Russia new wonder weapon?

[primitive]

Originally posted by newbie123:

quote:

---

Originally posted by primitive:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Atrocities:
.
.
.
.

If the French go then goes Europe.

(Just another mindless senseless rant courticy of Atrocities)

This France-bashing is getting even more stale than yesterdays baguettes

Its not the case of Europe (or France) going anywhere AT. Europe is old, Europe is stable, Europe knows when diplomacy works better than force. If USA and Europe (continues to) drift apart, its the US who do the drifting. Get rid of that warmongering president of yours and USA and Europe will be best buddies again. Its all up to you

---

Sorry but thats BS. Europe know when to quit diplomacy with hitler. Instead they gave him a more powerful position and the rest is history. as far as stable, I don't think the US is unstable. I might not be following you on this tho. To be fair, I believe there are equal amounts of blame on both sides in regards to us drifting apart. Neither wants to reason

---

Newb;
Thank you newb for the polite tone of your post. Kinda makes this much easier.
History is great, I suggest you study it a bit before you quote it and call my post for Bull****.

True, WWII was a diplomatic failure. But the mistake was not done in 1938-39, but in 1918 at the end of WWI. The emasculation of Germany made a rematch more or less inevitable. Sure; the buildup could be handled much better, but Chamberlain putting his foot down in 38 would not have stopped Hitler, it only would have made the war different. Better or worse, who knows ?

Most of the blame for the early failures in the war should be given to the prewar millitary planners in France (especially) and England. They totally missed 20 years of technological development and expected WWII to be a rerun of WWI. When the Blitzkrieg came, they was totally unprepared. The failure of the politicians was not lack of funding, but the lack of guts to remove the old WWI generals from power. But I disgress...

There was an importent lesson learned from the failure of 1918 that was remembered by the victors of WWII: However a war/conflict ends, make sure to not create a power vacuum when its over. This can either be done Stalins way; with an Iron fist, or the Roosevelt(Truman)/Churchill (or more correct Marshall) way; by rebuilding the concuered nations from the ground.

This lesson is still remembered by the Europeans (some 50 million deaths over 2 wars in 30 years leaves it mark). This is also why most Europeans did not support GWB's moronic invation of Iraq. Allthough getting rid of one mad dictator is a worthy cause, doing so without planning for a better alternative just makes things worse. GWB's feeble attempts at rebuilding is just patethic; It would have taken 10 times the amount money currently spent (not to mention spending it in Iraq instead of lining the pockets of his friends) to succed. The options left is either continious occupation the Stalin way or leaving creating the dreaded power vacuum which would probably be filled by some religious fanatic. Oups, I disgress again

Back to my point. Europe has not moved a bit. European policy is exactly as it was under Clinton (and before). Europe is still a strong supporter of the UN and of international law. When GWB decided to sidestep international law, he stepped away from Europe. When USA is ready to come back, they will be wellcome. Untill then; relationships suffers, the economies suffers (yours more than ours), the people of Iraq suffers and international terrorism continues to rise. Quite a legacy for one man.

Puke:
Sorry for hijacking the thread again (not really)

Atrocities:
Why would we want Kerry, he has not done anything wrong (yet). If we could get his wife and punish her for the sins of her family that would have been another matter. Forcing ketchup on the world must rank among the most hideous crimes ever

Dogscoff:
Its the Sweedes and the Danes, not all Scandinavians

[Yef]

Originally posted by dogscoff:

quote:

---

but when you find someone {..on the web..} from another country, odds are he is from the educated elite, or at least the upper middle class.

Your argument doesn't really hold, because there are plenty of other countries have equal or higher internet uptake than the US.

According to the CIA world factbook 2002:
US: 165.75m internet Users out of 290m total population = approx 57.2%

Here are just some other countries at similar levels:

Canada: 16.84 out of 32.2 = 52%
Australia: 10.63 out of 20 = 53%
South Korea: 25.6 out of 48.2 = 53.1%
UK: 34.3 out of 60.1 = 57.1%
Norway: 2.7 out of 4.5 = 60%
Netherlands: 9.73 out of 16.1 = 60.4%
Switzerland: 4.82 out of 7.3 = 66%
Denmark: 3.37m out of 5m = 67.4%
Sweden: 6.0 out of 8.9 = 67.4%

As you can see, by your theory, it's the scandinavians who should get the worst reputation for Online cretins.

If anyone has more up to date/ more commprehensive figures than these, please post them.

---

Actually, you prove my whole point.
US population with internet access: 165 millions
Combined total of countries that you mention: 113 millions

So the combined population with access from those countries doesn't even add to a total equal to the US pop with internet services, and since we think of people individually by each nationality they represent....

Just to put an example according to your numbers, you are likely to find 10 Americans for every Canadian Online, which of course give you odds of finding 10 American retards per every single Canadian in the same "group".

Thanks for backing my argument with numbers.

[ April 08, 2004, 19:08: Message edited by: Yef ]

[Timstone]

Originally posted by Yef:
Actually, you prove my whole point.
US population with internet access: 165 millions
Combined total of countries that you mention: 113 millions. [/QB]

Don't forget that this is only a top 10. There are far more people in the world with internet access combined that there are Americans. Just don't feel so bitten. The Americans are just a rollmodel for all the other part of the world hates. And not undeserved I might add, but that is just my vision.

[Puke]

yep. i would imagine that the super torpedo would only be good against surface ships, would have trouble targeting subs that they cant here.

on the other hand, they only have inferior PASSIVE sonar. in sub warfare, anyone can hear ANYTHING with active sonar. the problem is you give yourself away. if you have superior range and effectiveness with your supercavitating torpedo, you dont need to care about your own stealth.

start actively pinging, find your targets, kill them. it could indeed revolutionize sub warfare.

oh, and to the rest of you: go start your own thread to ***** in, were talking about high tech ways to kill people here.

[EvilGenius4ABetterTomorro]

Now if we put a Tard on a Torp (wired to the Internet)ahh never mind!

I think something that fast would practically be a direct fire weapon. Most underwater combat is like at 7000 yards, is that like a mile or something? Anyway 200 miles per hour torp in 7000 yards would practially be like and underwater artillery shell. Quite an impressive weapon. Maybe to counter it we could use the HAARP array to make 'em all distracted and happy.

[Yef]

Originally posted by Timstone:
Don't forget that this is only a top 10. There are far more people in the world with internet access combined that there are Americans. Just don't feel so bitten. The Americans are just a rollmodel for all the other part of the world hates. And not undeserved I might add, but that is just my vision.

Come on, give me a single nationality with a higher number of people with internet access.

Anyway you put it, you are more likely to find Americans Online that any other nationality, and thus a higher number of morons.

This is simple math. If we say that there are 3 countries, A, B, and C, and A have 100 cars, and B and C have 10 cars each, and 1 out of 10 of these cars are broken, how many broken cars from each country are you going to find?

[ April 08, 2004, 21:16: Message edited by: Yef ]

[Yef]

Originally posted by Puke:


on the other hand, they only have inferior PASSIVE sonar. in sub warfare, anyone can hear ANYTHING with active sonar. the problem is you give yourself away. if you have superior range and effectiveness with your supercavitating torpedo, you dont need to care about your own stealth.

start actively pinging, find your targets, kill them. it could indeed revolutionize sub warfare.

Let me tell you, you have a good point here. I know nothing of naval warfare, but what you say definitively makes sense.

With a long range, fast speed torpedo you could indeed go active sonar, find your target, fire away, and then turn off your active sonar and go back into the darkness.