If you can orbit a satellite, you can make a FOBS work. All that would really do is start a further arms race of ASAT-type weapons. If someone put a number of FOBS in serice, it’s likely that their enemies would move to place ASAT-type kill vehicles in geostationary orbit above themselves for defense.

In some ways this was what was in its infancy at the end of the cold war. The likes of Polymus (Skif) and the SDI were basically just pushing the arms race into space. Once you push past all the BS it becomes apparent that no weapon system realy offers either side any massive advantage in a super-power peer rival scenario. Especially not the current ABM shield (the term shield should be used very loosely).

Incidently I remeber a paper about ways to defeat SDI (produced in the NATO spere) The conclusions were basically, high-tech cruise missiles such as SS-NX-24 combined with high speed rapid reaction bombers such as Tu-160 to hit ground stations, ASAT systems, and space based weapons modules like polymus to hit the SDI proposed space based systems. The idea being to kick down the door before pouring in the MIRVs.

Er No !
The number of ilegally held “guns” would have increased anyway .

The imposed bans following Hungerford and Dunblane were 100% sucessful in that there have been no killings since those bans by either legally held “assault rifles” or legally held handguns:D Now we have the separate issue of dealing with illegally held firearms …….we need an effective police force and a justice system that works.

How do you know there would have been any more killings without the ban?:rolleyes:

Man, you need to let me cook for change…but meantime, another Boardside from HMS Gollevainen…

My logic of banning of all guns bases pretty much to the logical assumption (thougth Sealord has allready questioned the logic in this thread….) that with out any guns, there wouldnt be guns for illigal activities as well. And begun that process you need to criminalize gun owning. There by you take out business of gun manufactures and production of guns, suitable for criminal purposes would end (or drastically decrease) and in long term the ammount of guns will decrease…unless some spaceship deliver them from Mars….or do you have some other way of understanding this?

You cannot point out of the elements of short term consequence as a prov that this wouldnt work, the results are to be enjoyed by the next generation, but in the sake of its safety, we better start to do something now.

If it violates people rigths, who cares… nation that needs rigth to be armed to the teath isent on healthy foundation anyway

Well did everyone bring their weapons to there?
Anyway, to counter my argument, you need to prove yourself that banning of guns is the reason for increasement of weapons in UK. criminals dont buy weapons only to look good in statistics…

How can you be so confused, the number if illegal guns in the UK has risen year on year since the introduction of the ban, thus the ban has not worked. It realy is very simple.

Criminals dissapear along with capitalism and class structure as a main factor of societies horizontal element, but while waiting for that We need to do as best as we can to limit the effects of criminal hazards

My exageration was justified to prove the exact nonsense of thinking that having rigth to carry arms makes some society more free.

Your logic that banning arms would make a state a police state is silly and nonsense. Police state is facism and bootstamping dictature, but criminalizating military weapons in civil usage is a triumph of legistation and jurical state.

How come we have managed to succee as a forerunners of truely free and democratic nation without seeing any need to give people freedom to carry weapons desinged purely to kill other humanbeings?

You can twist and turn it anyway around, but 9mm pistol hasent got any other purpose than to kill other people. If someone wants to shoot targets, there are lot better and accurate weapons for that, and likewise if you want to hunt animals, there are better weapons to do that

So pardon me If I think wery low of people that wants to own military weapons desinged to kill people…I cannot came out any other usage from them. You cannot justify it becouse it is your fundamental rigth, human rigths cannot compromise the most precious one of them, and that is to let live! By your logic, doing everything you please should be every men rigth, and the overal concept of the morale of any rigth system would come pointless circuss…society isent about what rigths you have, but obligations you have to your fellow citizens

Did I just said in my last post that it is transistional phase, that can be twisted by gunnuts to fit their lust to have the capacity to kill as much as they can…

But then again didn’t you said that you had allready overrule the concepts of logic in this thread so Im gettin feeling that these arguments are repeated quite well time before the mods close this thread….:cool:

How can it be the result of a transitional phase- guns are banned- there is a amnesty in which legal guns are handed in, then the number of illegal handguns increases, a decade after the ban?:rolleyes:

The fact that you have asked for this thread to be closed goes to show that you realise that you have been proven wrong and would rather it end without you admitting that you are wrong.

It wouldnt have anything to do with this would it?;)

http://www.r-type.org/static/airrdf.htm

Avro Anso being the first aircraft to detect another using radar.

By the way if anybody has a picture of that paticular Anson- with the radar fitted- I would much appreciate it.

You have missed the point. Handguns in the UK have been banned completely yet their numbers are rising. As I said before you have already been proved wrong.

i still found it odd that people doesent realise how huge effect to the total ammount of hand guns (simply counted by number of barrels) would be if US would impact rationale gun forbiding laws. If there isent civil markets to sell guns, many gun manufacturer will go out of busines and in the long term the number of guns will automatically drop. Does it takes away guns from criminals, Not all, but it will dramatically effect on the suply that feeds the criminals. Gun manufacturing isent garage-level industry and the illegal need wouldnt justify real industry for the guns. So automatically the number of guns in criminal hands would come lower…

And while we all know that world were there isent criminals with guns cannot happen before dramatical leaps in human inteligence, Yet I see no reason yet to raise our hands and say: Hey there still will be guns, so why no let all have them. By active political will the number of handguns can be cut out and the means of criminals to get their hands on them will be more difficoult and the number of people getting killed by so will also drop….

Like I have said in the first topic over this matter, the purpose of criminology and law-enforcement isent to hunt down criminals to the point where there isent none left, but to protect the law-obeying citicens from the negative effect of criminals, which are by all means really important factor in basic elements of any human society and even economical systems.

If there are so simple and clear way to achieve better security, why attack against it by claiming it isent perfect, becouse it doesent take away all guns? Lot less is still lot better than the current situation, isent it?

Sorry but you are arguing a point that has already been proved false earlier in this thread. Banning hand-guns does not reduce their availability to criminals. The UK proves this as gun crime is actualy rising there.

I say again, the destructive power of the BMG round is largely associated with rounds such as The RAUFOSS, these are not available to civilians.