Politics

kbd512 · 2016-03-11 15:04:06

Terraformer wrote:

Er what? You want to make nukes a weapon of first resort when it comes to warfare?

There is no winning a ground war in the Middle East.

Your options are:

1. Don't fight them. Pacifism never seems to work very well when people are trying to kill you.

2. Endlessly exchange jabs with them the way Israel does. They kill one of your guys and you kill one of their guys. This strategy is not favorable for us. We're outnumbered.

3. Nuke the little bastards and be done with it.

Terraformer wrote:

We're seeing what happens when you decide to take out "terrorists" from afar without any ground troops, right now. It's... not very popular among the collateral damage.

Screw popularity. War isn't popular. That's why you don't engage in war unless you absolutely have to.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-12 06:15:54

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom: You forgot the budget for protection from flying pink elephants.

For Ukraine it wasn't a joke! They are a smaller country now because they wanted to be cheap on Defense! Poland in 1939 spent too little on its national defense, and look what happened to it and six million Jews!

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-12 06:34:18

Terraformer wrote:

Er what? You want to make nukes a weapon of first resort when it comes to warfare?
We're seeing what happens when you decide to take out "terrorists" from afar without any ground troops, right now. It's... not very popular among the collateral damage.

I'd like to be able to have a conventional military to defeat the Enemy, and use our nuclear arsenal to convince that same enemy not to use nuclear weapons while we are defeating them with our conventional military. An example of such an Enemy would be North Korea.

We could for instance defeat North Korea with our conventional military. If North Korea threatens to use nuclear weapons, we can point out to them that we have more, and if they used them on us, they would surely die, and then we will tell them that we are not convinced that they would rather die if they can't conquer South Korea I do not believe the leader of North Korea is suicidal, we can call their bluff and point out to them that their is a worse fate than being defeated by the United States in a conventional military conflict.

1) We are not Genghis Khan, we have a past record of being merciful with our defeated enemies and even spending money to help the recover after the war and put them back on their feet. If North Korea is defeated by the United States and South Korea, Korea will be united and a single country, North Korea cities will be rebuild and most North Koreas will live.

2) If North Korea uses nukes against us, there is no telling what we will do after that, North Korea clearly does not have enough nukes to destroy us in a first strike, so their will certainly be nuclear retaliation, and after that, who knows, after losing millions of our citizens in a first strike by North Korea, there is no telling how that will affect our body politic, we might become "Genghis Khan" as a result. The North Koreas might become "devils" to us, we might not distinguish between North Korean citizens and their government - which might be destroyed in our first retaliatory strike anyway. Americans who have lost friends and relatives due to North Korea's nuclear attack, might not be in any mood to distinguish between the North Korean communist government and what it did to us, and the common North Korea citizen, that "allowed" the same North Korean government to rule them for so many years. In short the American body politic, after such a loss, might want revenge!

North Korea doesn't want to be facing a vengeful United States, that they just nuked, believe me. I think they would just be better off, leaving those nuclear missiles in their silos, and we will likely do the same. We need a large conventional budget to have a conventional military capable of defeating them without resorting to nukes. Our nukes are just to prevent the North Koreans from using theirs using the logic I outlined above.

RobertDyck · 2016-03-12 10:53:18

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

RobertDyck wrote:
Tom: You forgot the budget for protection from flying pink elephants.
For Ukraine it wasn't a joke! They are a smaller country now because they wanted to be cheap on Defense! Poland in 1939 spent too little on its national defense, and look what happened to it and six million Jews!

Bullshit. They wanted to keep nuclear weapons on ballistic missiles, the ones stationed in their country when they were part of the Soviet Union. Russia demanded those weapons given to them, Ukraine refused. Ukraine held those weapons as defence from invasion by Russia. But president Bill Clinton was worried of nuclear proliferation, so demanded that Ukraine surrender their nuclear weapons. After long negotiation, Ukraine agreed to destroy them. They still wouldn't give the weapons to Russia, but the warheads were dismantled, fissile material given to Russia. The missiles were destroyed, a bulldozer drove over the metal tube of the missile. Video of that was played by international news. Ukraine only agreed to this upon commitment by the United States that it would defend Ukraine if Russia invaded. Well, Russia did invade. So what are you doing? Stop blaming Ukraine, and start blaming your own government.

I think you can now understand why Putin threatened nuclear war if the United States does send troops onto Ukrainian soil. Ukraine is not weak, and did not underspend on military. It would be more accurate to call Ukraine a pawn. Russia accused the United States of sending the CIA into Ukraine to stir up trouble, to incite them to separate from Russia. Actually that ignores a lot of history. We could discuss detailed history of Ukraine, but let's keep this to the point. Donbass is a region that covers part of the oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk. Donbass is rich in resources, primarily iron ore and coal, but also small deposits of gold, silver, copper, manganese, nickel. There are also small deposits of oil and natural gas, although those were depleted during the Soviet era. Iron has been mined, smelted, and manufactured into tanks, other heavy military equipment, and ammunition. It's a key part of the Russian military industrial complex. Russia cannot afford to lose it. Attempting to take it from Russia is a threat to Russia's military. There are other, larger deposits of iron ore in Russia, and larger deposits of coal, but this region has both in one place. And during the Soviet era, government propaganda promised rich civilian goods for the entire Soviet Union from this place. Putin grew up during the Soviet Union, he would have been immersed in the propaganda that Donbass is key to the wealth of the Soviet economy. Putin has made public statements that he will defend Russia's economy, this confirms that conclusion.

Resolution to Ukraine has only two possible outcomes: World War 3, or peaceful trade. Ukrainian people remember Holodomor, they won't just return to the Russian sphere of influence. I suggest trade. That is, allow east Ukraine to continue to sell tanks, ammunition, and military equipment to Russia. Putin wants to create a Eurasian Union, modelled on the EU but with former members of the Soviet Union. The question of whether Ukraine joins the Eurasian Union or the EU was the issue of Maidan. I suggest Ukraine become an associate member of the Eurasian Union, but not a full member. And at the same time a full member of the EU. Putin won't stand for Ukraine joining NATO, and members of the Ukrainian government have said they accept reality that they won't. However, Ukraine desperately wants to join EU. So my suggestion would give Putin what he wants, and the Ukrainian people what they want. Those in east Ukraine fighting a revolutionary war for their jobs, can keep their jobs. Everyone's happy, no more fighting.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-12 11:34:59

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
RobertDyck wrote:
Tom: You forgot the budget for protection from flying pink elephants.
For Ukraine it wasn't a joke! They are a smaller country now because they wanted to be cheap on Defense! Poland in 1939 spent too little on its national defense, and look what happened to it and six million Jews!
Bullshit. They wanted to keep nuclear weapons on ballistic missiles, the ones stationed in their country when they were part of the Soviet Union. Russia demanded those weapons given to them, Ukraine refused. Ukraine held those weapons as defence from invasion by Russia. But president Bill Clinton was worried of nuclear proliferation, so demanded that Ukraine surrender their nuclear weapons. After long negotiation, Ukraine agreed to destroy them. They still wouldn't give the weapons to Russia, but the warheads were dismantled, fissile material given to Russia. The missiles were destroyed, a bulldozer drove over the metal tube of the missile. Video of that was played by international news. Ukraine only agreed to this upon commitment by the United States that it would defend Ukraine if Russia invaded. Well, Russia did invade. So what are you doing? Stop blaming Ukraine, and start blaming your own government.

They were suckers to trust someone like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama weren't they! Besides, a sitting president can't promise that a future president will honor the agreement, and the Ukrainians were fools to trust that they would! Defense of the country was the Ukrainian government's responsibility, they should not have delegated it to the United States! Barack Obama is answerable to his own voters, Ukrainians don't vote in US elections, so a politician can feel free to betray Ukraine if it suits him! This will of course make it more difficult to convince future states to give up their nuclear weapons, if they can't trust the United States to fulfill its obligations, lets say for instance Siberia breaks away from a crumbling Russia or Manchuria breaks away from China. This will only in the end encourage nuclear proliferation, since Obama, has just demonstrated to them that they can't trust the United States. Now I didn't vote for Obama, so its not my fault. You can't blame the United States collectively, you can only blame those leaders responsible for foreign policy, and those voters who elected them!

I think you can now understand why Putin threatened nuclear war if the United States does send troops onto Ukrainian soil. Ukraine is not weak, and did not underspend on military.

If Ukraine did not underspend, then Russia would have been repulsed or Putin would have been deterred, he was not, so therefore Ukraine did not spend enough!

It would be more accurate to call Ukraine a pawn.

Who decided to allow Ukraine to be a pawn? it was the Ukrainian government! They should not have trusted us and should have kept their nukes, all future countries in this situation should take note. It was Obama's policy not to honor our agreement to protect Ukraine's border, now future countries will not trust us because of what Obama has done!

Russia accused the United States of sending the CIA into Ukraine to stir up trouble, to incite them to separate from Russia.

Ukraine is already a separate country from Russia, it became such when the Soviet Union broke up, what Ukraine is resisting is Russia's attempt to take it or part of its territory back, that is called stealing!

Actually that ignores a lot of history. We could discuss detailed history of Ukraine, but let's keep this to the point. Donbass is a region that covers part of the oblasts of Donetsk and Luhansk. Donbass is rich in resources, primarily iron ore and coal, but also small deposits of gold, silver, copper, manganese, nickel.

Any of those resources worth a nuclear war or World War III? Are those resources so precious that they are worth the lives of millions of citizens living in American, and Russian cities, is it worth a nuclear war to obtain those resources, will it compensate Russia for the loss of half its population to nuclear war, and tell me how would it do that? Cause we know that Russia is so "poor" in resources now! Russia is after all, a tiny resource poor third world country, who's only recourse is to invade other countries to plunder their resources.

There are also small deposits of oil and natural gas, although those were depleted during the Soviet era. Iron has been mined, smelted, and manufactured into tanks, other heavy military equipment, and ammunition. It's a key part of the Russian military industrial complex. Russia cannot afford to lose it.

Oh really? Can it afford a nuclear war? How many Russian citizens are willing to die for those resources?

Attempting to take it from Russia is a threat to Russia's military. There are other, larger deposits of iron ore in Russia, and larger deposits of coal, but this region has both in one place. And during the Soviet era, government propaganda promised rich civilian goods for the entire Soviet Union from this place. Putin grew up during the Soviet Union, he would have been immersed in the propaganda that Donbass is key to the wealth of the Soviet economy. Putin has made public statements that he will defend Russia's economy, this confirms that conclusion.

What was he willing to give up in exchange for that land? He is willing to sacrifice countless Russian lives for the meatgrinder, he is willing to risk nuclear war, by adopting an aggressive foreign policy, but he is not willing to trade with Ukraine for them at a much lower cost. Do you really think that Ukraine would not have traded with Russia and sold those resources to them if they asked nicely? Why does Russia always have to steal instead of trade? they could easily have bought coal and iron from Ukraine. Ukraine had no reason not to sell it to them until they invaded, but now Russia's economy is shrinking because Putin wanted to be a "bad boy!"

Resolution to Ukraine has only two possible outcomes: World War 3, or peaceful trade.

Peaceful trade was taken off the table when Putin decided to invade, he chose World War 3 by invading, if he wants to back off, he can still pull his troops out of Ukraine and compensate Ukraine for damages, but I have not heard him proposing that!

Ukrainian people remember Holodomor, they won't just return to the Russian sphere of influence. I suggest trade. That is, allow east Ukraine to continue to sell tanks, ammunition, and military equipment to Russia.

Seems Putin got off to a bad start by invading Ukraine, if he wanted a good relationship with Ukraine, he should not have started a war with them!

Putin wants to create a Eurasian Union, modelled on the EU but with former members of the Soviet Union.

Problem is, they want to be members of the EU, not something created by Russia! Russia just doesn't know how to play nice, it always makes demands, it never tries to sell anything, it always makes threats and points a gun at people's heads either figuratively or literally. Russia is a rude country which does not respect other country's right to exist!

With trade their is give and take, Russia doesn't know how to give, it only knows how to take! Maybe once Russia learns how to behave better, it can establish trade relationships with other countries. I wish Putin would stop being such a man-child!

The question of whether Ukraine joins the Eurasian Union or the EU was the issue of Maidan.

There is nothing in it for Ukraine to join Russia's Eurasian Union, their is only something in it for Russia, Russia threatens and makes demands! Putin is a poor salesman, he is more of a bandit!

I suggest Ukraine become an associate member of the Eurasian Union, but not a full member. And at the same time a full member of the EU. Putin won't stand for Ukraine joining NATO, and members of the Ukrainian government have said they accept reality that they won't.

I think maybe Putin should stop acting like he is Emperor of the World and start trying to establish trade relations with other countries instead of threatening them with invasion or nuclear weapons. We can't trade with a barbarian! What Russia needs to do is learn to act civilized, and stop being so rude and imperialistic!

However, Ukraine desperately wants to join EU. So my suggestion would give Putin what he wants, and the Ukrainian people what they want. Those in east Ukraine fighting a revolutionary war for their jobs, can keep their jobs. Everyone's happy, no more fighting.

If they love Russia so much, they can pack their bags and go to Russia and live under a dictator. Russia does not get their land however, and we should not recognize Russia's "Right" to take other countries land. If Russia wants to start a nuclear war over this, then we can all die! I am not prepared to accept Putin as Emperor of the World as the price to keep on living! Russia won't get what it wants through threats, they are not the only ones with nuclear weapons. The can live in peace and deal squarely and fairly with other nations or we can all die! Those are the only two choices. If we give in to Putin, he will only want more, and that will push us close to nuclear war if he does not get what he wants!

RobertDyck · 2016-03-12 14:28:01

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

They were suckers to trust someone like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama

International treaties are signed between one country and another country. Not with one individual. The treaty was with the United States of America, not Bill Clinton. This does mean no one can trust the United States for anything. I could go on about other examples of the United States blatantly violating treaties. The United States has a very long and horrifying tradition of violating treaties.

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

If Ukraine did not underspend, then Russia would have been repulsed or Putin would have been deterred, he was not, so therefore Ukraine did not spend enough!

Russia was half of the population of the Soviet Union, and most of the land area. They inherited most of the former Soviet military might. They're one of the world's two superpowers. Diminished due to breakup of the Soviet Union, but still a major power. You seriously expecting a little country like Ukraine to go toe-to-toe with a recovering former superpower? Would you expect a kindergarten martial arts student to defeat a current heavy weight boxing contender?

I'm not going to respond point-to-point because your points demonstrate ignorance and arrogance. Treat others with respect, because failure to do so will create trouble. Good Christian value: Treat others as you would have others great you. And from Russian perspective, they didn't start this. America chose to court countries of their sphere of influence. All countries of the former Warsaw Pact other than the Soviet Union itself are now full members of NATO. Russian military generals and government officials were very annoyed at this. But it didn't stop there, former republics of the Soviet Union itself became full members: the Baltic states. Then Bill Clinton started talking with Georgia about joining NATO. From Russia's perspective, that was too far. That had to be stopped. Putin played games, signed a treaty with the United States that had a hidden loophole. Used that loophole to invade Georgia, ensured they stated within Russia's influence. All this was before Ukraine. Ukraine had control of Crimea, which had Russia's only all-season navy ports. That was a major threat.

And don't think Ukraine is homogeneous. They have people of many ethnic backgrounds, and many different political ideas. There are Americans here who have different political ideas, so why would you expect Ukraine to be different? Many of the citizens in east Ukraine are ethnically Russia, speak the Russian language, watch Russia TV, and work in factories that produce military equipment for Russia. Why would you expect them to want to join EU? They want to be part of Putin's Eurasian Union. America used to have voters for the various political parties evenly mixed, but recent decades have seen people move to states with similar views. This has resulted in Red States and Blue States. However, Ukraine's Red vs Blue & Yellow oblasts are an order of degree greater.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-12 19:52:14

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
They were suckers to trust someone like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama
International treaties are signed between one country and another country. Not with one individual. The treaty was with the United States of America, not Bill Clinton. This does mean no one can trust the United States for anything. I could go on about other examples of the United States blatantly violating treaties. The United States has a very long and horrifying tradition of violating treaties.
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
If Ukraine did not underspend, then Russia would have been repulsed or Putin would have been deterred, he was not, so therefore Ukraine did not spend enough!
Russia was half of the population of the Soviet Union, and most of the land area. They inherited most of the former Soviet military might. They're one of the world's two superpowers. Diminished due to breakup of the Soviet Union, but still a major power. You seriously expecting a little country like Ukraine to go toe-to-toe with a recovering former superpower? Would you expect a kindergarten martial arts student to defeat a current heavy weight boxing contender?

Germany did! Ukraine should have been so heavily armed that it would have cost the Russian Bear dear to stick its nose where it didn't belong! Sides nukes are cheap, it would not be worth while for Russia to go messing around with even a small nuclear power. and their should be other social costs for the Russians if they go smash and grab with their European neighbors! We can't trade with bandit nations that just steal, and have no respect for the sovereignty of their neighbors! You know Canada is in a similar position relative to the United States that Ukraine is to Russia, you should thank God that we don't have someone like Putin running the United States. Russia is a bad example for us to follow, you shouldn't encourage it. The US could smash and grab Cuba, it could take over Mexico and Canada. If this is not acceptable behavior for the United States, why should it be acceptable for Russia?

I'm not going to respond point-to-point because your points demonstrate ignorance and arrogance. Treat others with respect, because failure to do so will create trouble.

That is what I ask the Russians to do, and they aren't! Invading another country or threatening them with X,Y, and Z. Unless they join the Eurasian Union isn't very respectful.

Good Christian value: Treat others as you would have others great you. And from Russian perspective, they didn't start this.

Russian troops are there, fighting with the Ukraine Armed forces, and Ukraine didn't invade Russia, so who did start it? If it is Ethnic Russians they are concerned with, they should take them with them and leave! The do not get to hold on to territory that isn't theirs!

America chose to court countries of their sphere of influence. All countries of the former Warsaw Pact other than the Soviet Union itself are now full members of NATO. Russian military generals and government officials were very annoyed at this.

Do you believe in slavery? Does Russia own the Ukrainians? Do they get to tell them what they can join and participate in? Either Ukraine is an independent country or its a colony of Russia, so which one is it? And how much do the Russians want for Ukraine's Freedom? I can't believe we are dealing with countries that deal in slavery! I thought that was supposed to have ended with the Civil War!

But it didn't stop there, former republics of the Soviet Union itself became full members: the Baltic states.

that is irrelevant, they are former members, so they can do what they want, they are not slaves!

Then Bill Clinton started talking with Georgia about joining NATO. From Russia's perspective, that was too far.

Why? Are they slaves? Are they supposed to be "pickin cotton" for the Russians, are they allowed to read and write? Do they need overseers to make them work?

That had to be stopped. Putin played games, signed a treaty with the United States that had a hidden loophole. Used that loophole to invade Georgia, ensured they stated within Russia's influence. All this was before Ukraine. Ukraine had control of Crimea, which had Russia's only all-season navy ports. That was a major threat.

Lets not mince words, the Russians considered the Georgians to be their personal property, and they wanted their slaves back, "sphere of influence" is just a euphemism for slavery. Do you accept that humans can legitimately be someone else's property? The United States has influence, it can be persuasive, using economic levers, it rarely ever uses military force! And the United States doesn't always get its way either, and it doesn't invade other countries when it doesn't either! When Russia says either you do this or else or don't do this or else, that is not a sphere of influence, that is a threat! Russia has no real friends, so it has no sphere of influence, it has people who are afraid of them, and may do stuff to avoid an invasion, but that is not really a sphere of influence. Maybe Russia would have more friends and real allies if it weren't such a bully!

And don't think Ukraine is homogeneous. They have people of many ethnic backgrounds, and many different political ideas.

That is what Czechoslovakia had, and that was Hitler's excuse for an invasion, to save his precious ethnic Germans of the Sudetenland!

There are Americans here who have different political ideas, so why would you expect Ukraine to be different?

Yes many countries have their "Benedict Arnolds" I live in Connecticut, Benedict Arnold was a resident of my state, and he betrayed the country, because in the end, he would rather be British! When his plot was foiled, he moved to Britain, and didn't take any American territory with him! Why do you think any pro-Russians should be entitled to take any Ukrainian land with them to Russia, when Benedict Arnold was unable to deliver any of the 13 colonies to the British Empire? Many people in the colonies had mixed loyalties as well, the ones that didn't want to be Americans left, so to should the pro-Russians living in Ukraine!

Many of the citizens in east Ukraine are ethnically Russia, speak the Russian language, watch Russia TV, and work in factories that produce military equipment for Russia. Why would you expect them to want to join EU?

Because they are Europeans. Why should they be different from other Europeans simply because they are Russians?

They want to be part of Putin's Eurasian Union.

The Eurasian Union has only one country that really wants to be a member. Would you like the United States making Canada an offer to join the United States that it couldn't refuse? How would you feel about that? I'll bet there are some Pro-Americans who really wouldn't mind Canada becoming the next ten states of the United States, maybe not a majority, but do their opinions matter? The Soviet Union wasn't a voluntary union either, it was held together by force!

America used to have voters for the various political parties evenly mixed, but recent decades have seen people move to states with similar views. This has resulted in Red States and Blue States. However, Ukraine's Red vs Blue & Yellow oblasts are an order of degree greater.
http://www.theodora.com/flags/new5/ussr-t.gif http://www.theodora.com/flags/new4/ukraine-t.gif

That's nothing new, there was something called the Confederate South, where states of one particular region rebelled against the United States because their geographic region dictated their interest in keeping slavery legal. The reason their are red and blue states, is because rural people value individual liberty, more than the city dweller who demands social goods. Cities have a lot of services that are run by the government, the concentration of people allowed for subways, buses and other services, rural areas do not, they just like low taxes, their is little the government can do for them other than to keep the highways repaired.

RobertDyck · 2016-03-13 01:03:13

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

you should thank God that we don't have someone like Putin running the United States.

You may soon.
MSNBC: Escalating aggression marks Trump's rally rhetoric

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

"sphere of influence" is just a euphemism for slavery

In 1983 Ronald Regan invaded Grenada. They had been a colony of Britain. In the early 1970s there was discussion of independence. Some citizens were worried their Governor would become president, and he would be corrupt. They prepared a referendum with 3 options: remain a colony, independence, or join Canada. The Canadian government told them they wouldn't accept Grenada. I'm told the Canadian government at the time was worried the world would see Canada as expansionist. So Grenada became independent, their governor did become president, and he was corrupt. It took years to get rid of him. The new president was just as corrupt. So they held a revolution. However, they chose communism. Ronald Regan didn't like that, so he invaded. Regan say the Caribbean as America's sphere of influence. He didn't want to see a British colony in the Caribbean become communist. The US Senate forbade invasion. The Constitution of the US of A says Congress has authority to declare war. The president runs the war once stated, but Congress decides whether to start war. But Ronald Regan ordered US troops to invade anyway. It was all over before the Senate could stop it.

Regan asked Canada to participate in the invasion, but Canada was not about to invade a country that just asked to join us. If we wanted to dictate their form of government or their constitution, we would have accepted them as a province. Then they would be governed by our Constitution, and our federal laws. But Canada was obligated to do something due to the alliance. So Canada did not send troops, but we did send the RCMP (Canada's federal police) to clean up the mess after the US invasion was over.

So don't get "holier than thou", the US does it too.

Tom, your 40-something, right? You may not have lived through the height of the Cold War, but you did live through the tail end of it. I was a preschooler in the 1960s, and grade school in the 1970s. My high school held Career Day when I was in grade 10. One table was a military recruitment officer, a female lieutenant. I was worried that a Soviet ICBM was aimed at my city. Winnipeg has street "routes", created in the 1950s to evacuate the city. I asked her about that, and how much damage a 20-megaton nuclear bomb would do. Traffic jams at rush hour every day, what are the chances the city could evacuate and cars get far enough away? She said the Soviets probably don't have a big one aimed at us, they probably have 3 smaller ones: 1 megaton each. She suggested the airport with its attached Air Force base, the big rail switching yard, and downtown. In the 1970s, the US built an Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system. Targeting wasn't so good in those days, so they were armed with small nuclear warheads. They were deployed to defend American ICBM silos in North Dakota, but those American nukes would detonate in mid-air a few miles south of my city. It doesn't matter if I'm blown up by a Russian nuke, or irradiated by an American one. Either way I'm dead. I literally live in the crossfire.

I attended my first peace rally with my girlfriend at the time. In the early 1980s when I was in university. We rallied to get the government to stop make peace. In the age of nuclear weapons, no one can win. The way to avoid losing is don't fight. The Cold War did end, after decades of rallies, we won. Now military contractors are working hard to get it going again.

Tom, all your chest-pounding testosterone driven alpha male dominance crap is threatening to the entire world. Please knock it off.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-13 06:35:37

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
you should thank God that we don't have someone like Putin running the United States.
You may soon.
MSNBC: Escalating aggression marks Trump's rally rhetoric
Tom Kalbfus wrote:
"sphere of influence" is just a euphemism for slavery
In 1983 Ronald Regan invaded Grenada. They had been a colony of Britain. In the early 1970s there was discussion of independence. Some citizens were worried their Governor would become president, and he would be corrupt. They prepared a referendum with 3 options: remain a colony, independence, or join Canada. The Canadian government told them they wouldn't accept Grenada. I'm told the Canadian government at the time was worried the world would see Canada as expansionist.

Why wouldn't Canada want an island in the Caribbean, considering how cold it is? Also expansionism is when a country invades to add territory. If a Caribbean island asks to join Canada of its own free will, that is not expansionism, that is without a gun pointed at its head or an "or else!"

So Grenada became independent, their governor did become president, and he was corrupt. It took years to get rid of him. The new president was just as corrupt. So they held a revolution. However, they chose communism.

And the Communist system is corrupt, it is designed that way.

Ronald Regan didn't like that, so he invaded.

The problem is, Communism is inherently expansionistic, people who choose to be Communists, don't just choose it for themselves, they also choose it for other people as well, people who don't want it! Why do you think they were building such a large runway for the Soviets? The people of Grenada weren't ready for independence, neither were the people of Cuba, because they chose Communism, and Communism didn't give them a choice after that. The problem with Great Britain is that they gave too many of their colonies independence before they were ready for it. Why would an island as small as Grenada want independence anyway? Do you think such a small island could pay for its own defense? I think it was too small to be a viable country. The United States has all sorts of islands like that, The Marshall Islands, Guam, Puerto Rico etc. Why would Grenada want independence? Because some governor wanted to be a "big fish in a little pond" that's why, he wanted the ability to violate his citizens human and civil rights, and as part of the British Empire, he wouldn't be allowed to do that, so he tried to sell his people on Independence, but as history has shown, independence is not the same thing as freedom. Some people run away from freedom, some people want to be drones, and once they are drones, those that command them will order them to try an make other people into drones as well! That is why Ronald Reagan invaded, and also to stop the Soviets from having another "drone colony" in the Caribbean, Cuba was bad enough!

Regan say the Caribbean as America's sphere of influence. He didn't want to see a British colony in the Caribbean become communist. The US Senate forbade invasion.
The Constitution of the US of A says Congress has authority to declare war. The president runs the war once stated, but Congress decides whether to start war. But Ronald Regan ordered US troops to invade anyway. It was all over before the Senate could stop it.

By the way, it was Reagan, not Regan, Regan was his Chief of Staff. I think a country's right to self-determination ends when its citizens get turned into drones and they threaten other people's self-determination with the threat of invasion. The rights of Grenada had to be weighed against the rights of Grenada's neighbors to be free, and Grenada was threatening that by volunteering to become an air base for the Soviets. There are some people who don't want to be free, they like being dictated to, the only problem with that is they are often ordered to threaten the freedom of others who do want to be free. My problem is not with the Grenadians wanting to be slaves, it was who they wanted to be slaves to, that was the problem. Some people just aren't responsible enough, nor are they willing to make their own decisions, they are happy to be drones for someone else, and as long as that someone else was Great Britain, and not the Soviet Union, it wasn't a problem, but the moment they started acting in the interests of the expansionist Soviet Union, they were a problem!

Regan asked Canada to participate in the invasion, but Canada was not about to invade a country that just asked to join us. If we wanted to dictate their form of government or their constitution, we would have accepted them as a province.

Having the Soviets dictate to them isn't any better, its worse. Perhaps all the people should have simply been moved off the island. Having people on an island that want to be drones and want to be dictated to, is certainly a problem. Perhaps they should have simply been resettled in Canada, then we wouldn't have this security problem at all!

The fact that they chose Communism indicates that they did not want to be free, and if they don't want to be free, then they don't get a choice or get to choose masters. People who don't want to be free threaten others that do!

Then they would be governed by our Constitution, and our federal laws. But Canada was obligated to do something due to the alliance. So Canada did not send troops, but we did send the RCMP (Canada's federal police) to clean up the mess after the US invasion was over.

But the Ukrainians do want to be free, and they are a big enough nation to be responsible for their own defense, they don't want to buzz like Communist bees! The Russians are not respecting their rights to be free and independent with their own territory. Just because their are some people in the Caribbean who are sick and don't want to be free, doesn't give the Russians the right to invade, occupy, and annex parts of Ukraine. The Grenadians sickness are their own problem, it has nothing to do with Ukraine wanting to be free and independent of Russia, and Russia has no right to tell them otherwise. If they want, we can give them Grenada instead, then the Grenadians can be happy bees, under their "Queen Putin" buzz buzz!

So don't get "holier than thou", the US does it too.
Tom, your 40-something, right? You may not have lived through the height of the Cold War, but you did live through the tail end of it. I was a preschooler in the 1960s, and grade school in the 1970s. My high school held Career Day when I was in grade 10. One table was a military recruitment officer, a female lieutenant. I was worried that a Soviet ICBM was aimed at my city. Winnipeg has street "routes", created in the 1950s to evacuate the city. I asked her about that, and how much damage a 20-megaton nuclear bomb would do. Traffic jams at rush hour every day, what are the chances the city could evacuate and cars get far enough away? She said the Soviets probably don't have a big one aimed at us, they probably have 3 smaller ones: 1 megaton each. She suggested the airport with its attached Air Force base, the big rail switching yard, and downtown. In the 1970s, the US built an Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system. Targeting wasn't so good in those days, so they were armed with small nuclear warheads. They were deployed to defend American ICBM silos in North Dakota, but those American nukes would detonate in mid-air a few miles south of my city. It doesn't matter if I'm blown up by a Russian nuke, or irradiated by an American one. Either way I'm dead. I literally live in the crossfire.

Actually if you are blown up, you are dead immediately, one can survive irradiation, it is not the same as being blown up. You are not automatically dead if you are irradiated. I assumed those ABMs detonated in space, I didn't think they were to destroy Soviet cruise missiles flying through the atmosphere. If a nuke is detonated in space, you would get EMP, but the atmosphere would stop the irradiation that would harm you. Any way those systems were designed to deter, so the Soviets wouldn't be tempted to start a war in the first place.

I attended my first peace rally with my girlfriend at the time. In the early 1980s when I was in university. We rallied to get the government to stop make peace. In the age of nuclear weapons, no one can win. The way to avoid losing is don't fight. The Cold War did end, after decades of rallies, we won. Now military contractors are working hard to get it going again.

The "peace rallies" did nothing to stop the Cold War, you could have had peace rallies until you were blue in the face, all they did was encourage the Soviets to get aggressive, and to question our will to defend ourselves from them. They were waiting for those peace groups to take control of our government and then disarm, so they could then invade, it didn't happen in time before the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its failed economic system. the fact is the Cold War ended because the Soviets could no longer afford to wage it, it became apparent that the World was not going to fall into their hands, and they would not get to rule it, and their military preparations to take over were costing them, they could not persuade the United States to disarm, Obama came too late for them! But during Obama's term, The Russians began itching to take other people's countries over again. This is what a so called 'Pacifist' President will get you. Peace rallies bring war, that is what we found out in the 1930s, they did nothing but encourage Hitler to invade and build his Empire, now Putin wants to do the same, because of Obama and his pacifist policies. Under George Bush, Putin was better behaved, but he felt he could get away with more while Obama was President, that is why the second Cold War started under his Administration. Wars generally start when their is a perceived power imbalance by the stronger side. The stronger side is tempted to invade and build his empire so it can have more power, that is what the Russians are doing now! Unilateral disarmament causes wars!

Tom, all your chest-pounding testosterone driven alpha male dominance crap is threatening to the entire world. Please knock it off.

I liked World better Under George Bush, it was much more peaceful. What Obama has done is not an improvement.

Last edited by Tom Kalbfus (2016-03-13 07:24:56)

RobertDyck · 2016-03-13 12:47:31

I have tried to be non-partisan, but your arguments illustrate the need for mental health. George W. Bush invaded Iraq. His excuse was "they tried to attack my Daddy". Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. George W. was talking about the Persian Gulf war of 1991, when the US tried to target Saddam Hussein. Did Hussein think of doing the same to George Bush Sr.? Probably, it was war, but I didn't even hear of an attempt to do so. That was long over, Hussein lost, invading again does not make sense. And NATO offered to defend the US under the clause that states when one member is attacked, all must defend. George W. said no, he wanted to form his own ad-hoc coalitions. Just because that's what his Daddy did. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Invading Iraq again created a new mess that still isn't over. Destabilizing Iraq is one of the reasons for ISIS.

But Obama hasn't been much of a dove. Despite the fact George W. increased military spending to levels guaranteed to cause the banking collapse of 2008, the first budget approved by Obama increased it further! And Obama has authorized more drone attacks than all previous presidents combined. Going back to invention of drones.

Let's take a step back and look at it from a sane perspective. Al Qaeda was a non-government organization concerned that the US was using assassination to control their region of the world the way an empire does. They got active when the Soviet Union collapsed and the US bragged it was the only remaining superpower, some even claimed the US was an uber-power. That sort of claim is extremely dangerous, someone will knock you off your pedestal. I was not expecting a non-government organization like Al Qaeda to try, but they did. There were escalating terrorist attacks. President Bill Clinton sent a B-52 to bomb their training camp. When they moved to a cave, he sent a cruise missile into the cave. If they were legitimate criminals, then arrest them. But he didn't. Stop and think: what's the difference between a truck bomb vs a B-52 or cruise missile? Nothing. Just the cost of the delivery vehicle. Bill Clinton used terrorist tactics on the terrorists. Doing so simply justified their tactics. Killing them this way created martyrs that could be used to recruit more. Each time they recruited more than they lost. Attacking Al Qaeda this way simply made them larger and stronger. First truck bombs, then attacks on US embassies, the USS Cole, then 9/11. None of that would have happened if you sent police to arrest them instead of justifying their tactics. They attacked outside the Arab world *AFTER* American forces attacked them. If you don't have jurisdiction to arrest, then stay the hell out!

ABM: a shock wave does not propagate in vacuum. So that means the nuclear explosion has to occur inside the atmosphere for it to work. So no, it wouldn't happen in space. No, it wouldn't be just EMP. Detonating a nuclear warhead where it can actually destroy an incoming ICBM will be within the atmosphere, and radiation from that explosion will fall out to the ground below.

Caribbean: Many of us would like an island in the Caribbean. The US has Hawaii, so if some Caribbean island wants to join Canada, why not? Several islands have expressed desire to do so. But our government never got it together. Saying "yes" to an island that came to us is not the same as invading. I don't see why anyone would be threatened by that. But Canada has its share of politicians best described as brain dead.

But the largest current issue is budget. Ronald Regan baited the Soviet Union into a game of chicken. Military overspending: let's see who's economy collapses further. It worked, and better than anyone could have hoped. But if you're in a game of chicken, if you drive a car at fill speed toward the edge of the cliff and see your opponent's car go over the cliff, you don't continue to speed toward the cliff. You stop. Continuing toward the cliff is just stupid. America went over the cliff in year 2008 (banking system collapse). Europe and China rescued you, towed your metaphorical car back to the top of the cliff. Once you're safe, you don't speed back toward the cliff edge again!

Last edited by RobertDyck (2016-03-13 19:23:07)

GW Johnson · 2016-03-13 13:52:30

Osama bin Laden and some others were in the professional terrorist training business for decades before all this blew up in Iraq. These are people who mis-use a religious creed to recruit fighters, including suicide bombers. Actually, they trained a bunch of IRA terrorists in Libya some decades ago.

Long ago, those terrorist training camps were located out of sight in rural locations, in multiple countries. The most notable were Afghanistan and Libya, but there were many others. This was before the need to hide behind human shields, and it was still the case at the time of the 9-11-01 attacks and the invasion of Afghanistan. They could have been nuked back then with minimal collateral damage. But no longer.

Decades before, during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, there were rag-tag groups of "freedom fighters" who used to be bandit gangs fighting each other, that allied together against the Soviets. Bin Laden and his Al Qaeda bunch jumped into this and became the leaders of the resistance to the Soviets. Our CIA supplied them with weapons and logistics, but it was a losing fight, even with US-supplied Stinger MPADS.

The situation was desert country: you could shoot down a jet or helo, but your missile smoke trail marked the bush you were hiding behind. Your victim's wingmen then killed you. The Soviets had more aircraft than there were Mujahadeen. 1-for-1 was a losing proposition for the Mujahadeen.

They approached their CIA suppliers, who went to their favorite contractors to solve this problem. I worked for one at the time. Two of us at that contractor dreamed up the decoy rocket that could be remotely launched, drawing the wingmen together where all the aircraft could be shot down at once, from a different set of bushes. It worked: a year or two after CIA gave them our decoy (yep, I helped invent that), the Soviets left Afghanistan, because the kill ratio went lopsidely in favor of the Mujahadeen.

Now, as Paul Harvey used to say, here is the rest of the story: the man the CIA gave these decoys to was "our man in Afghanistan", none other than Osama bin Laden.

Believing at least a little in his own twisted version of religion-as-a-recruiting-tool, bin Laden got pissed off at the US for having troops based in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Gulf War. His family, who had close ties to Bush 41 and his family, disowned Osama when he started attacking the US. That's where the USS Cole, the embassy bombings, the 1993 WTC attempt, and the 2001 WTC/Pentagon attacks all fit in. Bin Laden did as much for profit as a terrorist leader and trainer, as he did for hatred of the US.

And Bush 41 left Saddam in charge of Iraq after the Gulf War precisely because he needed Saddam and his Iraq as a check on Iran. Who the hell do you think gave Saddam the chemical and nerve gas weapons he used on Iran in the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war? It was CIA! 6 leftovers from that, complete with "made in USA" stamped on the warheads, were the only WMD's ever found in Iraq after the 2003 invasion. Did you never wonder why that story died so quickly in the news? That's why.

So, my point (coming from someone who was actually somewhat on the inside) is that things in the middle east are a whole lot more complicated, and a whole lot less characterizable, than has been argued in this conversation thread. RobertDyck is somewhat-wrong about how he characterizes this situation, and Tom Kalbfus is way-to-hell-and-gone wrong about it. So there.

Finally: the mechanism of ABM kill is not necessarily blast wave. There is also extreme thermal radiational heating, which really does work in vacuum (that is how you actually deflect an asteroid with a nuke, by the way; don't hit it, blow up next to it). ABM's are designed to kill both exoatmospheric, and down in the atmosphere. Exoatmospheric is preferred, but detection and tracking difficulties make most intercepts endo-atmospheric, unfortunately. I've worked in that business, too, which is why I know that.

Recommendation: we will never agree on these issues. Time to cool the rhetoric, before the thread gets shut down again.

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2016-03-13 14:19:41)

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-13 20:38:25

RobertDyck wrote:

I have tried to be non-partisan, but your arguments illustrate the need for mental health. George W. Bush invaded Iraq. His excuse was "they tried to attack my Daddy".

What would you do if he tried to kill your dad, and you were President of the United States? Would you just write it off, because you don't really care about your Dad? Would you simply chalk it up to politics and international relations and not take it personally, this assassination attempt on your family? If so, then you have ice water running in your veins instead of blood! I'm sorry that George W. Bush was not a "cold blooded reptile", well actually I'm not! Things like assassination attempts on my family members matter to me, and if I happen to be President at the time, all the worse for the assassin! He should not have made the attempt on a relative of the President! It just shows how stupid Saddam Hussein was in picking that target! He really shouldn't have expected to assassinate the father of the President of the United States and go unscathed for it. Saddam was an idiot for doing that, and now he is gone! Maybe future leaders will not make the same mistake he did!

Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. George W. was talking about the Persian Gulf war of 1991, when the US tried to target Saddam Hussein.

Don't really care, he was nevertheless a trouble maker, and he needed to be gotten rid of. Maybe you think he was an excellent leader, but I don't. We shouldn't have to keep people who try to assassinate our ex-presidents in power, just because he might keep Al Qaeda and ISIS from rising to power in his country. Basically we kill Saddam, and we kill what follows and what follows after that until we get a government in Iraq that is not evil and doesn't try to kill American citizens, and if the Iraqi People suffer because of that, they need to learn to select better leaders than the ones they have, and then maybe they won't get bombed so much!

Did Hussein think of doing the same to George Bush Sr.? Probably, it was war, but I didn't even hear of an attempt to do so. That was long over, Hussein lost, invading again does not make sense.

If Saddam was still alive and in charge of his country, he hasn't lost? We would never have settled for just pushing Hitler out of France and then self-declaring victory in World War II. Nope Victory requires the complete destruction of the Third Reich and a regime change for Germany, and we didn't settle for anything less!

And NATO offered to defend the US under the clause that states when one member is attacked, all must defend. George W. said no, he wanted to form his own ad-hoc coalitions. Just because that's what his Daddy did. Al Qaeda was in Afghanistan, not Iraq. Invading Iraq again created a new mess that still isn't over. Destabilizing Iraq is one of the reasons for ISIS.

You really need to stop living in the past, George W. Bush is old news! We need to solve the problems of today, and rehashing the events of who killed Saddam and trying to place blame, really doesn't get rid of ISIS. We need to think positively, not point fingers at Bush. The leadership of ISIS really doesn't care about this argument.

But Obama hasn't been much of a dove. Despite the fact George W. increased military spending to levels guaranteed to cause the banking collapse of 2008, the first budget approved by Obama increased it further! And Obama has authorized more drone attacks than all previous presidents combined. Going back to invention of drones.

Then why have we reduced the number of ships in our Navy? Why are the Navy Seals forced to share weapons because they do not have enough for each soldier? Why are soldiers forced to buy their own boots and uniforms out of their own paychecks? Does that seem right to you?

Let's take a step back and look at it from a sane perspective. Al Qaeda was a non-government organization concerned that the US was using assassination to control their region of the world the way an empire does.

If it was an empire, it was an empire that kept the peace, until Barack Obama got into office! I think the Status Quo is preferable to what Al Qaeda and ISIS want, and they don't want democracy, their want their own empires under Islam! I think we are right in trying to prevent them from getting what they want! Do you disagree? Our empire is more civilized and tolerant than theirs!

They got active when the Soviet Union collapsed and the US bragged it was the only remaining superpower, some even claimed the US was an uber-power.

Actually that us what the leaders of France were calling us, only they used the term "hyperpower" Uber is a German word meaning Super.

That sort of claim is extremely dangerous, someone will knock you off your pedestal.

The World is better off if they leave us on the pedestal, we have kept the peace, maintained trade and people prospered, do you think ISIS would do a better job that we have? Seriously! So long as their is a pedestal, someone will struggle to get on top of it, it is our job to make sure people understand that it is a bad idea for them to challenge us, and that they shouldn't even try to play power games of Napoleonic strategy to topple the World order. Do you like constant chaos and warfare?
I think peace is preferable, and I am a true pacifist, I do not wish someone else where the superpower besides the United States. Do you have a better candidate? Like China for instance? Could China be the leader of the Free World? No it isn't free! Do you think the World Order China would impose on us to be better than that of the United States? Okay what other country do you wish to be on top, Canada perhaps? is that realistic? Come one give me some alternatives to the US being the sole Superpower? Do you prefer another Cold War? does than make you feel safer to have two antagonistic superpowers pointing nuclear weapons at each other? Please tell me!

I was not expecting a non-government organization like Al Qaeda to try, but they did. There were escalating terrorist attacks. President Bill Clinton sent a B-52 to bomb their training camp. When they moved to a cave, he sent a cruise missile into the cave. If they were legitimate criminals, then arrest them. But he didn't. Stop and think: what's the difference between a truck bomb vs a B-52 or cruise missile?

Well actually B52s and Cruise missiles can reach targets that truck bombs can't, because trucks can only travel where their are roads, and they have to pretend to be civilian vehicles to get close, and usually the targets they have in mind are random civilians, Cruise missiles are better at hitting actual military targets, rather than the soft targets, truck bombers prefer, that is the difference!

Nothing. Just the cost of the delivery vehicle. Bill Clinton used terrorist tactics on the terrorists. Doing so simply justified their tactics.

No, the terrorists started it and the United States finished it! You have to get your order of events right! Hitler invaded Poland, and as a result Dresden got bombed, Hitler didn't invade Poland because Dresden got bombed because one happened before the other, and Hitler didn't invade Poland in revenge for something that didn't happen yet. So tell me, does the Dresden bombing justify the Holocaust, does it justify Hitler starting World War II? No, I think not the order of events matters, the first action which starts the war is to blame!

Killing them this way created martyrs that could be used to recruit more.

Well, I for one don't feel sorry for the terrorists! If there are people who do, then I don't care for them! They can go to, you know where!

Each time they recruited more than they lost. Attacking Al Qaeda this way simply made them larger and stronger.

The fact that their are people who can be recruited means that those people need to be killed, and when it comes to a killing contest, we can win hands down! I think the people with the smaller stick should have good reason not to provoke us! Just as you don't jump into a bear cage and wrestle with the bear! Most sensible people don't do such things! The United States is dangerous! It should be left alone!

First truck bombs, then attacks on US embassies, the USS Cole, then 9/11. None of that would have happened if you sent police to arrest them instead of justifying their tactics. They attacked outside the Arab world *AFTER* American forces attacked them. If you don't have jurisdiction to arrest, then stay the hell out!

Let them kill American citizens and don't go after them? Are you kidding?

ABM: a shock wave does not propagate in vacuum. So that means the nuclear explosion has to occur inside the atmosphere for it to work.

An atomic bomb explosion in space can vaporize a warhead with energy, it doesn't need the shock wave! In fact that is how we would divert some asteroids from a collision course with Earth, you explode a nuclear weapons near an asteroid, and part of that asteroid vaporizes, and that produces thrust, pushing the asteroid in the opposite direction. For a much less massive nuclear warhead, the atomic bomb simply vaporizes it to a gas cloud! There is nothing solid that is left!

So no, it wouldn't happen in space. No, it wouldn't be just EMP. Detonating a nuclear warhead where it can actually destroy an incoming ICBM will be within the atmosphere, and radiation from that explosion will fall out to the ground below.

it is rather foolish to wait for the missile to reenter the atmosphere, before we attempt to destroy it, don't you think? About as foolish as waiting for an asteroid to enter the atmosphere before we attempt to destroy it!

Caribbean: Many of us would like an island in the Caribbean. The US has Hawaii, so if some Caribbean island wants to join Canada, why not? Several islands have expressed desire to do so. But our government never got it together. Saying "yes" to an island that came to us is not the same as invading. I don't see why anyone would be threatened by that. But Canada has its share of politicians best described as brain dead.
But the largest current issue is budget. Ronald Regan baited the Soviet Union into a game of chicken. Military overspending: let's see who's economy collapses further.

I seem to recall our economy expanding under Reagan, not collapsing. The Soviet Union was collapsing, but that was largely due to their central command economic policies, not theirs or our military spending. Soviet Military spending didn't help, but our economy could support our military spending, theirs could not! That is how we won the Cold War, I know you don't like that result, but it is the truth.

It worked, and better than anyone could have hoped. But if you're in a game of chicken, if you drive a car at fill speed toward the edge of the cliff and see your opponent's car go over the cliff, you don't continue to speed toward the cliff. You stop. Continuing toward the cliff is just stupid. America went over the cliff in year 2008 (banking system collapse).

I think we are still around, and many of our banks did too. I did not lose all my money in that year, so I think I did just fine!

Europe and China rescued you, towed your metaphorical car back to the top of the cliff. Once you're safe, you don't speed back toward the cliff edge again!

That is your interpretation, but I remember my history differently. In fact we bought a lot of stuff from China, the Chinese Economy wouldn't have grown as fast if it weren't for us, as their economy is export driven, just like Japan's.

RobertDyck · 2016-03-13 22:52:40

GW Johnson wrote:

Recommendation: we will never agree on these issues. Time to cool the rhetoric, before the thread gets shut down again.

Wha' he said.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-14 11:25:10

RobertDyck wrote:

GW Johnson wrote:
Recommendation: we will never agree on these issues. Time to cool the rhetoric, before the thread gets shut down again.
Wha' he said.

Just saying, you sure are interested in how much the United States is spending on Defense for someone who isn't even an American, and who's taxpayer dollars isn't being spend on it! How would you like me to say that you can't have pizza because its a waste of your money? Is it any of your business? We Americans like to be safe and secure, maybe you Canadians like to be at the mercy of whatever conquering army goes through your country. Do you want the Russians to decide how much in taxes you are going to pay to Moscow? I like having a vote, and we need to spend on defense to make sure some foreign dictator doesn't take away that vote. Maybe you just don't understand or you don't care. I tried to explain it to you but you just don't want to listen. All you will say is that it is a plot by military contractors to make money, as if Putin and Osama Bin Lauden were on their payroll. Maybe Hitler was too, who knows, if you are conspiracy minded, anything could be possible!

RobertDyck · 2016-03-14 12:19:33

I lived in North Dakota for 2 weeks in 1990, a suburb of Richmond Virginia for 6 months in 1996, and Miami Florida for 10 months in 1999/2000. I wanted to be an aerospace engineer when I was a pre-schooler. That didn't work out. I am registered with NASA and CSA as a contractor, did bid on several NASA contracts and got on their short list twice. The first time NASA was willing to let me do the work, but the problem was they wouldn't pay anyone living outside the US. In fact I got a call from a secretary at NASA asking where my final bid was, she said they were looking forward to it. But I couldn't do that if I don't get paid. The second time the contractor United Space Alliance managed the bid process, NASA said foreign organizations including non-profit and for-profit companies could bid, but the manager at United Space Alliance didn't want to work with any foreigner so he deliberately manipulated the bid process. United Launch Alliance was a 50:50 joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and divisions of both those companies were allowed to bid. Guess who got the contract. A few ideas I have would qualify for NASA SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) funding, but that's only available to companies within the US. So I have considered moving to the US just so I could qualify for NASA SBIR. However, to immigrate requires a US employer to sponsor me.

In 1990 I stayed with my girlfriend at the time, the two times I worked was with a TN work visa. That stands for "Temporary NAFTA". Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) deliberately made the work visa expire the same day as the work contract, I was required to return to Canada.

I was in Miami during the campaign for the year 2000 presidential election. Remember the "hanging chads"? I dated a woman there, who wanted me to stay. She encouraged me to get involved in the US presidential election. I had used the internet to see what's going on back home, and prepared a document for a candidate for the provincial election, how to fulfill one of his election promises. I thought the election promise was a great idea, but was worried that politician had no idea, was just blowing it out his ass. My girlfriend wanted me to focus on US things. But INS required me to go back to Canada.

So you're talking to a former immigrant to the US. I have both a Canadian Social Insurance Number (SIN) and American Social Security Number (SSN). The last Social Security statement said I haven't worked enough hours yet to qualify for pension from Social Security. I'm about half way to the minimum. If I could immigrate to the US, I would. I refused to live in the US while George W. was president. If Donald Trump gets in, no way. Canada is great, but the Canadian Space Agency doesn't have money, and I can't land a NASA contract while I'm here.

As for military budget: we've been over that. I've posted my point several times. And no, you don't represent all Americans. You don't even represent most Americans on this forum. See the last comment by GW Johnson.

kbd512 · 2016-03-14 18:15:32

RobertDyck wrote:

So you're talking to a former immigrant to the US. I have both a Canadian Social Insurance Number (SIN) and American Social Security Number (SSN). The last Social Security statement said I haven't worked enough hours yet to qualify for pension from Social Security. I'm about half way to the minimum. If I could immigrate to the US, I would. I refused to live in the US while George W. was president. If Donald Trump gets in, no way. Canada is great, but the Canadian Space Agency doesn't have money, and I can't land a NASA contract while I'm here.

So you want to work for NASA because that's where the real money is in space exploration, but you won't work in the US if George Bush or Donald Trump is President? What if Donald Trump doubles the budget for NASA? Are you so much of an ideologue that you'll refuse to use what you think are your talents based on who is the current US President? Now who's being narrow minded?

In an earlier post, you stated that you "won" something because you and your girlfriend attended a few peace rallies? Seriously?

Your ideas about how the world should work are every bit as distorted as your pal Tom, just in different ways. Both of you are absolutely convinced that you're right and you two are micro-versions of the Democrat/Republican dysfunction that pervades our military, political, and procurement apparatus.

RobertDyck wrote:

As for military budget: we've been over that. I've posted my point several times. And no, you don't represent all Americans. You don't even represent most Americans on this forum. See the last comment by GW Johnson.

Stop whining about how much money the US spends on defense when you have no skin in the game. I don't tell you guys what to buy or how much to buy, and quite frankly don't care what you buy or from whom, so show us the same courtesy.

If you guys don't want what you think are over-priced American made weapons, then tell your government to quit buying them. I'd be tickled pink watching Canada actually design and build a modern tactical aircraft entirely from scratch with all-Canadian made components. Once you guys design and build the entire thing from scratch using your own tax money (airframe, engines, radar, avionics, software, weapons... everything), then you can come back and talk to us about how much we "overspent" on our defense.

RobertDyck · 2016-03-14 19:13:15

kbd512 wrote:

I'd be tickled pink watching Canada actually design and build a modern tactical aircraft entirely from scratch with all-Canadian made components. Once you guys design and build the entire thing from scratch using your own tax money (airframe, engines, radar, avionics, software, weapons... everything), then you can come back and talk to us about how much we "overspent" on our defense.

Avro Arrow
Requirements written by Canadian Air Force generals in 1953. Mark 1 prototype with old engine flew in 1958. Mark 2 prototype essentially complete in 1959. The engines had to be installed in the air frame, they were sitting behind the aircraft awaiting installation. Estimated technician time: 8 hours. That's when it was scrapped.
Supercruise: mach 1.5
Maximum speed with afterburner in level flight @ 50,000 feet: mach 2.5
Purpose built interceptor intended to shoot-down Russian Bear bombers.

Flying this fast required a new engine, powerful and light-weight. There were no engines that could perform well enough, so part of development was the Iroquois engine. France was so impressed they ordered the engine as an upgrade for their Mirage fighters. Design features have been used for fighter jet engines ever since.

American fighter jet radar at the time radioed raw data to the ground, where a computer processed the data and radioed results to the aircraft. This meant radar would not work when out of radio range of an air force base. Avro Arrow as intended to fly over the Canadian northern territories, so out of radio range all the time. Therefor Canada developed on-board computer systems, self-contained radar.

Because this fighter jet was so fast, control was an issue. It had fly-by-wire, the first fighter jet to do so. The first American fighter jet to use it was F-16 Falcon, built in the 1970s.

American Sparrow missiles required the fighter pilot to "fly" the missile into the enemy, like a drone. So Canada developed a fire-and-forget targeting system for the Sparrow. This was the AIM-7 Sparrow II. Canada had developed the first Sparrow missile, American manufacturers took it and tried to developed fire-and-forget, but never go it to work. So part of the Arrow project was to take back development of this missile.

The fastest American fighter jet at the time could fly mach 1.6, and could not supercruise. In fact, the only American fighter jet that can supercruise is the F-22 Raptor, a 21st century plane. The only other aircraft in the world that can supercruise at mach 1.5 are the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Russian PAK FA (prototype was the T-50). France has the Rafale, capable of supercruise at slower speed. The Russian plane hasn't gone into production yet.

Enough?

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-14 19:50:15

RobertDyck wrote:

I lived in North Dakota for 2 weeks in 1990, a suburb of Richmond Virginia for 6 months in 1996, and Miami Florida for 10 months in 1999/2000. I wanted to be an aerospace engineer when I was a pre-schooler. That didn't work out. I am registered with NASA and CSA as a contractor, did bid on several NASA contracts and got on their short list twice. The first time NASA was willing to let me do the work, but the problem was they wouldn't pay anyone living outside the US.

Population of California: 36,434,140
Population of Canada: 35,870,000

Lets imagine that California was its own independent and separate country from the United States, and you were a Californian, and lets say you were griping because NASA wasn't hiring anyone who lived outside of the United States. What is the solution for this? You know there was a time when California becoming a separate country was a serious proposition, that was during the Civil War.
California could join the Union and then its citizens could participate in NASA contracts. Sometimes being a separate country next to a country with the world's largest space agency can cause a bit of envy. Maybe its time you started a movement to have Canada join the Union, and that way all of its citizens can enjoy the benefit of US citizenship, such as participating in NASA contracts, instead of you just sitting outside and getting all jealous and all! Yeah I know you get free healthcare, but just think, if you got a decent job, you wouldn't need free healthcare! Free healthcare is for people who don't have jobs!

In fact I got a call from a secretary at NASA asking where my final bid was, she said they were looking forward to it. But I couldn't do that if I don't get paid. The second time the contractor United Space Alliance managed the bid process, NASA said foreign organizations including non-profit and for-profit companies could bid, but the manager at United Space Alliance didn't want to work with any foreigner so he deliberately manipulated the bid process.

Why not just admit that he didn't want to hire a foreigner and be up front with that instead of pretending otherwise? It is US taxpayer money being spent after all.

United Launch Alliance was a 50:50 joint venture of Boeing and Lockheed Martin, and divisions of both those companies were allowed to bid. Guess who got the contract. A few ideas I have would qualify for NASA SBIR (Small Business Innovation Research) funding, but that's only available to companies within the US. So I have considered moving to the US just so I could qualify for NASA SBIR. However, to immigrate requires a US employer to sponsor me.

Life gets so complicated when you are in a separate country. Sounds like you want all the benefits of US citizenship without being a US citizen. I'm sure the Canadian government would also prefer to hire one of its own citizens over me. Nothing personal, I understand, I'm just not a Canadian citizen, and I expect to get the short end of the stick as compared to an actual Canadian citizen applying for that same job.

In 1990 I stayed with my girlfriend at the time, the two times I worked was with a TN work visa. That stands for "Temporary NAFTA". Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) deliberately made the work visa expire the same day as the work contract, I was required to return to Canada.

NAFTA is poor substitute for a unified nation. Maybe it is a step in the direction toward a single North American Nation, but it is only a step. It would be so much simpler of both Canada and Mexico joined the United States. We already have laws for accepting new states into the Union, I'm sure Canada would qualify as several states.

I was in Miami during the campaign for the year 2000 presidential election. Remember the "hanging chads"? I dated a woman there, who wanted me to stay. She encouraged me to get involved in the US presidential election.

It really isn't the business of a foreign citizen to get involved in a US election, but if you are interested, you should consider becoming a US citizen. Don't try to get the benefits of US citizenship without becoming a US citizen. That is what the Democrats are trying to do with illegal aliens. I suggest that if Mexico joined the United States, the crossing the Rio Grande should no longer be a problem. A lot of it sounds like people wanting to have their cake and eat it too!

I had used the internet to see what's going on back home, and prepared a document for a candidate for the provincial election, how to fulfill one of his election promises. I thought the election promise was a great idea, but was worried that politician had no idea, was just blowing it out his ass. My girlfriend wanted me to focus on US things. But INS required me to go back to Canada.
So you're talking to a former immigrant to the US. I have both a Canadian Social Insurance Number (SIN) and American Social Security Number (SSN). The last Social Security statement said I haven't worked enough hours yet to qualify for pension from Social Security. I'm about half way to the minimum. If I could immigrate to the US, I would. I refused to live in the US while George W. was president. If Donald Trump gets in, no way. Canada is great, but the Canadian Space Agency doesn't have money, and I can't land a NASA contract while I'm here.

Why don't you lobby your Canadian legislator to set a bill into motion proposing that Canada join the United States of America, that way no Canadian citizen would have that problem anymore! And for our part, in exchange for accepting 35 million new US citizens, we would also double the physical size of our country. I'd go for that!

As for military budget: we've been over that. I've posted my point several times. And no, you don't represent all Americans. You don't even represent most Americans on this forum. See the last comment by GW Johnson.

There are those Americans who don't like their country very much. I don't know why they stay and complain about it, when they can go to Canada!

RobertDyck · 2016-03-14 20:27:04

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Why not just admit that he didn't want to hire a foreigner and be up front with that instead of pretending otherwise? It is US taxpayer money being spent after all.

NASA requirement. NASA said it was open to domestic and foreign, national space agencies, non-profit, and for-profit organizations. The manager at the company didn't want to do that. He blatantly violated orders from NASA. I also asked him why he bothered to send me a bid package. NASA released an "Announcement of Opportunity" (AO), and I responded with a "Notice Of Intent" (NOI). They only send full bid packages to those they like. They liked my NOI, so sent me the package. But United Space Alliance (USA, talk about wrapping yourself in the flag!) had the primary contract to maintain Shuttle, so were tasked with administering this bid. The manager at USA (the company) sent a bid package with a requirement that all bidders attend a pre-proposal conference. Ok, NASA often does that. But this one had a requirement that any foreigner submit an application for security clearance. That's Ok too; when I wrote a tax system for Miami-Dade County, they had me go through FBI "security assurance". So I already had that. However, they guy at USA set the requirement that they receive the security clearance form in their office the day before the package for me left their office.

I complained to NASA. They got me in contact with a Canadian government corporation that exists solely for the purpose of getting Canadian companies to land American military and aerospace contracts. So I did that. The manager at USA still said no. He didn't want to work with a foreigner.

I asked him why he sent the package at all. He said he wanted my ideas. He freely admitted he had no intention of letting me get the contract or paying me anything. He just wanted to steal my ideas.

RobertDyck · 2016-03-14 20:50:00

Tom Kalbfus wrote:

Why don't you lobby your Canadian legislator to set a bill into motion proposing that Canada join the United States of America

Why don't you lobby your government to join Canada? We have a lot of advantages. We do a lot of things better. Some worse, some better. For one we don't have "Citizens United". We set campaign donation limits and election spending limits years ago.

Canada and the US have a treaty called "North American Aerospace Defence Command" (NORAD). It's supposed to unify our air defence right now. So why did Congress prohibit Canada from purchasing the F-22? We couldn't afford it anyway, but it's a principle. Treating Canada as just another country violates NORAD.

Right now Canada is inundated with America media, American this, American that. We're flooded. It's as if we're already partially unified. So why don't you have the same from us? It's biased and unfair.

And please stop treating Canada like Mexico. We aren't some third world nation. This is Canada, the country that contributed engineers who designed the Gemini spacecraft. The country who contributed the engineer who came up with Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. The country that in World War 2 taught the US of A how to make bomb grade plutonium.

kbd512 · 2016-03-15 01:02:07

RobertDyck wrote:

Avro Arrow

Somehow I knew you were going to bring the Arrow up. I'm sure you'll choose to ignore every part of this response that doesn't fit your mischaracterization of this fine aircraft.

RobertDyck wrote:

Requirements written by Canadian Air Force generals in 1953. Mark 1 prototype with old engine flew in 1958. Mark 2 prototype essentially complete in 1959. The engines had to be installed in the air frame, they were sitting behind the aircraft awaiting installation. Estimated technician time: 8 hours. That's when it was scrapped.

Ok.

RobertDyck wrote:

Supercruise: mach 1.5

This was never demonstrated. Putting numbers on paper does not make it so.

RobertDyck wrote:

Maximum speed with afterburner in level flight @ 50,000 feet: mach 2.5

The maximum recorded speed in testing was Mach 1.98.

RobertDyck wrote:

Purpose built interceptor intended to shoot-down Russian Bear bombers.

The airfoil was developed by NACA. The exact design is NACA 0003.5 mod root with NACA 0003.8 tip.

RobertDyck wrote:

Flying this fast required a new engine, powerful and light-weight. There were no engines that could perform well enough, so part of development was the Iroquois engine. France was so impressed they ordered the engine as an upgrade for their Mirage fighters. Design features have been used for fighter jet engines ever since.

The Avro Arrow only flew with Pratt & Whitney J75-P-3 turbojets. We loaned you a B-47 so you could test your Orenda Iroquois.

RobertDyck wrote:

American fighter jet radar at the time radioed raw data to the ground, where a computer processed the data and radioed results to the aircraft. This meant radar would not work when out of radio range of an air force base. Avro Arrow as intended to fly over the Canadian northern territories, so out of radio range all the time. Therefor Canada developed on-board computer systems, self-contained radar.

The avionics were developed by Hughes.

RobertDyck wrote:

Because this fighter jet was so fast, control was an issue. It had fly-by-wire, the first fighter jet to do so. The first American fighter jet to use it was F-16 Falcon, built in the 1970s.

The Arrow had electro-hydraulic control input translation and an analog flight computer with a mixture of solid state and variable state electronics. Digital fly-by-wire didn't exist until NASA created it. I still rate Arrow's AFCS as cutting edge for the 1950's.

RobertDyck wrote:

American Sparrow missiles required the fighter pilot to "fly" the missile into the enemy, like a drone. So Canada developed a fire-and-forget targeting system for the Sparrow. This was the AIM-7 Sparrow II. Canada had developed the first Sparrow missile, American manufacturers took it and tried to developed fire-and-forget, but never go it to work. So part of the Arrow project was to take back development of this missile.

Raytheon developed the Sparrow and Douglas was working on active radar homing for the Sparrow before the Arrow was an idea in someone's head.

RobertDyck wrote:

The fastest American fighter jet at the time could fly mach 1.6, and could not supercruise. In fact, the only American fighter jet that can supercruise is the F-22 Raptor, a 21st century plane. The only other aircraft in the world that can supercruise at mach 1.5 are the Eurofighter Typhoon, and the Russian PAK FA (prototype was the T-50). France has the Rafale, capable of supercruise at slower speed. The Russian plane hasn't gone into production yet.

Super cruise was never demonstrated.

RobertDyck wrote:

Enough?

Your engineers were quite innovative and forward thinking. I applaud their efforts. The Avro Arrow was a standout amongst its contemporaries.

The Arrow had innovative avionics and engines. Apart from that, virtually every other aspect of the aircraft was delivered by the evil US military industrial complex. Stop making things up to fit your narrative.

RobertDyck · 2016-03-15 01:47:38

kbd512 wrote:

The maximum recorded speed in testing was Mach 1.98.

That was mark 1, with the old engine. The mark 1 was only built to test/demonstrate the air frame, it was never intended for production. This was a time when conventional think was you either develop a new air frame, or a new engine, never ever both. To fulfill the requirements, it required both.

kbd512 wrote:

We loaned you a B-47 so you could test your Orenda Iroquois.

Yea, so? You admit the Iroquois engine was Canadian designed and built. It was THE engine for the Arrow.

kbd512 wrote:

Your engineers were quite innovative and forward thinking. I applaud their efforts. The Avro Arrow was a standout amongst its contemporaries.
The Arrow had innovative avionics and engines. Apart from that, virtually every other aspect of the aircraft was delivered by the evil US military industrial complex.

The air frame was able to fly at mach 2+. Air tunnel tests demonstrated it. And tiny models were built and launched on rockets to test at sufficient speed. It was the first pure delta wing design. Air frame designers added a notch to the wings, and anhedral to compensate for specific control issues at various speeds up to mach 2.5.

Canada and the US have built things together for decades. Canada was part of the American aerospace industry for as long as there's been an aerospace industry. Canada participated in development of the F-35, and manufactures some parts. So you don't manufacture things without us either. That doesn't change the fact the Arrow as Canada's big military development project. We developed a major weapon system that fits everything you asked for.

And Canadians are still resentful that it was cancelled. Those who cancelled it will never be forgiven. American contracts and American politicians put heavy pressure on Canada to cancel it. Then there was partisan politics. I could point out the Halifax class frigate was the best frigate in the world when it was developed. Of course the US navy just had to develop one that had all the features of the Halifax class frigate. But a frigate isn't spectacular. The Arrow was.

Claiming that the US "delivered" the Avro Arrow is about as accurate as claiming Canada "delivered" the F-35.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-15 06:53:27

RobertDyck wrote:

Tom Kalbfus wrote:
Why don't you lobby your Canadian legislator to set a bill into motion proposing that Canada join the United States of America
Why don't you lobby your government to join Canada? We have a lot of advantages. We do a lot of things better. Some worse, some better. For one we don't have "Citizens United". We set campaign donation limits and election spending limits years ago.
Canada and the US have a treaty called "North American Aerospace Defence Command" (NORAD). It's supposed to unify our air defence right now. So why did Congress prohibit Canada from purchasing the F-22? We couldn't afford it anyway, but it's a principle. Treating Canada as just another country violates NORAD.
Right now Canada is inundated with America media, American this, American that. We're flooded. It's as if we're already partially unified. So why don't you have the same from us? It's biased and unfair.
And please stop treating Canada like Mexico. We aren't some third world nation. This is Canada, the country that contributed engineers who designed the Gemini spacecraft. The country who contributed the engineer who came up with Lunar Orbit Rendezvous. The country that in World War 2 taught the US of A how to make bomb grade plutonium.

You saw the statistics I quoted. Canada has about the same population as California, give or take a million. You don't see Californians making complaints like that, too much American Media! What is wrong with being an American? As a North American country in some respect you already are. NAFTA is one step on the path of our becoming one country. The only difference between Canada joining the United States and the United States joining Canada would be the Constitution we would be living under, the people would be the same, and after the United States joined Canada, it wouldn't be the same country it was before regardless. The most important component of any country is its people, not its land. It is the people that determine what sort of country it is. If the people don't like the way the constitution is, they will change it to something else through a constitutional convention. The name of the continent is anyway, North America, not Canada. Canada is only a part of North America. If we changed our name to the United States of North America, would that satisfy you? That would tend to limit our ambitions towards acquiring states in central and South America, but if we did that, we could change our name again to the United States of the Americas. You see the United States is already a federation, its Constitution is designed to accept more states, there is even a constitutional process for doing just that.

I don't see why we need a federation of federations, that would just be one extra level of government too many. All these layers of government cost us tax money. How would you like to pay your taxes to your school district, your town, your county, your province, to Canada and to NAFTA? One substitute for NAFTA would simple to enlarge the United States. according to the rules of our Constitution, you would get 20 senators in addition to our 100, is we use the boundaries of your provinces as the boundaries of the states to be admitted to the Union. You would also get about 10% of all the House seats in the House of Representatives. Canada would be an influential voting block, it could be that about 10% of the time, we would have a President from Canada. You like your Canadian healthcare, well Massachusetts has its own healthcare system, there is no reason why you couldn't continue to operate your healthcare system just as it is, that is what a Federal Republic is supposed to allow anyway. I think the Federal Government in Washington has gotten too strong anyway, it should really only be in charge of National Defense and some other Federal programs that states can't do for themselves. We would be stronger as a result of a Union between Canada and the United States, other countries would be less likely to mess with us. I mean if we get the United States closer to what NAFTA and NORAD is supposed to be, we wouldn't need those organizations. Canada could join the United States instead either as one state or ten, however they prefer. As I mentioned California has about the same population as Canada and it is one state, and it appears Canada has got its own "Hollywood" in Vancouver as well.

Tom Kalbfus · 2016-03-15 09:13:31

There might be some advantages for Canada to be one state in the Union, It would then get only two Senators, but then you have something called "Canada" instead of "Ontario" or whatever. Canada has the same population as California, but a lot more land. Then their is Mexico, what if that was a state? It would get two Senators, but then it would retain its Mexican identity, the President of Mexico would become a governor, and with 125.39 million people, that is a rather large voting block, add that to the 350 million of US/Canada and Mexico would have 26% of the US population, That is what Democrats want anyway isn't it, for Mexicans to travel freely across the Mexican border? Why don't Mexico apply for statehood? I don't think we should accept any other Latin American countries after that, except maybe Cuba. We don't, after all want El Dictator in the White House Perhaps as icing on the cake, we should accept Greenland and Iceland as states of the Union.

kbd512 · 2016-03-15 11:58:51

RobertDyck wrote:

That was mark 1, with the old engine. The mark 1 was only built to test/demonstrate the air frame, it was never intended for production. This was a time when conventional think was you either develop a new air frame, or a new engine, never ever both. To fulfill the requirements, it required both.

The Arrow never flew at Mach 2.5. Even if the Orenda engines were available on day 1 of the test program, how many minutes would it have flown at Mach 2.5 before running out of fuel? It's combat radius was only 660km. Speed is very useful for an interceptor to have, but only if the aircraft doesn't run out of fuel a few minutes after lighting its afterburners.

Guess what? Ground-based missiles will get to the target faster. If Canada had Arrows on 24/7 Alert 5, ground-based missiles would still get to their targets much faster than an Arrow ever could. This is a simple physics problem that even the Orenda engine can't overcome.

Incidentally, the J-79 powered F-106 managed to fly at Mach 2.3 with a lower power-to-weight ratio. So what? The fuel consumption was insane. Virtually every turbojet equipped interceptor of that era ran out of fuel after a few minutes of flight at those speeds. Quoting never-achieved-in-flight figures from wind tunnel tests demonstrates nothing about realistic operational use. This is something you'd know if you ever worked in an aircraft squadron.

The only reason Avro was able to conduct any flight testing at all was that they had American jet engines to do it with. I told you I'd be tickled pink if you guys designed and built an entire aircraft from scratch. Canada never did anything like that. You developed the airframe and the engines. Both were superb for the intended purpose and I've clearly noted that.

RobertDyck wrote:

Yea, so? You admit the Iroquois engine was Canadian designed and built. It was THE engine for the Arrow.

Yea, so design and build your own B-47 so you can test your new aviation engines or be prepared to loose a few development airframes in testing.

RobertDyck wrote:

The air frame was able to fly at mach 2+. Air tunnel tests demonstrated it. And tiny models were built and launched on rockets to test at sufficient speed. It was the first pure delta wing design. Air frame designers added a notch to the wings, and anhedral to compensate for specific control issues at various speeds up to mach 2.5.

No Arrow airframe ever flew at Mach 2 or faster. I don't care about what was never demonstrated in flight.

RobertDyck wrote:

Canada and the US have built things together for decades. Canada was part of the American aerospace industry for as long as there's been an aerospace industry. Canada participated in development of the F-35, and manufactures some parts. So you don't manufacture things without us either. That doesn't change the fact the Arrow as Canada's big military development project. We developed a major weapon system that fits everything you asked for.

Yes, we have worked on projects together for decades. We manufacture things using foreign contractors as suppliers as a way to secure purchase orders from them. If you think we can't make F-35's without Canada supplying small parts, you really are in your own little world.

The Arrow used American engines for flight testing. The Orenda engine was tested using an American made B-47. The avionics were American made. The never-flown weapon systems were also American made.

RobertDyck wrote:

And Canadians are still resentful that it was cancelled. Those who cancelled it will never be forgiven. American contracts and American politicians put heavy pressure on Canada to cancel it. Then there was partisan politics. I could point out the Halifax class frigate was the best frigate in the world when it was developed. Of course the US navy just had to develop one that had all the features of the Halifax class frigate. But a frigate isn't spectacular. The Arrow was.

Go to the grave with your silly resentment. We really don't care. Canada is supposed to do what is best for Canada's national interest and the US is supposed to do what is in our national interest.

In the same time period where Canada didn't put one new type into service I think we put at least ten new types into service.

RobertDyck wrote:

Claiming that the US "delivered" the Avro Arrow is about as accurate as claiming Canada "delivered" the F-35.

The point is that our aerospace industry had to develop every single one of the systems required to field combat aircraft (airframes, engines, avionics, radars, missiles). Canada didn't and doesn't. You complain about our military spending and then completely gloss over the fact that Canada used American airfoil design, avionics, radars, engines for testing, an engine test platform for the Orenda engine, and weapon systems because America actually spent the money to develop all those things. All that stuff cost real money and Canada didn't design or develop any of that.

Canada gets the benefit of the jobs and technology development that comes with F-35 procurement but doesn't want to actually pay for the costs of procurement of fighter aircraft that can survive day one of a shooting war with a competent and capable enemy. Trudeau wants to focus on homeland defense instead. I have no idea what he thinks that means, but more power to him. That's the benefit of having the world's most powerful military ally as your next door neighbor. Canada won't be defending the US homeland with aircraft that can't survive day one of a shooting war.

So, develop every major component yourselves (airframe, avionics, radar, engine, weapon systems, ground systems, test platforms) and then get back to us on how much it actually costs to do that. Seriously, just do it all yourselves so you can figure out just how much these things actually cost or stop whining about how much the US spends on defense while you simultaneously reap the benefits.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2016-03-11 15:04:06

Re: Politics

#52 2016-03-12 06:15:54

Re: Politics

#53 2016-03-12 06:34:18

Re: Politics

#54 2016-03-12 10:53:18

Re: Politics

#55 2016-03-12 11:34:59

Re: Politics

#56 2016-03-12 14:28:01

Re: Politics

#57 2016-03-12 19:52:14

Re: Politics

#58 2016-03-13 01:03:13

Re: Politics

#59 2016-03-13 06:35:37

Re: Politics

#60 2016-03-13 12:47:31

Re: Politics

#61 2016-03-13 13:52:30

Re: Politics

#62 2016-03-13 20:38:25

Re: Politics

#63 2016-03-13 22:52:40

Re: Politics

#64 2016-03-14 11:25:10

Re: Politics

#65 2016-03-14 12:19:33

Re: Politics

#66 2016-03-14 18:15:32

Re: Politics

#67 2016-03-14 19:13:15

Re: Politics

#68 2016-03-14 19:50:15

Re: Politics

#69 2016-03-14 20:27:04

Re: Politics

#70 2016-03-14 20:50:00

Re: Politics

#71 2016-03-15 01:02:07

Re: Politics

#72 2016-03-15 01:47:38

Re: Politics

#73 2016-03-15 06:53:27

Re: Politics

#74 2016-03-15 09:13:31

Re: Politics

#75 2016-03-15 11:58:51

Re: Politics

Board footer