Or they could dispense with foolish USN/USMC aviation distinction, cancel either B or C and still get a manned VLO strike platform.

So apparently Hagel gave a speech at NDU this week about the need to prepare for austerity and reign in wasteful Pentagon spending. Meanwhile the world’s largest elephant trumpets and stampedes about the room.

Scooter, I gotta give you some credit. As I read the first few pages of this thread, I noticed you were dealing with some real strange folks. Generally speaking, the second someone tries to use Hiroshima and Nagasaki as reasons upon which to base the opinion the United States is a threat to world peace, I tend to tune them out.

I often forget the adage that one shouldn’t argue with fools because they’ll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. Talking to Americans about Korea (or anything, really) certainly falls into this category. It’s a lesson I’m always having to re-learn and I accept the bruises the come with the territory.

And yet it is still irksome to have one’s posts completely misrepresented in this manner. I was quite clear on what the purpose was of my comparing US actions in Korea to Dresden, Tokyo, and Hiroshoma: to emphasise the scale and indiscriminate nature of the slaughter that occurred during the Korean War, nothing more. Certainly one could draw any number of connections between WW2 and Korea given that the later situation emerged organically from the former — one could highlight, for example, the extent to which the South was a continuation of the Japanese colonialist regime whereas the North was led by those who resisted and fought against the Japanese, and indeed how the South re-hired former Japanese collaborators to torture and kill opponents of Southern regime — but such was not my intent at the time.

So let us be quite clear on this point: first, that the United States is the greatest impediment to peace on the Korean peninsula; and second that this is an observation born entirely of America’s conduct on the Korean peninsula from 1946 to present day and has nothing to do with events of WW2.

Now we tune back to the children’s book of apple pie peace-loving Yankees vs. deranged, evil Norks. :rolleyes:

Did the course mention the beginnings of the Koean War…the unprovoked invasion of the South in 1950 which led to the United Nations taking action?

Yes, but it wasn’t foolish enough to start with the invasion in 1950. If the EU declared Scotland no longer part of the United Kingdom and London took action to the contrary, would you declare that an ‘unprovoked invasion’? Would Brussels then be justified in levelling England in the name of freedom?

In any case the South was agitating for war with the North as much as vice versa. Indeed it was the South that had initiated most of the border skirmishes leading up to the 1950 invasion. And on the domestic side of things, the South had been particularly vicious in suppressing (read: massacring) political dissidents.

Hardly a U.S. only operation.

UNSC minus China and Soviet Union leaves what? The United States plus the two colonial powers France and Britain? Yeah, you’ve got the whole rainbow represented there. :rolleyes:

Oh I know we Australians were involved. We are always involved, from the Boxer rebellion onwards. I spare no scorn there, and do not vote for the major parties which unrepentantly pursue such interventionist policies. But nonetheless we are followers, not leaders. Were it not for the United States, we wouldn’t have gone anywhere.

My perspective on Korea comes mostly from university course on the Cold War in Asia: On Vietnam and some other subjects I had prior knowledge, but like most people was very fuzzy on Korea. For the component on Korea we were fortunate enough to have visiting professor from Korea who had family on both sides of the border. It was he who introduced me to perspective on North Korea as a troubled family member and the division as a bleeding wound in one nation, and this perspective which further made sense of S. Koreans ambivalent attitudes and behaviours, which are difficult to make sense of from dominant western narrative of line between good and evil patrolled by righteous Americans. I think the following one-line observation is both poignant and useful: that the Koreas did not divide themselves.

MiG is cheaper, Rafale more capable and adds one further type to the Indian aircraft zoo.

Given the alternatives, I would just stick to MiG 29 and invest the saved cash into LCA/MCA.

I lol’d. :p

Problem with this is it ignores the industrial-political goals of MMRCA. Idea was to (1) reduce reliance upon Russia as supplier and (2) obtain significant tech transfer to further indigenous ambitions. MiG-29/35 doesn’t address these priorities otherwise I agree it would be strong contender on commonality/familiarity grounds. Mind you if Russia had been willing to really come to the table with e.g. full transfer of RD-33 engine tech and 50/50 shared future development, then sure … screw the French. :p

I can envision something like this for future air-defence purposes for small nations. Unmanned, passive sensors only, using datalinks to coordinate with ground-based defences. I think the loadout of 3-4 MICA-class AAMs is about right also. Compared to purely ground-based air defence network you get eyes in the sky, plus mobility to engage and pursue targets outside SAM envelope.