Axon Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 You never know I guess...they could possibly find civilian applications for internal parts of the plane that may apply to mass transit or something. I'm not an airplane guru but I'm sure some of the innovations can apply...(hopefully) 585865993[/snapback] Of course there are applications that can be applied to civil projects. Jet engines, aireodynamics, new methods of bonding/joining sheets of steel/aluminum, better in flight computer control systems, and just experiance/training. It can help the economy, ect. Too bad its for a death machine, but still advancement is advancement. -Ax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Bourricot Posted May 4, 2005 Share Posted May 4, 2005 Army innovations are the reason we're typing this. And why we have civilian aircraft not running into each other in airports. and so on and on and on.... So in that aspect it's a good thing yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 I couldn't disagree more! Do you not remember the cold war? Arming ones self to the teeth only leads to a buildup of fear and tension between nations. Stopping a war should be done through democratic and negotiable channels.This "Mines Bigger" syndrome that grips North America has got to stop. Its going to get us all blown to pieces! -Ax 585859788[/snapback] i wasnt referring to aquiring mass amounts of military equipment and machinery to prevent wars. i was referring to having superior, yet expensive aircraft like the f/a-22 to be a way in using preventive wars. i think you misunderstood me. heres an analogy. are you more willing to fight a group of 4 with no weapons, 3 with bats, 2 with knives, or 1 person with a gun? you would rather go after the group with no weapons because theres less of a chance you will be severly injured. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axon Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 i wasnt referring to aquiring mass amounts of military equipment and machinery to prevent wars. i was referring to having superior, yet expensive aircraft like the f/a-22 to be a way in using preventive wars. i think you misunderstood me. 585875069[/snapback] And you're still thinking that there has to be violence at all! Just two different ways of approaching something with a common goal: peace. At least its the right common goal! -Ax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 And you're still thinking that there has to be violence at all!Just two different ways of approaching something with a common goal: peace. At least its the right common goal! -Ax 585875216[/snapback] wheres the violence in having a large aresenal of weapons at your disposal? wars are usually prevented if the costs of invading are too high. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
comk Posted May 5, 2005 Share Posted May 5, 2005 Since this fighter jet's details are revealed to the public, there are probably some better aircraft than this in production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaZurk Posted May 7, 2005 Share Posted May 7, 2005 Since this fighter jet's details are revealed to the public, there are probably some better aircraft than this in production. 585875252[/snapback] Yep somthing like the bird of prey maybe? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 I couldn't disagree more! Do you not remember the cold war? Arming ones self to the teeth only leads to a buildup of fear and tension between nations. Stopping a war should be done through democratic and negotiable channels.This "Mines Bigger" syndrome that grips North America has got to stop. Its going to get us all blown to pieces! -Ax And you're still thinking that there has to be violence at all!Just two different ways of approaching something with a common goal: peace. At least its the right common goal! -Ax 585875216[/snapback] That is not true at all. Peace REQUIRES a military. Most people don't seem to understand that. The only reason why the Cold War did not end up in mass destruction is because both sides were militarily strong otherwise one would have steamrollered the other. Peace is maintained through cooperation and military strength that discourages war. Western countries generally don't need to maintain large militaries because of their level of technology and NATO, not because military is not needed for peace. If you scale back your military and only seek peace through diplomacy at all costs, it amounts to appeasement a-la Neville Chamberlain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axon Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 Your military didn't seem to stop the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and that started a massive war effort. In fact I would wager a guess thats what started it. America is well accepted to have one of the largest and most advanced army in the world, and you were given a pot-shot for it. A cowards attack, but an attack none the less. -Ax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 Your military didn't seem to stop the terrorist attacks of 9/11, and that started a massive war effort. In fact I would wager a guess thats what started it. America is well accepted to have one of the largest and most advanced army in the world, and you were given a pot-shot for it. A cowards attack, but an attack none the less.-Ax 585889740[/snapback] and what exactly is your point? nobody said having the best and strongest military in the world solves all our problems, but at least if something happens, we can deal with it. like it or not, the U.S military is a major stabilizing force in this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Bourricot Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 You've dealt with it so well that 3 years later, the man responsible for it is still running around freely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axon Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 That is not true at all. Peace REQUIRES a military. Most people don't seem to understand that. The only reason why the Cold War did not end up in mass destruction is because both sides were militarily strong otherwise one would have steamrollered the other. Peace is maintained through cooperation and military strength that discourages war. Western countries generally don't need to maintain large militaries because of their level of technology and NATO, not because military is not needed for peace. If you scale back your military and only seek peace through diplomacy at all costs, it amounts to appeasement a-la Neville Chamberlain. 585889186[/snapback] and what exactly is your point? nobody said having the best and strongest military in the world solves all our problems, but at least if something happens, we can deal with it. like it or not, the U.S military is a major stabilizing force in this world. 585889759[/snapback] Starcom claims that having a strong military prevents war. 9/11 was the start of a war. A war that your strong and advanced militaries existance did not prevent. Yes it is being fully utilized now, but again, it prevented nothing. -Ax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 Starcom claims that having a strong military prevents war. 9/11 was the start of a war. A war that your strong and advanced militaries existance did not prevent. Yes it is being fully utilized now, but again, it prevented nothing.-Ax 585891658[/snapback] Care to explain how 9/11 'started' a war? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axon Posted May 8, 2005 Share Posted May 8, 2005 :blink: Afghanistan and Iraq...? The "Global War on Terrorism" as your leader says so often... -Ax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starcom826 Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 Of course, they don't have an army. They have guerillas and terrorists. If they had a military force of equivalent strength, there wouldn't be a war. I'm talking about normal people. There is a reason why war between major powers is non-existent anymore. Yes there are plenty of liberals who think having no military would be great. Judging how America would be run over and destroyed without one, It doesn't suprise me this is their goal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christracy Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 yes f22 is a vtol fightermy fav is still the tomcat. f14 arrghhaararhghh 585866757[/snapback] mine too. the raptor is definitely my number 2 as far as fighter. but its not a vtol, the marine variation of the joint strike fighter is a vtol. the raptor and joint strike fighter are two different designs. i think the raptor doesnt need the long runway like most of today's fighther but it doesnt do vertical Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rumbleph1$h Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 :blink: Afghanistan and Iraq...? The "Global War on Terrorism" as your leader says so often...-Ax 585892662[/snapback] Been going on for decades! The only thing that happened after 9/11 is the U.S. said enough is enough, and started fighting back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Axon Posted May 9, 2005 Share Posted May 9, 2005 Been going on for decades! The only thing that happened after 9/11 is the U.S. said enough is enough, and started fighting back. 585893350[/snapback] So you're suggesting that the US had plans for a large scale UN backed invasion planned prior to 9/11? I would have a hard time believing anything that remotely resembles that. -Ax Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfay Posted May 11, 2005 Share Posted May 11, 2005 no no no you are missing some history here. Bin Laden and Al Queda declared war on the US in the 80's or 90's I don't remember exactly. The attacks on us throughout the 90's were off soil and as such the US didn't do much in response. They were emboldened (sp?) and made a big grand attack on US soil, maybe they thought we woulnd't attack, dont know for sure. The reason he is running around is that in that area finding one person with local support and ahem governmental support from Pakistan is like a needle in a haystack. There are still soldiers there hunting for him, but it would be impossible to keep a sizable force in that area 24/7/365 ... its not a nice place to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts