sekantThere are several reports that in the 1980s, the Mudjahidin in Afghanistan were provided with British “blowpipes”. Realising that these Manpads were far less effective against airborne targets than Stingers (i.e. the fact that the “blowpipes” were not too effective had already been demonstrated in the Falkland conflict), they seem to have used these missiles against lightly armoured vehicle, apparently to good avail !!!
sekantBush put an end to the 2002 coup during a closed-door meeting with a Venezuelan delegation. Bush demanded that Chavez be immediately returned to power. The Venezuelans were stunned, but willingly complied.
Well, do you have any account of this ? Can you provide source/article/book? Or is that a first-hand experience? Because this runs counter to the facts as they stand today – meaning that they do not correspond to what we know so far.
If you go back to the press articles at the time, you will realise that all Latin american countries take very rapidly position against the coup as it unfold. Those same Latin american countries heavily criticise the US administration because it does not take a similar public position. Again, if needed, I will provide you sources/links.
There is no legitimate use for large scale coca cultivation.
Andean natives do chew coca leaves, but the practice only contributes to the high mortality in the region.
What about we let the peruvian take decisions concerning their own health?? Or then, would you feel legitimate that the peruvians tell you what you have the right to eat/drink/smoke, this in the name of your own good???
sekantColombia is a deeply troubled country, but now that it is surrounded by narco-terror supporting regimes the situation will worsen. Legitimate efforts have been made by the Colombians to eliminate the cultivation of coca. However, it will be impossible to combat narco-terrorism when Boliva is lead by Evo Mendez, the head of the so-called “coca growers union,” which is little more than a front for cocaine production.
You find legitimate that the US imposes upon South American countries that they stop growing coca, what they have done for centuries, because americans misuse this substance. That makes as much sense (and is as legitimate) as Saudi Arabia requesting that the US stop growing wheat and barley because some muslims drink some bourbon.
sekantGeorge W. Bush refused to support the 2002 coup against Chavez….Bush went so far as to condemn the coup….which effectively saved Chavez’s life….and put Chavez back in power.
Apparently, either you or I live in a parallel universe.
Chavez’s butt was not saved by the Bush administration condeming the coup, it was saved by the fact that large section of the Venezuelan military ended up opposing the coup and that Chavez supporters (i.e. the majority of Venezuelans).
You are right in saying that the US administration publicly condemned the attempt at a coup. The only problem is that the first such condemnation came in a White house press point (by Ari Fleischer) that took place only after Chavez had resumed power – in other words, only once it was clear that the coup had failed (if you need a precise timeline to prove my point, I’ll provide it).
And I don’t even allude to the support given to those fomenting the coup by such front organization such as the National Endowment for Democracy.
sekantNote #1: Switzerland lifted arms embargoe on Turkey last year..
Well, that is correct, but it only means that Turkey has been removed from the countries where arm exports are strictly prohibited and placed on the list where the normal procedure applies.
And the normal procedure means that any request of export has to be vetted against a set of criteria set forth in the Law on war material. And it is not granted that the administration will come to the conclusion that Turkey fulfil these criteria !!
sekantCorrect me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Chavez decide to cut back our oil before we axed the F-16 spares? What did he expect us to do in return?
.
That is correct, but it was after the US decided to lend support to the attempt at a coup d’Etat by the opposition 😀 😀
sekantThe Swiss nonsense is a choice made by a sovereign country, you do not have to agree with, nobody ask you to do so.
Sure, the Swiss nonsense is made by a sovereign country and that has to be respected. But then so do the sovereign decisions made by the US concerning its policy on arms export. The only thing that I am pointing out is that if US products come with strings attached (that lessen their appeal), that also applies to Swiss gear.
BTW, I am a Swiss national !
The PC-9 has been designed for training purpose only, not to drop bombs or fire rockets in military operation even if it can and has done most probably.
If I remember correctly, the PC-9 is supplied without armaments by Pilatus, but is reinforced in the right places (i.e. wings) so that it can be retrofitted with weapons.
sekantWell, for the PC-9, the Turks would have to deal with Swiss nonsense – they would have to swear that the planes would be used for training only, that they would not be subsequently equipped with armaments and never engaged in any manner whatsoever in active operations (such as against Kurds).
BTW, the Swiss/Turkish are at a particularly low ebb (recognition of the Armenian genocide by the Swiss parliament about two years ago, violence at a Turkey-Swiss footbal game…) and the belief is in Swiss government circles is that Switzerland has been blacklisted and it stands no chance of winning such a contract.
sekantUh, That’s not very likely, The French aren’t all that reliable as they are only Political allies in NATO, They pulled out of the Military part back in 1954 while Charles De Gaulle was President of France(Possibly as a result of Germany being admitted into Nato and the French then still hating or maybe they still resented the Germans for WWI and WWII maybe as old hatreds die slowly really). So unless It’s in the best interest of France to help US, I wouldn’t count on them for too much,
De Gaulle President of France in 1954???!? I dont know where you got that from but you’re seriously mistaken. De Gaulle came back to power in 1958 (in 54, he was writing his memoirs) and France withdrew from NATO’s integrated military structure in 1966. It did so because it had a problem with the US, and certainly not with the Germans (i.e. NATO being a US controlled organisation, it challenged French sovereignty to an extent that the (touchy) De Gaulle could not stand).
So unless It’s in the best interest of France to help US, I wouldn’t count on them for too much,
Well, call me silly, but I dont understand why any country should assist the US if it is contrary to its own interests!!!
On a more substantive note, are there really some in the British MoD who argue that the CVFs do not need their own E-2s because British forces will always act in cooperation with US forces (at least in cases where AEW is really needed, not necessarily in lesser cases (such as for instance an intervention in Sierra Leone)??
sekantDoes anyone have a clue what the Chinese Beidou (if that’s spelled right? I know it means “Great Bear”) is? It’s said to consist of two satellites and to be a GPS, which is of course practically impossible, unless they are using the globe as the third reference source. nonetheless I think it is something like the SBAS system, a satellite based DGPS type?
Anyone with more news/facts on this system?
Although China has not yet established an operational satellite navigation and positioning network, research for such a system has been underway for many years, and a
future space-based navigation capability is an acknowledged goal. Beidou (‘Big Dipper’) is the satellite component for the independent Chinese satellite navigation and positioning system. The Beidou satellite navigation and positioning system are consists of two satellites in geosynchronous orbit. The final Beidou constellation will include four satellites, two operational and two backups. Together with the ground stations, the Beidou system will provide navigation and positioning signals covering the East Asia region. However, to provide global signal coverage, satellites flying in other orbits around the world must complement the system. Three satellites have been launched to date
sekantBut there’s nothing to stop someone from using Galileo signals for military purposes, right? Like how GPS signals are broadcast over specific frequencies?
I recall reading somewhere that around 2008 or so manufacturers were going to come out with receivers that can use both GPS and Galileo signals for increased navigation performance. Theoretically someone could use both the military GPS signal and the Galileo civilian signal to improve the accuracy of weapon, no?
Sure, but the open/free signals could be degraded at all time, so “holders” of the weapons could never be sure that it could in fact use its weapon.
For military matters, one would need to have access to a secure signal to ensure that its weapon would be effective at all time. And this is not even true of the Galileo PRS – the US obtained (in order to stop its opposition to Galileo) that the PRS signal not be too close to the GPS military signal, in order to be able to jam the former without degrading the latter.
The US also obtained that non EU/ESA countries taking part in Galileo not be given access to the Galileo PRS signal (in the case of the US, the main concern was obviously Chinese participation in Galileo).
sekantAs for Galileo, it is by no means excluded from military use, there is a seperate/additional frequency for military use in the system.
Precisely no. The decision taken by the Council in late 2004 that formally launches Galileo prohibits that it be used for military purpose. There is indeed a secured signal (the PRS, or Public regulated system) that authorities will be able to use for some security applications such as border control, police work… Given that tody, militaries are often involved in “soft” security, it is likely that they will use the PRS to an extent.
But article 6. of the Council decision recalls “that Galileo is a civil programme under civil control, and consequently that any change to that principle would require examination in the framework of Title V/TEU ” (in order word, a unanimous decision from the Council). This means that the PRS cannot be used for strictly military applications, and that European manufacturers can not factor Galileo in their product.
Hence the question I submitted above !!!
sekantYou should at least check this that you find on the website provided by Tiornu. It gives you the vessels in service in 1914, those undergoing trial (en essai), those to be achieved soon (en achèvement à flot – meaning floating but needing to be equipped), those still in construction (sur cale), and those whose construction was planned to start in 1915 !!
http://img327.imageshack.us/my.php?image=programmenaval3ch.jpg
sekantAs far as I can recall, the Swissair crash was blamed (at least unofficially since it was not possible to come up with a definitive answer) on the inflight entertainment system that had been retrofitted by a private company (and not by McD) at the request of Swissair. Supposedly, the system was responsible for generating electrical problems and short circuits (what started a fire), if I recall correctly.
It would seem to me that this can hardly be blamed on McD (even though, as correctly stressed above, Swissaire was none too please with its MD-11s and had received compensations as they did not meet the promised performances)!!
sekantLets buy Rafales for the fleet Ctol carriers!!!!!!!!
Great idea. Blair being such a good buddy of Chirac, he should even be able to get a discount 😀 😀
Would rather seem to be a non-starter from a political/psychological standpoint!!
Sign In
