sekantThat’s right, Boeing would not take the risk of bullying a government, when bribing its officials is so much easier and more effective !
sekant“What the US is doing with nukes and defenses make no difference to the “plans” of those countries that already have them. For example, even if the US don’t developed any new types of offensive or defensive ones, Russia will continue to upgrade their ballistic missiles and defenses and China will continue to mobilize newer versions of missiles and decoy technologies. So, this point you’re bring up is quite mute. In fact, i would say the US’s nuclear arsenal is getting quite behind others in delivery and arming (although plenty of warheads, we don’t want that, most American “nuke people” acknowlege that number should come down to at least 1/5th).”
I am certainly not denying this (and you may not have fully understood my previous post – when I was speaking of the have-nots, I was referring to those that do not have nuclear capacity, not to Russi, China et al). The fact that the five official nuclear powers fail to live up to their NPT obligations by reinforcing their nuclear capacities (notably in terms of doctrine) create a situation that, in the long term, is unbearable and will be detrimental to non-proliferation. Having a nuclear capacity gives a country an important edge international relations (ask the French and the Brits) that if further importance is given to that capacity some countries will unavoidably seek to possess it.
“I said not “in any meaningful numbers”. Besides, the difference is many of these “countries” want to kill ALL Americans, not a “regime change”. That is an extremely signifcant difference. Just like many in the Arab world want to see Israel wiped out, not simply change their leaders. So, there is a HUGE difference. Instead of replying, notice i said “many”, not “all”. So there’s no stereotype here. It’s a fact.”
That is a question of perception. For you, regime change may sound trivial and unimportant. It is certainly not seen as such in some parts of the world. And just as you believe that many in muslim countries want to kill all americans, many in the Islamic world perceive that the US is waging a war on the entire Muslim world and want to destroy or at least enslave it. This is not the intention of the US but certainly is the perception of many muslims.
“I was afraid someone might bring this up before i wrote the previous post because this is just plain biased. So, if you’re welling to see our point of view, then why can’t we develope bunker busting nukes? Basically this point is NO POINT at all because it leads nowhere with the “see their point of view” excuse. Just like if you can see the point of view of some Nazis then they are not bunch of extremists….. :rolleyes: We can live with the existing nuclear powers even though many often are our global competitors. However, there are some that are just too extreme and irresponsible to have them…i.e., North Korea and to a lessor extent, Iran. To them, most people (like the Europeans and Eastern Asians who totally agree on this issue) are trying to end such ambitions. However, these days there are always those in the “public” that have this widely virulent case of romanticization of “big bad bully US means their target MUST be weak victims”. This is the sad state of the world and its people. 🙁
1) Sure you can develop mini nukes. I am just stressing that if non-proliferation is one of your aims, it doesnt make sense (because it lowers the threshold for the use of nuclear weapons and gives them a new lease of life and new incentives for other to acquire it). I am simply arguing that in the long term the US would be better off by developping a conventional alternatives to mini nukes.
2) To see the viewpoint of the other party does not mean to agree with it or condone it, but to seek to understand what motivates it and takes steps accordingly. But I guess it is easier to brand all foreign nations that are not willing to bend over backwards as a bunch of nazi extremists than to try to rationnally and fully understand the situation. Adopting such an approach, however, gives you such results as the Iraq and WMDs episode.
3) In my view, to dare ask whether some options selected by the current administration in the nuclear field are constructive in the long-term is not anti-american. But it seems that many in the US are not even to have a dialogue on options with their long-standing partners (ie you are with us or against us)!!!
sekantVortex,
I both agree and disagree.
I agree with you in the sense that the US is certainly not (by far) the worst offender in permitting the export of nuclear technology that could enable some countries to develop a nuclear capacity. In this domain, Russia, Pakistan (and to an extent China) are much more to blame, together with the French (the difference being however that the French stop contributing to this proliferation in the early 1980s, while the Russians, Pakistanese and Chinese are still at it – and btw, the development of the Israeli nuclear capacity is owed to the French, who build both Dimona (the Israeli nuclear plant) and provided Israel with the Jericho 1 and 2 missiles (Dassault)), before the cooperation was halted by De Gaulle).
I disagree with you however on two counts:
1) when the US reinforces the role of nuclear weapons in its military doctrine (including by saying that it is ready to use nuclear weapons against states that do not possess such weapons) and when it states that it may want to develop new nuclear weapons (so-called mini nukes), it magnifies the role of nuclear weapons for the years to come and put the have-nots at such a disadvantadge that it gives them a strong incentives to develop some capacities. I may also add that considering the superiority of the US in conventional armaments, I fail to understand why the US is willing to take such a risk in magnifying the role of nuclear weapons.
2) I also have to disagree with you when you state that you do not see people in the US openly asking government to “down in Iran”. It takes a different name in the US, it is called “regime change”, and in many circles it is quite virulent.
I also may want to add that for a country like Iran, the question of acquiring a nuclear capacity is not a mere nationalistic issue or one based on self-esteem. If you are willing to see it from their point of view, you can only conclude that it makes sense and is fairly rationale. Two of their biggest neighbors (Pakistan and India) have recently acquired a nuclear capacity. On two other borders, they have a nuclear capable country (the US in Iraq and in Afghanistan) intent on promoting regime change. I am certainly not saying that we should allow Iran to become nuclear, but just stressing that their willingness to get there is not owed to the fact that they are a bunch muslim extremists bent on holding the world to ransom!!!
sekantStupid question, but what is the difference in price between a block 50/52 and a block 60?
sekanthttp://www.larouchepub.com/other/2005/3221conplan_8022.html
The highlight:
I did like this part:
Typical, blaming Bolton for crap he has no control over, and that was developed and put in place before he was invited to the table as a player :rolleyes:
Soc,
I seem to be missing your point.
Whether you approve or disapprove of it (that is another matter), the Bush administration did amend the US nuclear doctrine, starting with the Nuclear Posture Review of 2001, and altered the US position in terms of first use (as far as I can recall, the US renunciation of first use prior to 2001 was seen as a way to support non-proliferation).
Sure, this review was not conducted by the State Department. But it is unlikely that the State Department has not been consulted, and that someone like Bolton in charge of arms control at the State Department did not play a role in this!!!
sekantI thought that the NH90 was a joint venture Eurocopter/Agusta, and not simply a Eurocopter product!!!?!
sekantDoes that mean that the Brazilian are not interested in the second hand Mirages proposed by the French, or is there no link between these two stories??
sekantThe Moldovan army has a few helicopters (Mi-8) and a few transport planes (5 or 6 in total, all of them Antonovs). They used to have (quite a few) Mig-29 that they sold out.
You can see some of these antonovs when you land in Chisinau! As far as I know, the Transnistrians (ie that part of Moldova that seek to breakaway) has not aerial capability (but strong land capacities)!!
sekantIt is not really surprising that governments lobby and apply pressure to sell airplanes. It would however seem to me that such a situation is likely to favour the US rather than the Europeans because a) of the political/strategic weight of the US, and b) of the fact that on the Airbus side the pressure is probably applied by France and Germany, and not the EU as a bloc (airbus only concerns a few European governments, not the 25 countries).
On another note, given that the French have another interests in India, that is the sale of another batch of Mirage 2000-V to the IAF, is it not a bit dangerous for them to go too far in the complaint about foul play!!?
sekantAnd to be a bit more complete, the very same Boeing had a similar engine failure on a flight between Singapore and London, and again continued its flight to its destination (although this time the failure took place three hours into the flight).
sekantAnd to be a bit more complete, the very same Boeing had a similar engine failure on a flight between Singapore and London, and again continued its flight to its destination (although this time the failure took place three hours into the flight).
sekantYep the engine failed after take off, and certainly not after a few hours.
And if I recall the story well, the plane did not make it too its destination (Heathrow), but at to land at Manchester. On three engines only, it flew below its usual flying altitude and consumed more fuel.
As far as I know, the pilots and BA staff in the UK assessed the situation after take off and expected the plance to make it to Heathrow. Somehow, they misjudged the situation.
sekantYep the engine failed after take off, and certainly not after a few hours.
And if I recall the story well, the plane did not make it too its destination (Heathrow), but at to land at Manchester. On three engines only, it flew below its usual flying altitude and consumed more fuel.
As far as I know, the pilots and BA staff in the UK assessed the situation after take off and expected the plance to make it to Heathrow. Somehow, they misjudged the situation.
sekantNo, I’m saying a delay is a delay.
The A380 is delayed… be it by 12 hours or 12 days or 12 months. A delay is a delay.Trying to find out why is exactly why I started this thread ;). Well to discuss the probabilities.
But so far all you’ve tried to say is its not delayed :confused:
Well, you may want to read my post then, because I simply said that a) the press clipping from Dow Jones was not accurate, b) that in reality the delay could be anything from one to six months (and not 6 as the DJ implied), and c) that a six months delay does not have the same meaning as a one month delay (and therefore not the same causes).
sekantNo, I’m saying a delay is a delay.
The A380 is delayed… be it by 12 hours or 12 days or 12 months. A delay is a delay.Trying to find out why is exactly why I started this thread ;). Well to discuss the probabilities.
But so far all you’ve tried to say is its not delayed :confused:
Well, you may want to read my post then, because I simply said that a) the press clipping from Dow Jones was not accurate, b) that in reality the delay could be anything from one to six months (and not 6 as the DJ implied), and c) that a six months delay does not have the same meaning as a one month delay (and therefore not the same causes).
Sign In
