What do you all think about the U.S backing out of the ABM treaty? Do you think it matters to world security? Is it wrong for the U.S to have technology that can protect it's citizens from a ballistic missile and not implement the technology because of a 30 year old treaty? Is it wrong for us to have that technology period?

Well, the effects might be another cold war, where countries "compete" in building better and better missile protections, for better and better missiles..
And besides, that treaty does exist for a reason ;)

I don't think any country can be faulted for building completely defensive measures. Might as well say building a wall and stationing troops at the border is wrong too.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
Well, the effects might be another cold war, where countries "compete" in building better and better missile protections, for better and better missiles..
And besides, that treaty does exist for a reason ;) <hr></blockquote>

Personally I don't see another arms race happening. Russia doesn't have the capital to spend on building new missiles. They don't even have the capital to pay their soldiers, for christ sake. China might,
but I bet the generals in charge of China would rather spend the money on factories and such. The only peple that will build new weapons of mass destruction are "wanna bes" like Iraq, Iran and North Korea. None of which will ever be a super power.

Ballistic missles are bad for world.
Military spending is good for economy.
<font color=green>$$$</font>
<font color=green>$$$</font>
<font color=green>$$$</font>

I thought the treaty was absurd when I first heard of it 30 years ago and I think it's absurd today. What kind of twisted liberal thinking comes up with the idea we would be safer without any defense?

i agree blackraven (woohoo, a fellow oregonian) unfortunately, blackraven and i live in the most liberal state in America!! but to say that building ANTI-Ballistic missle DEFENSES is wrong,that is obserd!!!(spelling)
thats like saying, "no, our military doesnt need weapons, let them hug the enemy, and shake his hand." i agree that war sux. however, there will NEVER, EVER, be peace throughout the world, the middle east will make sure of that. so to say NOT to build weapons, or defenses for said weapons.........that is dumb!!!!

[img]graemlins/ninja.gif[/img]

Well, it seems that most of us Americans are for it. I personally have nothing wrong with my government initiating measures to help ensure my safety. What do you Europeans think? Would your answer be the same if your country had a device to safeguard against ballistic missiles?

hmm BG and world politics, i dont see the connection..........?
but since someone mistakenly started this thread here instead of an international news forum, i may as well add on.

absurd things about missle defence:
an icbm is an unlikely threat

more likely is chemical /biological/or "dirty" radiation leaking bomb... none of which need a missle to deliver, only suitcases and devoted individuals who hate america...

i dont think a missle defense shield can stop suit case smuggling unless someone goes to all the effort of duct taping a suitcase to an icbm...very unlikely

so why spend billions possibly a trillion bucks on something that will not protect us from the REAL dangers?

our only hope is to eliminate the real threat:

isolation

it means recognizing that our life and wellbeing is connected to the wellbeing of other peoples
it means reforming our economies to benefit all the peoples of the world so that no part
of humankind suffers from isolation or oppression.
It means recognizing that we are one Human family and must not neglect
any members.
It means examining our concepts, beliefs, insitutions, and behaviours to see if they have a uniting or isolating effect.....

I think the missile defense will ultimatly prove a complete waste of time. Money no, because what we develop can be used in other ways. But if someone wants to use a nuke whats to stop them from putting it on a freighter and sail it legally into any US harbor? Nothing thats what. No ABM treaty will stop that, and its not worth pissing off the rest of the world over it. Any nation who actually launched a nuclear missile at us or anyone else would be a)vilified by every counrty in the world, b) become a target of every country in the world. So in effect its useless

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Medicina the druid:
hmm BG and world politics, i dont see the connection..........?
but since someone mistakenly started this thread here instead of an international news forum, i may as well add on.

<hr></blockquote>


Thank you for your learned discourse on where you think this thread should be.

1st off, this is not the BG forum, this is general discussion. I was interested in having a DISCUSSION on the ABM treaty.

Secondly, there is no international news forum. There is a war forum. This has nothing to do with the war, so I would be out of line to post it there.

In light of these facts, did I still make a mistake? Is it ok with you to post this here?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol:
I think the missile defense will ultimatly prove a complete waste of time. Money no, because what we develop can be used in other ways. But if someone wants to use a nuke whats to stop them from putting it on a freighter and sail it legally into any US harbor? Nothing thats what. No ABM treaty will stop that, and its not worth pissing off the rest of the world over it. Any nation who actually launched a nuclear missile at us or anyone else would be a)vilified by every counrty in the world, b) become a target of every country in the world. So in effect its useless<hr></blockquote>


I agree to an extent, but I think there still are benefits to it. Not every country has the technology to create a suitcase sized nuke, and even if they did, a suitcase nuke has nowhere near the destructive power of a ICBM. An hydrogen ICBM detonated above ground is a whole order of magnitude more deadly then a suitcase nuke. I think in general it might cost more then it's worth, but for the most part I"m not against the idea.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol:
I think the missile defense will ultimatly prove a complete waste of time. Money no, because what we develop can be used in other ways. But if someone wants to use a nuke whats to stop them from putting it on a freighter and sail it legally into any US harbor? Nothing thats what. No ABM treaty will stop that, and its not worth pissing off the rest of the world over it. Any nation who actually launched a nuclear missile at us or anyone else would be a)vilified by every counrty in the world, b) become a target of every country in the world. So in effect its useless<hr></blockquote>

Oh, I agree totally on this one. For defense it is next to useless. Too many ways around it. However a lot of good off shoots could come from it as well. Alot of stuff spun off the old Star Wars research.
Alot of the stuff that is being used on the international space station came from the Old Star Wars program.

Thats what I meant about not a waste of money Sir Talieson, but Milamber I'm not just talking about "suitcase" there are far easier ways to hit us than a missile thats my point. While the money spent on this pointless projecy WILL increase our overall technology in MANY ways, it wont increase our defense capability to any marked degree, so I say its a sham

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol:
Thats what I meant about not a waste of money Sir Talieson, but Milamber I'm not just talking about "suitcase" there are far easier ways to hit us than a missile thats my point. While the money spent on this pointless projecy WILL increase our overall technology in MANY ways, it wont increase our defense capability to any marked degree, so I say its a sham<hr></blockquote>

I see what you're saying. Do you think it's worth the investment overall? Is it worth breaking a treaty with Russia and changing the balance of power when taking into consideration the limited benefit it will be?

Well, you have to ask yourself, what would the USA have done if the USSR had dropped out of the treaty first? Would the USA have imposed sanctions etc? Why should we expect the USSR to do any different?
Just some thoughts.

Remember 1959 when the nation had to " rethink security measures and tactics". So what is different this day and age? That year our nuclear secrects were stolen by Russia. So started the cold war. Darn it..if I keep going this will end up in the war forum.. ;)

absurd things about missle defence:
an icbm is an unlikely threat

more likely is chemical /biological/or "dirty" radiation leaking bomb... none of which need a missle to deliver, only suitcases and devoted individuals who hate america...

i dont think a missle defense shield can stop suit case smuggling unless someone goes to all the effort of duct taping a suitcase to an icbm...very unlikely

so why spend billions possibly a trillion bucks on something that will not protect us from the REAL dangers?

our only hope is to eliminate the real threat:

isolation

it means recognizing that our life and wellbeing is connected to the wellbeing of other peoples
it means reforming our economies to benefit all the peoples of the world so that no part
of humankind suffers from isolation or oppression.
It means recognizing that we are one Human family and must not neglect
any members.
It means examining our concepts, beliefs, insitutions, and behaviour
s to see if they have a uniting or isolating effect.....[/QB][/QUOTE]

um........... true, IF the only thing we had to worry about were terrorists. however, MANY countries can shoot icbm's and it is better to be safe than sorry. iraq may be able to launch an icbm. if not, how hard would it be to get a shit into the ocean, and launch a missle from the middle of the atlantic? given, it wont stop a suitcase bomb, however, if another country decided to get a dumb hair up their butt, and lauch a missle, then i think an anti missle system is a good defensive measure. its the beginning of a new century, all sorts of new weapons could possibly be built at any given time, by any given person. im sorry, but we have a republican in office now, not a pansy ass liberal. that means that our military is going to get some MUCH needed revamping. its about time in my opinion. we can finaly be the military power that we used to be. anyway, i agree with some points, but not all. i only wanted to put my opinion on the board. thanks for all of your time all.

[img]graemlins/ninja.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Medicina the druid:
hmm BG and world politics, i dont see the connection..........?
but since someone mistakenly started this thread here instead of an international news forum, i may as well add on.

<hr></blockquote>
As has been pointed out this is a General Discussion forum so the thread is valid here.

Apart from that I have to agree with all of the points you made in your post.

Oh - BTW, welcome to Ironworks. [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Morgan_Corbesant:
im sorry, but we have a republican in office now, not a pansy ass liberal. that means that our military is going to get some MUCH needed revamping. its about time in my opinion. we can finaly be the military power that we used to be.
[img]graemlins/ninja.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

Uh excuse me? Pansy ass Liberal?
Why? Because they dont want to spend a shit load of money on the military when there is other much more needed places to use the money. Or would you rather see Americans go unemployed just so the army have a few new toys to play with?
And as for being the military power that you used to be? That is total BS. America already is the single most militarily powerful nation in the world. Maybe a better thing would be to spend LESS on the army and more on public welfare.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by AzureWolf:


Uh excuse me? Pansy ass Liberal?
Why? Because they dont want to spend a shit load of money on the military when there is other much more needed places to use the money. Or would you rather see Americans go unemployed just so the army have a few new toys to play with?
And as for being the military power that you used to be? That is total BS. America already is the single most militarily powerful nation in the world. Maybe a better thing would be to spend LESS on the army and more on public welfare.<hr></blockquote>

To true...ya know I served in the Army during Clintons 2 terms in office and not one time was a field problem or any type of training or ANYTHING for that matter canceled because of "lack of funds". Every year I also got a raise and never a paycut.

As far as the missile defense thing-a-mabob goes I think it will be a huge boon for defense contractors and another large waste of taxpayers money.

We aren't breaking the treaty. It has a legal out, for either side, if six months notice is given. This hasn't come out of the blue either. The negotiation has been going on for a year with Russia to make an ammendment which would satisfy both sides regarding testing, not implementation, but an agreement couldn't be reached.

The money spent in the early 80s developed technology which is in use today, including the patriot missle. There are many more benefits to this than just shooting down nukes, but if the program shot down one nuke, it be worth the cost.

I don't believe this will start a new arms race. The idea any program, in the near future, could shoot down a massive nuclear launch by anyone isn't realistic. Keep in mind that the Chinese aren't restricted by this treaty and are free to build as many nukes as they please and to improve their delivery systems.

Working towards a defensive deterant instead of an offensive one should be applauded, but people don't like change. It's said the ABM treaty works, but it didn't stop the nuclear stockpiles from growing during the following years to the point that all of the nuclear arsenals can no longer be accounted for.

The idea "we can kill them, so they won't kill us" has never made much sense to me. We don't want a missle defense shield so we can begin using nukes, but instead, so that if one is ever fired at US we can knock it down.

Is it unlikely a legitimate nation would launch a nuke? Yes. Is it impossible? No, but what if there was an unauthorized launch from such a country? Wouldn't it be better to be prepared than to try to evacuate a city? No one thought September 11th could happen either, but when it did people said, "We knew the possibility was there, so why weren't we prepared?" Can you imagine what they would say if we were hit by a nuke?

Do you not think about how this looks, all you americans?
It seems to me that all americans have violence on their brains, and fail to see that violence feeds violence.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>
we can finaly be the military power that we used to be.<hr></blockquote>

Menings like that are so unecessary. What do you mean? That you're happy a country can have enough firepower to destroy the whole world?
That you are happy a country can say they have the right to do anything they like, just because they can kill everyone?

It's not about just USA having no defense, it's about working towards a missile-free world.
And this treaty is a giant leap in the right direction.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
Do you not think about how this looks, all you americans?
It seems to me that all americans have violence on their brains, and fail to see that violence feeds violence.

It's not about just USA having no defense, it's about working towards a missile-free world.
And this treaty is a giant leap in the right direction.<hr></blockquote>


How was it a leap in the right direction? Nuclear weapons production wasn't reduced in the least by this treaty and continued. Having enough weapons to destroy the world wasn't enough, both the US and Russia insisted on having enough nuclear weapons to destroy the world over and over (like anyone would be impressed after the first time ;) )We are still interested in reducing our nuclear stockpile in conjunction with the Russians to around 2,000. Maybe one day they'll all be gone. Maybe if they can be rendered useless, they can be completely removed.

Is the ABM considered worthy because we didn't blow ourselves up after 1972 despite the continuing nuclear arms race? If you use that logic, it was worthless to start with since we didn't blow ourselves up between 1945 and 1972.

I still find it interesting that people are upset about testing a nuclear defense. How does each side having weapons, against which the other can't defend, make the world safer? Because if one dies, we all die?

What Americans think? We think that a world that would accuse US of having "violence on the brain" for creating defensive weapons doesn't think that much of US to start with. Americans basically think the way this should look to the rest of the world is "they are pulling out of a treaty, by the legal means required, to pursue testing of a defensive, not offensive, nuclear deterrant. It's their option."

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
Do you not think about how this looks, all you americans?
It seems to me that all americans have violence on their brains, and fail to see that violence feeds violence.



Menings like that are so unecessary. What do you mean? That you're happy a country can have enough firepower to destroy the whole world?
That you are happy a country can say they have the right to do anything they like, just because they can kill everyone?

It's not about just USA having no defense, it's about working towards a missile-free world.
And this treaty is a giant leap in the right direction.<hr></blockquote>

And so it starts. Do me a favor and don't level any blanket accusations on Americans. Americans don't have "violence" on the brain any more then any other country does.

Ron Bman, that was excellently stated. I completely agree.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Lord of Alcohol:
I think the missile defense will ultimatly prove a complete waste of time. Money no, because what we develop can be used in other ways. But if someone wants to use a nuke whats to stop them from putting it on a freighter and sail it legally into any US harbor? Nothing thats what. No ABM treaty will stop that, and its not worth pissing off the rest of the world over it. Any nation who actually launched a nuclear missile at us or anyone else would be a)vilified by every counrty in the world, b) become a target of every country in the world. So in effect its useless<hr></blockquote>


There are ways to detect a nuke in transit [img]smile.gif[/img] It can be done from orbit even [img]smile.gif[/img] and no this is not a widley known thing because they dont publicize every little thing about nuclear weapons and policys.

Do you think it is an accident that no one has yet managed to use fissionable materials in a terrorist action yet? It aint easy to cart that stuff around.

As for the ABM treaty.....Was the treaty actually ratified by congress or did they just not oppose it? If they did not ratify it (and I really think they didn't) then "breaking it" is not an issue.

It is a useless treaty at this time and really no longer applies because one of the 2 principle participants the USSR no longer exists.
It is only sane for the USA and any nation who wants to join up to build just such a system, it might be a technological stretch to do it, but there will always be spin off gains put into use in the private sector. People claimed the space race was a waste of money but ignore the incredible advances that stretching our minds and money brought about. Computers, electronics, medicine, synthetic materials..all leaped forward because of money doing things some thought were a waste of time. Id rather have the system and it never be needed than loose even one single city due to not having it.

So the ABM system might not stop terrorists but it will stop (it is assumed) a particular kind of attack. In the mean time to keep the terrorists out of the game, give the people who take care of those kinds of things a reasonable budget..after all they just got done seeing 8 years of continual budget cuts...while officials bombed asprin factories to take peoples minds off certain stained blue dresses. just my thoughts on the subject.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
Do you not think about how this looks, all you americans?
It seems to me that all americans have violence on their brains, and fail to see that violence feeds violence.



Menings like that are so unecessary. What do you mean? That you're happy a country can have enough firepower to destroy the whole world?
That you are happy a country can say they have the right to do anything they like, just because they can kill everyone?

It's not about just USA having no defense, it's about working towards a missile-free world.
And this treaty is a giant leap in the right direction.<hr></blockquote>

Sir You show a total lack of knowledge of what the ABM treaty was and was ment to do. The treaty had nothing to do with the rest of the world, it was strictly between the USA (still exists) and the USSR (does not exist) and it was made to keep each of those two countries (supposedly) from comitting a first strike by ensureing that the MAD policy (that is Mutually Assured Destruction) stayed in effect...so by advocating a treaty that guarentees no ABM you are advocating the principle of MAD...make sure every one can be destroyed if they launch a missile. Give me a break that is idiocy..it was all that could be done in the 60's but the world has moved on beyond MAD and the USSR is no more so there is no ABM treaty any longer. An ABM system will only protect us against rogue nations and only they need worry about it...this in no way makes the world more dangerous for you or your country...than it was or has been.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Medicina the druid:
hmm BG and world politics, i dont see the connection..........?
but since someone mistakenly started this thread here instead of an international news forum, i may as well add on.

absurd things about missle defence:
an icbm is an unlikely threat

more likely is chemical /biological/or "dirty" radiation leaking bomb... none of which need a missle to deliver, only suitcases and devoted individuals who hate america...

i dont think a missle defense shield can stop suit case smuggling unless someone goes to all the effort of duct taping a suitcase to an icbm...very unlikely

so why spend billions possibly a trillion bucks on something that will not protect us from the REAL dangers?

our only hope is to eliminate the real threat:

isolation

it means recognizing that our life and wellbeing is connected to the wellbeing of other peoples
it means reforming our economies to benefit all the peoples of the world so that no part
of humankind suffers from isolation or oppression.
It means recognizing that we are one Human family and must not neglect
any members.
It means examining our concepts, beliefs, insitutions, and behaviours to see if they have a uniting or isolating effect.....<hr></blockquote>

Each system has its place and job, the ABM isnt the method for controlling terrorist types of attacks. There ARE other systems that safeguard against that, some are orbital sensors to track neutron emmisions others are land based. Just because the system doesnt guard against things it isnt designed to protect against..is not justification to cancel the program....not to mention this program can lead to advances in many many different scientific areas......again some people thought the space race was a waste of time..and yet we are far better having had it than not.

Wow MagiK you seem very educated on the matter. I had no idea that we could track neutron emissions from space.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MagiK:
As for the ABM treaty.....Was the treaty actually ratified by congress or did they just not oppose it? If they did not ratify it (and I really think they didn't) then "breaking it" is not an issue.<hr></blockquote>

Signed at Moscow May 26, 1972
Ratification advised by U.S. Senate August 3, 1972
Ratified by U.S. President September 30, 1972
Proclaimed by U.S. President October 3, 1972
Instruments of ratification exchanged October 3, 1972
Entered into force October 3, 1972

The 1972 treaty was further modified in 1974...

Signed at Moscow July 3, 1974
Ratification advised by U.S. Senate November 10, 1975
Ratified by U.S. President March 19, 1976
Instruments of ratification exchanged May 24, 1976
Proclaimed by U.S. President July 6, 1976
Entered into force May 24, 1976

By exiting the treaty, we are not "breaking" the treaty. The treaty gives either nation the right to vacate the treaty with 6 months notice to the other. Today we gave notice.

I cannot compete with your knowledges.
Sorry if I offended anyone, I will not debate this anymore [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
Do you not think about how this looks, all you americans?
It seems to me that all americans have violence on their brains, and fail to see that violence feeds violence.



Menings like that are so unecessary. What do you mean? That you're happy a country can have enough firepower to destroy the whole world?
That you are happy a country can say they have the right to do anything they like, just because they can kill everyone?

It's not about just USA having no defense, it's about working towards a missile-free world.
And this treaty is a giant leap in the right direction.<hr></blockquote>

i didnt say enough to blow up the world, America isnt after world domination. im simply saying that we need to make sure that we can deal with the new types of threat. i agree that we waste alot of money on the military. that new F22 Raptor was NOT needed. i dont see a problem with a new ANTI MISSLE SYSTEM!!! its not like we are creating a new missle or something, just a system to stop them from reaching our soil IF someone tried to strike. offense, i can see people crying over, defense, that is dumb.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
I cannot compete with your knowledges.
Sorry if I offended anyone, I will not debate this anymore [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>

No problem with you stating your point of view ReGiN, everyone is entitled, so No Worries [img]smile.gif[/img]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by MILAMBER:
Wow MagiK you seem very educated on the matter. I had no idea that we could track neutron emissions from space.<hr></blockquote>

Hehehe depends on the amount of neutron leakage [img]smile.gif[/img] also depends on what you call space....personally I dont condsider the low orbits some of these birds are at to be "space"

One of the things working FOR us and AGAINST the terrorists, is the fact that to make a device that has critical mass, you are going to have a minimum weight, and unless your messanger wants to be dead from the radiation before he gets to where he is going..he has to have a certain amount of shielding material....there is no one thing that makes this hard for terrorists to do, there are many many variables...note I didnt say it was impossible....just hard.

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Ronn_Bman:


Signed at Moscow May 26, 1972
Ratification advised by U.S. Senate August 3, 1972
Ratified by U.S. President September 30, 1972
Proclaimed by U.S. President October 3, 1972
Instruments of ratification exchanged October 3, 1972
Entered into force October 3, 1972

The 1972 treaty was further modified in 1974...

Signed at Moscow July 3, 1974
Ratification advised by U.S. Senate November 10, 1975
Ratified by U.S. President March 19, 1976
Instruments of ratification exchanged May 24, 1976
Proclaimed by U.S. President July 6, 1976
Entered into force May 24, 1976

By exiting the treaty, we are not "breaking" the treaty. The treaty gives either nation the right to vacate the treaty with 6 months notice to the other. Today we gave notice.<hr></blockquote>

Thanks B-Man..I knew that I recalled a problem with ratification but on further thought I think this was the SALT II talks....got that mixed up with the ABM thingy [img]smile.gif[/img] I hate getting older [img]smile.gif[/img]

Sheesh what will I be like when I get to be 60?

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Sir ReGiN:
I cannot compete with your knowledges.
Sorry if I offended anyone, I will not debate this anymore [img]smile.gif[/img] <hr></blockquote>
Debate is not the problem, its when you make assumptions about things..and I don't blame you, I blame our media...they skew things to be exciting and controvertial and to hell with the facts, then half the world takes misinformation from the media to be fact...it is very sad and I am totally disappointed in the media for their dumbing things down so far that the truth is lost :(

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Morgan_Corbesant:


i didnt say enough to blow up the world, America isnt after world domination. im simply saying that we need to make sure that we can deal with the new types of threat. i agree that we waste alot of money on the military. that new F22 Raptor was NOT needed. i dont see a problem with a new ANTI MISSLE SYSTEM!!! its not like we are creating a new missle or something, just a system to stop them from reaching our soil IF someone tried to strike. offense, i can see people crying over, defense, that is dumb.<hr></blockquote>


Morgan, don't you think it is a bit silly for this country to be flying plane designs that date from 1960? The F-15, F-14 and others were conceived in the 60's and fielded in the 70's with the advent of new materials and breakthroughs in avionics and electronics, we see that each fighter will cost more to make...but far less to maintain...you do not want to know what spare parts for planes made in the 70's cost to make in todays economy, you have to upgrade some time...I think that over all the raptor program was handled pretty well, and that the tax payers will get their moneys worth....I will note that the one "modern" fighter in our inventory the FA-18 Hornet was a rather bad deal for the tax payer...they went cheap on it and as a result we got a fighter that was a mediocre fighter and an attack plane that was a mediocre attack plane..this was so bad that they had to go back and refit the plane at huge costs to turn it into the "Super Hornet" which is a decent enough platform but ended up making the tax payer pay twice for the same plane. While the Raptor may not have the urgency of previous fighters with no other Super Power out there...the length of time it takes to get a fighter into service means you have to field new equipment at some point....or you run the risk of not having the right tool when it is needed....you need to have these things ready before you NEED to use them. :D hehe can anyone tell Im totaly into this military hardware thing? heheheh

Just a PS. All the info I have discussed in this thread is available in the public domain, you just have to have an interest and a will to track some of it down [img]smile.gif[/img]