“Do you think that Main Battle Tanks are now obsolete in modern warfare ( as we know it )??”

That was the OP’s question. So it begs the question in what type of warfare? Modern warfare as we know it probably does not involve large numbers of ground forces supporting tanks and armoured vehicles. These days only a few countries have the troops to mount such a war anyway.

Such an attitude is what brings about attitudes such as –no guns on fighters–U.K. White Paper–etc., not to mention U.S. soldiers in Iraq with vehicles that can be shot to pieces by rifle caliber weapons.

Any one who thinks there will never be another major war where deaths are in hundred per day is living in a world of hope that will probably come crashing down some day.

China is most likely the country that could push too many buttons and China could lose a thousand soldiers a day for a long time and still have an Army larger than any opponent.

Tanks have superior armor to what they have had in the past and there are not enough drones, especially taking into account that armies are developing methods to make drones blind.
There are too many friendly fire deaths with manned planes, God only knows how that would be magnified if they used drones rather than pilots.

There is a Russian video that shows how the new reactive armor works, on youtube.

Too many here are like generals in the Pentagon that got hundreds, if not thousands, of grunts killed with their pit-in-the-sky paper wonder ideas that are not proven to be as pathetic as they are till the coffins start coming home.

Tactical nukes still exist and if a country truly feels threatened by drone the emp from a nuke will make any drone useless.

If the drone control is thousands of miles away ICBMs exist for that.
Drone are a wonderful item fighting against terrorists and under-funded nut-jobs, but that is an entirely different situation than one where mass ground tank assaults would be used.

Nonsense or the West wouldn’t be all peeing in their skirts over China spending money on their military. If they were that backwards, why would they care? We’re always hearing how people want China treated like how Reagan did with the Soviet Union going bankrupt trying to catch up with the West. Doesn’t this serve that end? Yet all we hear is the whining.

Unless the Chinese mindset has drastically changed from Korea, what they cannot do with quality they will do with quantity.

Ask any grunt who served in Korea about the waves of Chinese infantry being shot down yet still kept on coming.

If there were an air war, even if the U.S. had a ten to one kill ratio but only had two hundred aircraft to China’s two thousand, China wins.

US will support those F-16 again if the opposition wins. However some how I believe even Maduro or the Opposition will try to find middle ground. They will try to keep some of Russian assets whille try to gain some Western ones to show they are not anti western like Chavez. French will be a good candidate. It’ll show they are moving some reconciliations to West but not entirely to the US like pre-Chavez era. Moving toward to US too soon will be too devisive for the Country internal reconciliation.

I do not think so.
Chavez was a political nut-job, what counts now is money and Venezuela cannot afford multiple parts for multiple makes of aircraft.

If Russia is smart they will counter any Chinese influence with a sweet deal.

Jim:
Just has to post this to show how well organized and informed the ATF is.

I love it when he tries to insert the magazine backwards.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rEuTwYALho
——————————————

I found this to be a rather amazing story. I actually did not think the U.K. had this problem, although the bit in the end about “assault weapons” and Obama makes no sense.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/366676/Menace-of-guns-here-in-Britain

The boys from the former U.S. Air Defense Command, said of all the aircraft they had and worked on: F-106, 102,101, 89 and F-4 the only thing slower to get into the air on a scramble than the F-4 was the F-89.

Remember those posts a while back about straw man arguments? No, obviously you don’t.

I’m rubber, you’re glue….

Reality, try it sometime. Social mores etc. Maybe you should take a basic psychology class or two, also anthropology.. You seriously can’t base ANY human rights or even basic behavior patterns based on what we know is a myth.

Social mores are based on the ruling powers, at the moment, so you are saying, the mores of the Axis powers were basic human rights.
Weird.

You cannot defend your rhetoric because no defense exists. You are trying to shadow box as a defense.

Simple fact, U.S. and European history concerning government rules and religion are what they are. Whether if fits your dogma of all that is or not.