
> :>
> :> Israel has also reportedly successfully mounted nuclear weapons on
> :> their Harpoon missiles, which I would think would be more difficult.
> :
> :They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to terrorise
> :civilians
> :
>
> Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
It didn't stop Amnesty International condemning them for it yesterday...
> Yes, and US authorities have commented that Israel has indeed fitted
> nuclear warheads to their Harpoon missiles.
Official statement please.
--
William Black
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :
> :> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :>
> :> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> :
> :> :> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
> :> :>
> :> :> Israel has also reportedly successfully mounted nuclear weapons on
> :> :> their Harpoon missiles, which I would think would be more difficult.
> :> :
> :> :They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to terrorise
> :> :civilians
> :> :
> :>
> :> Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
> :
> :It didn't stop Amnesty International condemning them for it yesterday...
> :
>
> Amnesty International has condemned people (and failed to condemn
> people) for all sort of things that reality isn't quite in 1:1 accord
> with. They have their own political agenda, which tends to be
> strongly pro-Palestinian.
We all know that.
It doesn't stop it happening.
> :> Yes, and US authorities have commented that Israel has indeed fitted
> :> nuclear warheads to their Harpoon missiles.
> :
> :Official statement please.
>
> You and Henry Cobb are apparently two of a kind. Many things get
> commented on that are not part of an 'official statement', Willie.
That's what makes them nothing more than a good rumour.
--
William Black
Jack Linthicum
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>
>
> > William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > :
> > :>
> > :> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > :> :
> > :> :> :
> > :> :> :Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
> > :> :> :
> > :> :>
> > :> :> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
> > :> :>
> > :> :> Israel has also reportedly successfully mounted nuclear weapons on
> > :> :> their Harpoon missiles, which I would think would be more difficult.
> > :> :
> > :> :They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to terrorise
> > :> :civilians
> > :> :
> > :>
> > :> Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
> > :
> > :It didn't stop Amnesty International condemning them for it yesterday...
> > :
>
> > Amnesty International has condemned people (and failed to condemn
> > people) for all sort of things that reality isn't quite in 1:1 accord
> > with. They have their own political agenda, which tends to be
> > strongly pro-Palestinian.
>
> We all know that.
>
> It doesn't stop it happening.
>
> > :> Yes, and US authorities have commented that Israel has indeed fitted
> > :> nuclear warheads to their Harpoon missiles.
> > :
> > :Official statement please.
>
> > You and Henry Cobb are apparently two of a kind. Many things get
> > commented on that are not part of an 'official statement', Willie.
>
> That's what makes them nothing more than a good rumour.
>
> --
> William Black
The beginning of the rumor
http://www.armscontrol.org/print/1403
Nuclear missile capability on Israeli submarines
Meanwhile, U.S. and Israeli officials say Israel has modified U.S.-
made Harpoon cruise missiles so it can launch nuclear warheads from
submarines, the Los Angeles Times reported on Saturday.
"The previously undisclosed submarine capability bolsters Israel's
deterrence in the event that Iran develops nuclear weapons," the
report said. But, the newspaper added, "It also complicates efforts by
the United States and the United Nations to persuade Iran to abandon
its suspected nuclear weapons program."
The deployment of the modified Harpoon cruise missiles completes
Israel's nuclear program, the Los Angeles Times said. Israel has the
capability of launching nuclear missiles from the land, air and sea,
the report claimed.
Israeli military spokesmen refused to comment on the report, in line
with the country's policy of refusing to say if it has nuclear
weapons.
MK Ephraim Sneh (Labor) told Army Radio that publication of the
reports harm Israel, divert international attention from Iran's
efforts to develop nuclear capabilities, and are "incorrect." Sneh
said, "Anyone who knows the Harpoon missile realizes it could never
carry a nuclear warhead."
http://web.israelinsider.com/bin/en.jsp?enPage=ArticlePage&enDisplay=view&enDispWhat=object&enDispWho=Article^l2851&enZone=Security&enVersion=0
William Black
So it's a story vehemently denied by everyone concerned.
--
William Black
Jack Linthicum
But repeated as gospel. Example The LA Times original article seems to
not be available.
Paul J. Adam
>> Israel long kept its three Dolphin-class submarines, which are widely
>> assumed to carry nuclear missiles,
>
> Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
With ~750lb of payload, it's not incredible that you could put a bucket
of instant sunshine on a Popeye. (Which is a long way from confirming
"yes, it does" - it's the same theory that says we could have nuclear
Storm Shadow and fire them from the Astutes if only we threw enough time
and money at it)
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.
William Black
Does Israel have that kind of money for the development of what is, in
reality, a weapon with a very low chance of useful operational use?
I think they could probably find something better to spend their money on...
Mind you, when it comes to nukes, so could India, Pakistan, the UK and
France...
The last two are obviously using them as a ticket for a Security Council
seat, but that's about all...
--
William Black
Paul J. Adam
> Paul J. Adam wrote:
>> With ~750lb of payload, it's not incredible that you could put a bucket
>> of instant sunshine on a Popeye. (Which is a long way from confirming
>> "yes, it does" - it's the same theory that says we could have nuclear
>> Storm Shadow and fire them from the Astutes if only we threw enough time
>> and money at it)
>
> Does Israel have that kind of money for the development of what is, in
> reality, a weapon with a very low chance of useful operational use?
My guess would be "not conveniently". They probably could do it, but it
would take resources from other priorities. (Which is your own next point).
> I think they could probably find something better to spend their money on...
--
David E. Powell
> In article <qdku45lo4jeh9es94c79u30setqi7qv...@4ax.com>,
> fjmcc...@gmail.com says...
> > :> :
> > :> :Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
> > :> :
> > :>
> > :> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
> > :>
> > :> Israel has also reportedly successfully mounted nuclear weapons on
> > :> their Harpoon missiles, which I would think would be more difficult.
> > :
> > :They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to terrorise
> > :civilians
> > :
>
> > Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
>
> Is it? It seems that the Israeli army has admitted using white
> phosphorus, according to WikiPedia:
>
> On 15 January, the United Nations compound, housing numerous refugees in
> Gaza City, was reportedly struck by Israeli White phosphorus artillery
> shells, setting fire to pallets of relief materials and igniting several
> large fuel storage tanks. A UN spokesperson indicated that there were
> difficulties in attempting to extinguish the fires and stated "You can=3Ft
> put it [White phosphorus] out with traditional methods such as fire
> extinguishers. You need sand but we do not have any sand in the
> compound."[33][34] Senior Israeli defense officials maintain that the
> shelling was in response to Israeli military personnel being fired upon
> by Hamas fighters who were in proximity to the UN headquarters.[35] The
> Israeli army is investigating improper use of WP in this conflict,
> particularly in one incident in which 20 WP shells were fired in a
> built-up area of Beit Lahiya.[36]
I would not be suprised in UN buildings were hit, given all the videos
released to the public and posted on YouTube of them being used as
Mortar and Rocket stations for the bombardment of Israel.
Jim Yanik
news:MPG.24b9121aa...@news.eternal-september.org:
> In article <qdku45lo4jeh9es94...@4ax.com>,
> fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> :
>> :> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> :> :
>> :> :Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
>> :> :
>> :>
>> :> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
>> :>
>> :> Israel has also reportedly successfully mounted nuclear weapons on
>> :> their Harpoon missiles, which I would think would be more
>> :> difficult.
>> :
>> :They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to terrorise
>> :civilians
>> :
>>
>> Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
>
> Is it?
Yes,because the use of WP was NOT "to terrorize civilians".
It was to block the terrorists sight so they could not fire upon Israeli
troops.That is a legitimate military use of WP.
Israel went to great lengths to avoid harming Gazan civilians.
If the Gazans don't like their civilinas being "terrorized",then they
should not make war in the midst of them.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
hcobb
> Does Israel have that kind of money for the development of what is, in
> reality, a weapon with a very low chance of useful operational use?
>
> I think they could probably find something better to spend their money on...
What beyond the American Have Nap would be needed?
-HJC
frank
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>
>
> > William Black <william.bl...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> > :
> > :> :
> > :> :Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
> > :> :
> > :>
> > :> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
> > :>
> > :> Israel has also reportedly successfully mounted nuclear weapons on
> > :> their Harpoon missiles, which I would think would be more difficult.
> > :
> > :They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to terrorise
> > :civilians
> > :
>
> > Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
>
> It didn't stop Amnesty International condemning them for it yesterday...
>
> > Yes, and US authorities have commented that Israel has indeed fitted
> > nuclear warheads to their Harpoon missiles.
>
> Official statement please.
>
> --
> William Black
Yeah considering its US government policy never to use nuclear weapons
and Israel in the same sentence. Look at how Obama danced around
nuclear weapons in the Middle East. US presidents never suggest in
public that Israel has nuclear weapons.
I'd bet the US tells the Israelis there are nuclear states and there
are nuclear states. They're not in the big leagues so stop playing
like they are. Its like a 5 year old and matches.
American Eagle
Bullshit! That is just more Israeli Propaganda. The Jews have purposely
targeted many who rightfully criticize their actions.
American Eagle
> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.24b9121aa...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> In article <qdku45lo4jeh9es94...@4ax.com>,
>> fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
>>> :
>>> :> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>> :> :
>>> :> :Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
>>> :> :
>>> :>
>>> :> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
>>> :>
>>> :> Israel has also reportedly successfully mounted nuclear weapons on
>>> :> their Harpoon missiles, which I would think would be more
>>> :> difficult.
>>> :
>>> :They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to terrorise
>>> :civilians
>>> :
>>>
>>> Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
>> Is it?
>
> Yes,because the use of WP was NOT "to terrorize civilians".
> It was to block the terrorists sight so they could not fire upon Israeli
> troops.That is a legitimate military use of WP.
There is no legitimate use of WP around living humans. You better read
your protocols again.
You are correct. Israel is our Dog and we should put the mean snarly
bastard out of its misery.
>
American Eagle
> frank <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote:
> :
> :I'd bet the US tells the Israelis there are nuclear states and there
> :are nuclear states. They're not in the big leagues so stop playing
> :like they are. Its like a 5 year old and matches.
>
> Yeah, an arsenal large enough to totally destroy pretty much all
> potentially adversaries at the same time hardly matters at all. I
> mean, they've only got around half the number of your typical European
> state or China.
>
> Babes in arms, they are...
Then it is in order that we make a preemptive strike to end that!
>
American Eagle
> American Eagle <A...@USA.com> wrote:
>
> :Jim Yanik wrote:
> :> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in
> :> news:MPG.24b9121aa...@news.eternal-september.org:
> :>
> :>> In article <qdku45lo4jeh9es94...@4ax.com>,
> :>> fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> :>>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :>>> :They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to terrorise
> :>>> :
> :>>>
> :>>> Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
> :>> Is it?
> :>
> :> Yes,because the use of WP was NOT "to terrorize civilians".
> :> It was to block the terrorists sight so they could not fire upon Israeli
> :> troops.That is a legitimate military use of WP.
> :
> :There is no legitimate use of WP around living humans. You better read
> :your protocols again.
>
> You're wrong. He's right.
Read your protocols Freddie. After all America wrote them.
>
American Eagle
> American Eagle <A...@USA.com> wrote:
>
>
> Why don't you take your bigotry elsewhere and stop defecating on
> America by your choice of name, you scummy little pissant?
Careful how you speak to real Americans Freddie-Boi.
American Eagle
> American Eagle <A...@USA.com> wrote:
>
>
> Been there. Done that. You're wrong. He's right.
>
> Oh, and we didn't write them. We haven't even signed that one.
Actually we did it all. Mines is the one we ignored.
>
> Like all bigots, you're ignorant and stupid.
Like all fools, you attack with verbose and not fact. You are a very
narrow minded ignorant individual that screeches bigot and racism where
it has no merit. WP is inhumane and has been banned from usages such as
depicted here. That is the bottom line and we can all thank our lucky
stars that using such weapons on civilian populations is *not* your
decision. Armchair Heroes like you are dime a dozen and not worth spit.
Arved Sandstrom
No, America doesn't usually write these protocols - it doesn't even like
to ratify them. You should check up on factual issues like this.
Rather than you getting a free pass to say vague shit like the
"protocols don't allow the use of WP", why don't you provide an exact
reference for a section of any convention or protocol that actually says
anything that remotely backs you up? I figure we'll be waiting for a
long time, because there's nothing like that.
AHS
Arved Sandstrom
Hey, when you're old enough to join the military maybe you can put your
money where your mouth is. In the meantime, boychik, why don't you keep
your cakehole zipped in the presence of your elders and betters?
AHS
Derek Lyons
>the actual dimensions of the W-76 haven't been disclosed - with
>a Trident diameter of 74 inches, it probably comes in at 21-36
>inches in diameter)
ROTFLMAO.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
American Eagle
> American Eagle <A...@USA.com> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> American Eagle <A...@USA.com> wrote:
> :>
> :> :> American Eagle <A...@USA.com> wrote:
> :> :>
> :> :> :Jim Yanik wrote:
> :> :> :> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in
> :> :> :> news:MPG.24b9121aa...@news.eternal-september.org:
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :>> In article <qdku45lo4jeh9es94...@4ax.com>,
> :> :> :>> fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> :> :> :>>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :> :> :>>> :
> :> :> :>>> :They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to terrorise
> :> :> :>>> :civilians
> :> :> :>>> :
> :> :> :>>>
> :> :> :>>> Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
> :> :> :>> Is it?
> :> :> :>
> :> :> :> Yes,because the use of WP was NOT "to terrorize civilians".
> :> :> :> It was to block the terrorists sight so they could not fire upon Israeli
> :> :> :> troops.That is a legitimate military use of WP.
> :> :> :
> :> :> :There is no legitimate use of WP around living humans. You better read
> :> :> :your protocols again.
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> You're wrong. He's right.
> :> :
> :> :Read your protocols Freddie. After all America wrote them.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Been there. Done that. You're wrong. He's right.
> :>
> :> Oh, and we didn't write them. We haven't even signed that one.
> :
> :Actually we did it all. Mines is the one we ignored.
>
> Wrong.
>
> :>
> :> Like all bigots, you're ignorant and stupid.
> :
> :Like all fools, you attack with verbose and not fact.
>
> Like all bigots, you're both ignorant and stupid.
Actually that describes you to a "T". I note that you deleted the USS
Liberty URL. Only a scummy AntiAmerican would do that. I take it that
you feel Israel supercedes anything American. I have always felt
that you were untrustworthy, even back when.
American Eagle
I was waiting for a XXXXXXX like you to provide proof of your ridiculous
bullshit. But as usual you can't. Done any Black market lately?
>
> AHS
Don Ocean
Oh my. Freddie-Boi has a sweetheart. Tell all of us about your vaunted
military career, where you got to utilize any old nasty weapon on
civilian populaces. Show us yours and Freddies CIB's. Oh please don't
hurt me..Bwwwhahahaha.... Yawn... Move on. You and Freddie are boring
blowhards. I bet the 2 of you were a riot in a whorehouse bragging to
the girls.
why did you delete this hnorable url?
>
> AHS
American Eagle
You didn't answer the last question? Did you have a memory lapse? ;-[
> :
>
> Because it's got nothing to do with anything.
Yes it does. It indicates where your real loyalty lies and it isn't with
America.
>
> As for the rest of your bleating ... <yawn>
All this from a screeching crooked tub of guts. ;-p
>
Don Ocean
> American Eagle <A...@USA.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for providing proof that you cannot "provide an exact
> reference for a section of any convention or protocol that actually
>
> Son, you're not even a GOOD stupid idiot.
Don't call me son. My Sire was human and career Navy as was his.
>
William Black
It's because they form the secret world government.
What is more the Jewish doctors and their Muslim soldiers are coming to get
you in their black helicopters and they'll lock you away and fill your body
with their polluting drugs.
Your only hope is to hide under the stairs and wear a tinfoil hat
But remember, you MUST switch off your computer and destroy it utterly,
otherwise they'll catch you...
--
William Black
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :Mind you, when it comes to nukes, so could India, Pakistan, the UK and
> :France...
> :
>
> Well, except that India and Pakistan think they need them because the
> other fellow has them and they loath each other to the point of
> insanity.
You really should do some reading.
The UK will want to keep theirs just as long as France has
> theirs, not wanting France to have the only 'independent deterrent' in
> the EU.
Not sure about that.
Although it's a statement that does show a terrifying lack of understanding
about modern European politics.
--
William Black
Richard Casady
wrote:
>>the actual dimensions of the W-76 haven't been disclosed - with
>>a Trident diameter of 74 inches, it probably comes in at 21-36
>>inches in diameter)
Fred wrote that, but I couldn't find the post, in order to answer it
properly. The question is how do you get more than one or two 36in?
By the time you add what it takes to make a warhead a reentry vehicle,
you would only have room for one 36in dia warhead in a layer: you
couldn't fit two side be side. On the other hand, seven 21 inch would
fit inside a 74 inch diameter, with some space between them for
packaging. With four, they could be bigger.
I would like to know how they pack eight warheads. Four ahead of four?
Casady
Arved Sandstrom
I think not, schiz. If you've followed this NG for any length of time
you'll see that me Mr McCall and I usually end up getting into it.
There's a simpler explanation - you're a twit and inevitably the
majority of people realize this fact.
> Tell all of us about your vaunted
> military career, where you got to utilize any old nasty weapon on
> civilian populaces.
This would be silly, because you'd end up asking for proof, and I'm not
about to furnish a loosely wrapped person with my SSN. In any case we're
not trading war stories here...we're talking about a subject that has
provable facts associated with it, and you're making unfounded
allegations that fly in the face of those facts.
> Show us yours and Freddies CIB's.
Neither one of us could do that - we were in the naval services. This is
sci.military.naval last I checked.
> Oh please don't
> hurt me..Bwwwhahahaha.... Yawn... Move on. You and Freddie are boring
> blowhards. I bet the 2 of you were a riot in a whorehouse bragging to
> the girls.
Can't speak for Fred. I'm sure that I was, though, yes.
> http://www.ussliberty.com
>
> why did you delete this hnorable url?
Two reasons:
1) selective quoting - this URL is not relevant to a discussion of the
legality of WP;
2) because you're an anti-Jewish racist, and given the fact that that
website disavows junior Nazis like you on their first page, I don't
think you've got any business linking to it. Why don't you stick to
supplying links for the Aryan Nations?
AHS
Arved Sandstrom
> Fred J. McCall <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> the actual dimensions of the W-76 haven't been disclosed - with
>> a Trident diameter of 74 inches, it probably comes in at 21-36
>> inches in diameter)
>
> ROTFLMAO.
>
> D.
Why so funny? A reasonable first guess is that the RVs sit on a fairly
standard bus, that is, their bases are coplanar or close to it.
Therefore a first guess as to individual RV base diameters is given by
the solution of a circle packing problem.
The publicly available diameter for the Trident II is 83 inches. I'll go
with 75 inches for the diameter of the outside circle of the bus - it
might be a few inches more or less.
For 6 unit diameter circles inside a circle, the minimum diameter of the
enclosing circle is 3. For 8 such enclosed circles, the min. diameter of
the enclosing circle is about 3.3. For 12 enclosed it's approximately 4.
These possibilities give you maximum RV base diameters of 19 to 25
inches, again given the caveat that the RV bases are coplanar or close
to it. I'd say that Fred's lower range is right in the ballpark.
AHS
Jack Linthicum
frank
Too late, they'll track Fred via his digital converter they tricked
him with the $40 coupon. He's on the list, he will be assimilated....
UNLESS HE PUTS ON HIS ALUMINUM HELMET WITH THE TV RABBIT EARS
Mark Borgerson
jya...@abuse.gov says...
> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in
> news:MPG.24b9121aa...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> > In article <qdku45lo4jeh9es94...@4ax.com>,
> > fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> >> :> :
> >> :> :Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
> >> :> :
> >> :>
> >> :> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
> >> :>
> >> :> Israel has also reportedly successfully mounted nuclear weapons on
> >> :> their Harpoon missiles, which I would think would be more
> >> :> difficult.
> >> :
> >> :They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to terrorise
> >> :civilians
> >> :
> >>
> >> Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
> >
> > Is it?
>
> It was to block the terrorists sight so they could not fire upon Israeli
> troops.That is a legitimate military use of WP.
Pretty sloppy then----when the WP ends up in UN compounds. Perhaps
all that smoke was interfering with their artillery spotters! ;-)
>
> Israel went to great lengths to avoid harming Gazan civilians.
LOL! "went to great lengths" is one of those terms used to explain
a failure.
>
> > It seems that the Israeli army has admitted using white
> > phosphorus, according to WikiPedia:
> >
> > On 15 January, the United Nations compound, housing numerous refugees
> > in Gaza City, was reportedly struck by Israeli White phosphorus
> > artillery shells, setting fire to pallets of relief materials and
> > igniting several large fuel storage tanks. A UN spokesperson indicated
> > that there were difficulties in attempting to extinguish the fires and
> > stated "You can=3Ft put it [White phosphorus] out with traditional
> > methods such as fire extinguishers. You need sand but we do not have
> > any sand in the compound."[33][34] Senior Israeli defense officials
> > maintain that the shelling was in response to Israeli military
> > personnel being fired upon by Hamas fighters who were in proximity to
> > the UN headquarters.[35] The Israeli army is investigating improper
> > use of WP in this conflict, particularly in one incident in which 20
> > WP shells were fired in a built-up area of Beit Lahiya.[36]
> >
> > On 17 January, Peter Herby, head of the International Committee of the
> > Red Cross Arms Unit , confirmed the use of white phosphorous weapons
> > by Israel in Gaza, outlined the rules applicable to phosphorous
> > weapons and explained the ICRC's approach to the issue.[37]
> >
> > On January 20, Paul Wood of the BBC reports from Gaza on what appears
> > to be white phosphorus use near the vicinity of civilian areas.
> > Amnesty team weapon expert Christopher Cobb-Smith, who witnessed the
> > shelling during the conflict, reported "we saw streets and alleyways
> > littered with evidence of the use of white phosphorus, including
> > still-burning wedges and the remnants of the shells and canisters
> > fired by the Israeli army." [38]
> >
> > On January 26, the Israel's Ministry of Defence confirmed speculations
> > about the use of white phosphorous in the Israeli-Gaza
> > conflict.[39][40
> >
> > "
> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article5575070.
> > ece
> >
> > http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/01/25-4
> >
> >
> >>
> >> :
> >> :... and shot 1500 people in Jenin...
> >> :
> >>
> >> Which there is apparently no evidence for.
> >>
> >> :
> >> :People commenting on Israel often have a point of view.
> >> :
> >>
> >> Yes, and US authorities have commented that Israel has indeed fitted
> >> nuclear warheads to their Harpoon missiles. Israel reportedly has
> >> nuclear weapons as small as a few hundred kilograms, so any weapon
> >> that takes a warhead larger than that is a candidate for getting a
> >> nuclear payload.
> >>
> >> Note that Harpoon Block II can be used for land attack and is not
> >> just an antiship weapon.
> >>
> >> Taking the view that there is equivalence between the two things you
> >> dredge up and the Israeli nuclear program is just a bit insane,
> >> Willie.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Mark Borgerson
> >
> >
>
> If the Gazans don't like their civilinas being "terrorized",then they
> should not make war in the midst of them.
>
Gee, where is Gaza do you think they should make war? Gaza is kind of
a restricted area. With a population density of about 11,000 per square
mile, it's not exactly Fort Irwin!
Mark Borgerson
Jim Yanik
news:OT14m.33369$Db2.20208@edtnps83:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W76
has a couple of pics of the RV.
for TridentII;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W88
can carry up to 8 warheads,but limited to 4 under treaty
article says max diameter of the W88 is 21.8"
I have a book with pics of the W-78 RVs being loaded onto a bus with people
close by,and the base diameter appears to be about the same as the
shoulders of the man.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net
Mark Borgerson
fjmc...@gmail.com says...
> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> :In article <qdku45lo4jeh9es94...@4ax.com>,
> :> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :>
> :> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> :
> :> :> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :> :> :
> :> :> :Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
> :> :>
> :> :> Israel has also reportedly successfully mounted nuclear weapons on
> :> :> their Harpoon missiles, which I would think would be more difficult.
> :> :
> :> :They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to terrorise
> :> :civilians
> :> :
> :>
> :> Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
> :
> :phosphorus,
> :
>
> As a smoke agent, not "to terrorise civilians".
>
>
Aha----perhaps they were using the friendly version of WP that doesn't
have any burning material that reaches the ground. ;-)
So those burn injuries were just an unfortunate side effect.
WP does have an advantage to an army that has good IR vision
systems---it absorbs well in the visible range, but not so well
in the infrared.
Mark Borgerson
Jim Yanik
> In article <Xns9C3EBFD9369...@74.209.136.83>,
> jya...@abuse.gov says...
>> Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:MPG.24b9121aa...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>> > In article <qdku45lo4jeh9es94...@4ax.com>,
>> > fjmc...@gmail.com says...
>> >> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> >> :
>> >> :> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> :> :
>> >> :> :Can 'Popeye Turbo' realistically carry a nuke?
>> >> :> :
>> >> :>
>> >> :> Of course. Why would you think otherwise?
>> >> :>
>> >> :> Israel has also reportedly successfully mounted nuclear weapons
>> >> :> on their Harpoon missiles, which I would think would be more
>> >> :> difficult.
>> >> :
>> >> :They also reportedly fired white phosphorous into Gaza to
>> >> :terrorise civilians
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> Which subsequent investigation showed was a lie.
>> >
>> > Is it?
>>
>> Yes,because the use of WP was NOT "to terrorize civilians".
>> It was to block the terrorists sight so they could not fire upon
>> Israeli troops.That is a legitimate military use of WP.
>
> Pretty sloppy then----when the WP ends up in UN compounds. Perhaps
> all that smoke was interfering with their artillery spotters! ;-)
Yeah,there were just SO many civilian casualties....
Ever think that Hamas intentionally fought nearby to use them as a shield?
They do do that sort of thing.
>>
>> Israel went to great lengths to avoid harming Gazan civilians.
>
> LOL! "went to great lengths" is one of those terms used to explain
> a failure.
Israel dropped fliers to warn civilians of imminent attacks,avoided some
areas altogether.IOW,fighting with one arm tied behind their backs.
>> > 70. ece
>> >
>> > http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/01/25-4
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> :
>> >> :... and shot 1500 people in Jenin...
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> Which there is apparently no evidence for.
>> >>
>> >> :
>> >> :People commenting on Israel often have a point of view.
>> >> :
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and US authorities have commented that Israel has indeed
>> >> fitted nuclear warheads to their Harpoon missiles. Israel
>> >> reportedly has nuclear weapons as small as a few hundred
>> >> kilograms, so any weapon that takes a warhead larger than that is
>> >> a candidate for getting a nuclear payload.
>> >>
>> >> Note that Harpoon Block II can be used for land attack and is not
>> >> just an antiship weapon.
>> >>
>> >> Taking the view that there is equivalence between the two things
>> >> you dredge up and the Israeli nuclear program is just a bit
>> >> insane, Willie.
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > Mark Borgerson
>> >
>> >
>>
>> If the Gazans don't like their civilinas being "terrorized",then they
>> should not make war in the midst of them.
>>
> Gee, where is Gaza do you think they should make war? Gaza is kind
> of a restricted area. With a population density of about 11,000 per
> square mile, it's not exactly Fort Irwin!
>
>
> Mark Borgerson
>
>
>
and thus good reason to NOT start anything with the Israelis.
the Israeli invasion was not unprovoked.
Hamas and Gaza got what they deserved.
IMO,the Israelis didn't go far enough.
Jim Yanik
news:Xns9C3F7CE58CC...@74.209.136.87:
That pic I mentioned is here;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W87_MIRV.jpg
from the article;
The exact dimensions of the W87 are classified, but it fits inside the Mk.
21 reentry vehicle, which is a cone with base diameter of 22 inches (55 cm)
and a length of 69 inches (175 cm). The weight is believed to be between
440 and 600 pounds (200 and 270 kilograms).
David E. Powell
> Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >the actual dimensions of the W-76 haven't been disclosed - with
> >a Trident diameter of 74 inches, it probably comes in at 21-36
> >inches in diameter)
>
> ROTFLMAO.
>
> D.
Tridents can carry Multiple Warheads. (MIRV.) Ergo....
Jack Linthicum
> Richard Casady <richardcas...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> :On Sun, 05 Jul 2009 07:47:57 GMT, fairwa...@gmail.com (Derek Lyons)
> :wrote:
> :
> :>>the actual dimensions of the W-76 haven't been disclosed - with
> :>>a Trident diameter of 74 inches, it probably comes in at 21-36
> :>>inches in diameter)
> :
> :Fred wrote that, but I couldn't find the post, in order to answer it
> :properly. The question is how do you get more than one or two 36in?
> :By the time you add what it takes to make a warhead a reentry vehicle,
> :you would only have room for one 36in dia warhead in a layer: you
> :couldn't fit two side be side.
>
> I'm including the RV package (which the W-76 just barely fits in) in
> the numbers. So yes, at 36" you could get two in side by side. That's
> why I picked that as the upper limit.
>
> :
> :On the other hand, seven 21 inch would
> :fit inside a 74 inch diameter, with some space between them for
> :packaging. With four, they could be bigger.
> :I would like to know how they pack eight warheads. Four ahead of four?
>
> Ask how they pack 16 in (which public sources seem to indicate they
> could).
>
> --
> "You keep talking about slaying like it's a job. It's not.
> It's who you are."
> -- Kendra, the Vampire Slayer
Some of the reentry vehicles point down, with the ogive nestled
between those of the base group.
Arved Sandstrom
>> As a smoke agent, not "to terrorise civilians".
>>
>>
> Aha----perhaps they were using the friendly version of WP that doesn't
> have any burning material that reaches the ground. ;-)
> So those burn injuries were just an unfortunate side effect.
[ SNIP ]
In this case the burn injuries would have been an unfortunate side
effect, yes.
If I really wanted to terrorize civilians (or kill civilians for that
matter) WP wouldn't be my first choice, nor my second, for munitions
type. Good ol' HE (pick your fuze) and DPICM does the trick. I suspect
the Israelis probably know that too. Their use of WP was for screening
and obscuration, possibly some for marking.
AHS
William Black
> frank <dhssres...@netscape.net> wrote:
> :>
> :
> :Too late, they'll track Fred via his digital converter they tricked
> :him with the $40 coupon. He's on the list, he will be assimilated....
> :
> :UNLESS HE PUTS ON HIS ALUMINUM HELMET WITH THE TV RABBIT EARS
> :
>
> Uh, Willie isn't talking to 'Fred', you stupid fuckwit. He's talking
> to 'American Eagle'...
>
Fred's odd, but he's not the tinfoil hat type.
--
William Black
Jack Linthicum
Besides the TV antenna is only good for analog transmissions.
William Black
> Arved Sandstrom <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :
> :If I really wanted to terrorize civilians (or kill civilians for that
> :matter) WP wouldn't be my first choice, nor my second, for munitions
> :type. Good ol' HE (pick your fuze) and DPICM does the trick. I suspect
> :the Israelis probably know that too. Their use of WP was for screening
> :and obscuration, possibly some for marking.
> :
>
> Well, WP *can* be a part of 'terrorizing civilians', but it's only a
> part.
>
> Shake and Bake...
>
> We've known that since the RAF firebombing tactics during WWII, with
> their mix of incendiaries and explosive 'cookies' to break things up
> so they'd burn better.
>
Earlier than that Fred, and it was your mates the Germans who thought it
up...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firebombing
There's even a quotation from your mate Sir Arthur Harris about how they
gave him the idea...
--
William Black
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :
> :> Arved Sandstrom <dce...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> :> :
> :> :If I really wanted to terrorize civilians (or kill civilians for that
> :> :matter) WP wouldn't be my first choice, nor my second, for munitions
> :> :type. Good ol' HE (pick your fuze) and DPICM does the trick. I suspect
> :> :the Israelis probably know that too. Their use of WP was for screening
> :> :and obscuration, possibly some for marking.
> :> :
> :>
> :> Well, WP *can* be a part of 'terrorizing civilians', but it's only a
> :> part.
> :>
> :> Shake and Bake...
> :>
> :> We've known that since the RAF firebombing tactics during WWII, with
> :> their mix of incendiaries and explosive 'cookies' to break things up
> :> so they'd burn better.
> :>
> :
> :Earlier than that Fred, and it was your mates the Germans who thought it
> :up...
> :
>
> They never did it very well.
What do you expect? They were Nazis...
They weren't terribly good at anything much.
--
William Black
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :
> :
>
> Well, that's not really true, either, Willie. They actually had
> superior technology in any number of areas.
Name them.
--
William Black
Jeffrey Hamilton
>> matter) WP wouldn't be my first choice, nor my second, for munitions
>> type. Good ol' HE (pick your fuze) and DPICM does the trick. I
>> suspect the Israelis probably know that too. Their use of WP was for
>> screening and obscuration, possibly some for marking.
>>
>
> part.
>
> Shake and Bake...
>
> We've known that since the RAF firebombing tactics during WWII, with
> their mix of incendiaries and explosive 'cookies' to break things up
> so they'd burn better.
That technique of course, was taught to Bomber Command by the Nazi. Did you
somehow forget _that_ salient little fact Fred ?
cheers....Jeff
Jeffrey Hamilton
> superior technology in any number of areas.
>
> Bomber Command was.
Certainly it wasn't for lack of trying, was it Fred ?
Mind you, the Nazi more than made up for it when doing *wet work* up close
and personal like. Didn't they Fred ?
cheers.....Jeff
William Black
He's been told half a dozen times.
He has a selective memory...
--
William Black
Arved Sandstrom
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>
>> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> :What do you expect? They were Nazis...
>> :
>> :They weren't terribly good at anything much.
>> :
>>
>> Well, that's not really true, either, Willie. They actually had
>> superior technology in any number of areas.
>
> Name them.
Before we go way off track, are we talking about German/Allied WW2
military technology in general, or just aerial bombing?
The same observation (which it appears that Jeffrey picked up on) goes
for who the best mass murderer was...RAF Bomber Command may have been
better than the Luftwaffe (*), but the Germans were clearly better than
the English.
AHS
* I phrase that as a "maybe", because the Luftwaffe had many years of
tactical bombing all across Europe to ratchet up a nice civilian kill
total (and so did the Japs in their neck of the woods)...although it's
taken as a given (by us on the Allied side) that the Allied air forces
were better killers than the Axis air forces, do the statistics really
bear that out?
Jeffrey Hamilton
I'm coming in truthful Fred, which is more than can be said for _you_ !
cheers.....Jeff
Dennis
> Yeah, an arsenal large enough to totally destroy pretty much all
> potentially adversaries at the same time hardly matters at all. I
> mean, they've only got around half the number of your typical European
> state or China.
>
> Babes in arms, they are...
Yup, and babes that are always one war away from annihilation too.
There's no doubt they'll strike a few matches if they think they need to.
They were ready in 1973.
Dennis
William Black
> William Black <willia...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> :> Well, that's not really true, either, Willie. They actually had
> :> superior technology in any number of areas.
> :
> :Name them.
> :
>
> Gee, let's see now. Rocketry.
Too expensive. They'd have been better off spending the money on tanks.
Jets (German jets were axial flow
> engines, much superior to Whittle's radial flow designs).
But later in operational deployment, so behind the British...
> Tanks.
Too expensive.
And nothing they ever built was a match for the IS 2...
> Optics
I'll give you that one. Not that it was ever a war where optics really
mattered...
>. Chemistry.
Poison gases, yes.
> Do I really need to continue?
Do go on Fred, we're all loving it...
--
William Black
Jeffrey Hamilton
Well, yes, really Fred, 6,000,000 Jews alone. You count the numbers Fred.
cheers.....Jeff
Dennis
> The
> actual dimensions of the W-76 haven't been disclosed - with a Trident
> diameter of 74 inches, it probably comes in at 21-36 inches in
> diameter), but that's just minor aerodynamics.
Gee, I didn't know that Trident was an APDS weapon!
Dennis
Arved Sandstrom
AHS
Paul J. Adam
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> :> Well, that's not really true, either, Willie. They actually had
>> :> superior technology in any number of areas.
>> :Name them.
> Do go on Fred, we're all loving it...
It's hard to avoid the obvious question.
If they were so smart, so technologically advanced, so much better than
all the lesser races...
...then how did they manage to lose?
I mean, the idea of having overwhelming, indisputible military and
technological superiority is to crush your enemies, not to get your
homeland levelled, your menfolk killed and your wives and daughters left
to play "Frau Komm!" with the Red Army.
--
He thinks too much, such men are dangerous.