Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Is it me, or is China a bit behind in the whole space thing?
Astropuyo
Member RarePosts: 2,178
I've been reading articles on the Chinese space program for the last few months now.
Actively reading, because it's pure comedy.
It's like they are 50 years behind.
-"They are the guy who JUST NOW saw Napoleon Dynamite and is quoting from it."-
It's a goldmine.
From their perfect 100 things their space men will need.
To this.
China warns of 'arms race in outer space
GENEVA – China's Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi called Wednesday for international diplomacy to avert an "arms race in outer space."
Space should be reserved for peaceful purposes, Yang told the 65-nation Conference on Disarmament in Geneva.
"Outer space is now facing the looming danger of weaponization," he said. "Credible and effective multilateral measures must be taken to forestall the weaponization and arms race in outer space."
China and Russia have been vocal advocates of a global treaty against space-based weapons and argue for this to be included in future Conference of Disarmament negotiations.
The United States has dismissed the criticism as designed to block its plans for a missile interceptor system — while leaving untouched Chinese and Russian ground-based missiles that can fire into space.
"Countries should neither develop missile defense systems that undermine global strategic stability nor deploy weapons in outer space," Yang said.
He added that China welcomed moves to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
"The complete prohibition and thorough destruction of nuclear weapons and a nuclear weapon-free world have become widely embraced goals," Yang said. He appeared to be referring to President Barack Obama's call in April for a "world without nuclear weapons."
"We welcome these developments," Yang said.
-----
I'm sorry but did these guys totally miss the 60's-90's? Star wars, and various weapon tech programs that exist today?
THEY ARE WARNING PEOPLE OF WEAPONIZNG SPACE.
What a riot.
Comments
As of lately we Americans (perhaps the rest of the world also) are behind in the whole space thing. Basically at this point space equals cost. There is no profit to be made thus it's a non-issue.
I just keep expecting to read press releases with them describing what they will do when they finally land on the moon.
And if such a thing happens, what they plan to do when they find the legendary lunar men and the protocols if they happen to be democratic.
Do they wage war ?
Or do they just accept 40% of the people will buy lunar men products.
/done in the fashion of the onion.
They do have the technology to knock every satellite in orbit out of the sky.
Sure many other countrys do too.
Still, what more do you need in this day and age.
You kind of make it sound like China's been oblivious to the fact that we've been making round trip vacations to the Moon the last few decades. We haven't.
Anyway, the debate is present and relevant. Case in point, we're fighting two wars now highly dependent upon satellite imagery and communications. What's protecting those? And what exactly did we monitor North Korea's missile with that "achieved orbit"?
It isn't so much a debate that belongs in the past as it is a debate that may be too soon, or not soon enough. It's all about asset security and how to secure them. The debate is whether or not an arms race is the best soluation to securing what we do have in space and whether we should do it now.
Either way, it'll eventually happen given how much our country has personally invested in space. It won't be tomorrow that we have to deal with uh, Somalian pirates boarding Hubble, but you know, eventually we'll start wondering about the actual security of our Google Maps software and HSPA+ connections.
The Arms Race was won a long time ago mate, unfortunately (to the world) the US won that one. (One of the few wars we have won).
The thing you might be missing is that this debate was done long ago and it came down to this.
People can't be trusted, people are random creatures.
Look at N.Korea, one day a happy go lucky dictator, the next it's HOLY CRAP they're prototyping nuke launches.
This was the whole basis of star wars in the first place. This subject and debate has been brought up long ago and now ever since china discovered "hey we can travel space too" they keep bringing articles to the table that the world long ago decided "this is for the best".
From a tactical standpoint, they are very VERY late in the game. They are bringing in subjects we'd last seen in the 60's.
They are way behind, and thusly trying to make the world see their point of view, because in the space race they are near last.
From a country standpoint, of course you should weaponize space, to an extent. If you take the mentality space shouldn't be weaponized then by all means disarm your nuke silo's on earth.
This is where they are behind the most. It's a simple matter of them not having the tech or ability to keep up with the world so they are using the traditional han method of slowing other's progress.
It's a time honored method of war.
EDIT: And no we are not doing the vacation thing, yet (?) but for the most part our NASA has sent probes to mars, had a space stations for how long? Meanwhile the chinese government is very much doing the whole BIG SPENDING (More spending on space than anything) trying to catch up. It's like the losing guy in a fight going TIME OUT.
They plan to toss up a military station up there manned by two people. You bet your ass there will be a charred space mechanism on that thing.
The Arms Race was won a long time ago mate, unfortunately (to the world) the US won that one. (One of the few wars we have won).
The thing you might be missing is that this debate was done long ago and it came down to this.
People can't be trusted, people are random creatures.
Look at N.Korea, one day a happy go lucky dictator, the next it's HOLY CRAP they're prototyping nuke launches.
This was the whole basis of star wars in the first place. This subject and debate has been brought up long ago and now ever since china discovered "hey we can travel space too" they keep bringing articles to the table that the world long ago decided "this is for the best".
From a tactical standpoint, they are very VERY late in the game. They are bringing in subjects we'd last seen in the 60's.
They are way behind, and thusly trying to make the world see their point of view, because in the space race they are near last.
From a country standpoint, of course you should weaponize space, to an extent. If you take the mentality space shouldn't be weaponized then by all means disarm your nuke silo's on earth.
This is where they are behind the most. It's a simple matter of them not having the tech or ability to keep up with the world so they are using the traditional han method of slowing other's progress.
It's a time honored method of war.
EDIT: And no we are not doing the vacation thing, yet (?) but for the most part our NASA has sent probes to mars, had a space stations for how long? Meanwhile the chinese government is very much doing the whole BIG SPENDING (More spending on space than anything) trying to catch up. It's like the losing guy in a fight going TIME OUT.
They plan to toss up a military station up there manned by two people. You bet your ass there will be a charred space mechanism on that thing.
You're still looking unnecessarily far into the past trying to find some relevance in current concerns of weaponizing space. It was only in 2002 or so did Bush back us out of the UN Treaty preventing the weaponization of space, and since then it's not like there hasn't been a global debate over our plans for a missile defense system dependent upon militarizing space.
Yes, there was the "Star Wars" thing moons ago, but what's the point? Flight was thought about centuries ago, if some South American village creates a plane tomorrow and joins discussions about air regulation, why would we ignore present and relevant debate in order to mock them with Da Vinci drawings?
I just don't get your angle given there's much of the present and infinitely more of the future that's relevant to debate when it comes to employing weapons and defense systems into space. It has to do with the security of expensive things in space moreso than it does any hallmarks like moonlandings and other expeditions. The security of trade moreso than circling the world the first time.
I suppose the biggest point is the aforementioned, the debate has CONTINUED since that point in the past you mention and evolved through established treaties and broken treaties. The debate of weapons in space isn't an old one, its a developed one and it's either present or premature depending on your stance. Definitely not old news though.
The Arms Race was won a long time ago mate, unfortunately (to the world) the US won that one. (One of the few wars we have won).
The thing you might be missing is that this debate was done long ago and it came down to this.
People can't be trusted, people are random creatures.
Look at N.Korea, one day a happy go lucky dictator, the next it's HOLY CRAP they're prototyping nuke launches.
This was the whole basis of star wars in the first place. This subject and debate has been brought up long ago and now ever since china discovered "hey we can travel space too" they keep bringing articles to the table that the world long ago decided "this is for the best".
From a tactical standpoint, they are very VERY late in the game. They are bringing in subjects we'd last seen in the 60's.
They are way behind, and thusly trying to make the world see their point of view, because in the space race they are near last.
From a country standpoint, of course you should weaponize space, to an extent. If you take the mentality space shouldn't be weaponized then by all means disarm your nuke silo's on earth.
This is where they are behind the most. It's a simple matter of them not having the tech or ability to keep up with the world so they are using the traditional han method of slowing other's progress.
It's a time honored method of war.
EDIT: And no we are not doing the vacation thing, yet (?) but for the most part our NASA has sent probes to mars, had a space stations for how long? Meanwhile the chinese government is very much doing the whole BIG SPENDING (More spending on space than anything) trying to catch up. It's like the losing guy in a fight going TIME OUT.
They plan to toss up a military station up there manned by two people. You bet your ass there will be a charred space mechanism on that thing.
You're still looking unnecessarily far into the past trying to find some relevance in current concerns of weaponizing space. It was only in 2002 or so did Bush back us out of the UN Treaty preventing the weaponization of space, and since then it's not like there hasn't been a global debate over our plans for a missile defense system dependent upon militarizing space.
Yes, there was the "Star Wars" thing moons ago, but what's the point? Flight was thought about centuries ago, if some South American village creates a plane tomorrow and joins discussions about air regulation, why would we ignore present and relevant debate in order to mock them with Da Vinci drawings?
I just don't get your angle given there's much of the present and infinitely more of the future that's relevant to debate when it comes to employing weapons and defense systems into space. It has to do with the security of expensive things in space moreso than it does any hallmarks like moonlandings and other expeditions. The security of trade moreso than circling the world the first time.
I suppose the biggest point is the aforementioned, the debate has CONTINUED since that point in the past you mention and evolved through established treaties and broken treaties. The debate of weapons in space isn't an old one, its a developed one and it's either present or premature depending on your stance. Definitely not old news though.
If you look at their key arguments it's very much far into the past. So naturally I'm drawing the same line. Prior to 2002 we had been ongoing with developing weapons/tactical equipment for space, hence why our tech boosted during Iraq, these were not things they just made a week prior and shot them out there. No these had been developed long ago, but regardless this is not that debate.
The point is simple, they keep bringing up points long ago decided upon, yet they plan to launch a military 2 manned platform. A stall technique so they can catch their breath. Like I said a TRIED and TRUE Han war technique was stall progress on the spear, while you develope a pike.
If the South American village was essentially trying to dictate to the world "This is how you should fly" after the world had long ago figured out "How you should fly" you wouldn't see that as a little late to the party? Naturally they could have say, but when they start dictating to people meanwhile planning to launch military grade equipment into space?
What happens when the South American village suddenly pops out a harrier class combat jet? You know after they've essentially delegated to the world "this is how regulations should be".
You aren't getting the point here, they are leading the rest of the world, on this "debate" they are using key notes from the Star War's debates. They are also the ones who are behind on the tech and they just dumped 2 billion into the military space agency they have going on over there. Meanwhile they are not DEBATING. They are delegating. They are pushing on this. The chinese don't debate.
Yet while they do this, they are treating space as though it is a very new thing, it's like me bringing back a topic from 2003 on the boards and expecting everyone to review my points, even though the point was made in 2004.
I was mocking the fact they are as I said "quoting things from the past" in order to stall everyones development.
China simply doesn't see why it has to waste resources doing that, when they have to keep an eye on the United States militarily. It a bad waste of resouces for them.
Especially if they can just spend more money into government sponsored hacking, and just steal all the info that the United States develops, or bribes some American who is a capitalist at heart with 1 million dollars for secrets.
Why do all the work when someone else can saving you billions?
"TO MICHAEL!"
I agree, weapons in space are a necessity as long as their are inter-continental ballistic missiles on earth. I wouldn't say they are behind. They are in space, considering the US, Russia, and Japan haven't made any serious progress in the last 30 years just getting there is already victory.
I just find it amusing, I'm taking The onion approach to what is really going on about the scenes.
We all know we'll be han , speaking Chinese eventually, hell that would be groovey because then I (if there is a future life) will be like "Ima order some food" instead of ethnically declaring my meal.
Not only that, I'll be able to do Kung-Fu really well, without the use of wires, and since no one will be practicing boxing, It'll lead up for some long, intense fights. I'll be excellent in math. And my hatred for Jerry Lewis will be justified (I HATE THAT MAN).
Eventually the Chinese will dominate space, as after they've dominated the world where else is there to go?
Of course some of this is jackassery such as the Kung-fu, but it's a real situation, if their black plague doesn't take em out, their numbers dictate they are next the "race" to dominate the planet. That many people even inter-mating with other "races" will eventually just be Chinese.
At the same time, they keep using the arrogant method of stalling everyone else, while they secretly (or not so secretly) work on their space weapons programs. Meanwhile using old debate keys, this isn't an evolving debate, it's recycled. That's the funny in it.
?
Russia won that one mate.
Sputnik!
ICBM.
There are three countries I know of with anti-satelitte missiles. Russia has had them for decades, China got theirs very recently and the U.S. just after that.
I can't imagine anyone in their right mind shooting down a Chinese space station. Given that the Chinese can shoot down space stations too and space stations cost a lot of money as do satelittes. He who has the most lose is least likely to risk it.
The part of the space race the U.S. won was the race to put a man on the moon. Everything else, the Russians won.
One of the dangers of weapons in space is that they can be used to deny mutually assured destruction or the launching of nuclear forces. They allow for a first strike scenario again, ending the stalemate that has bought world peace for so long.
I feel that any nation weaponising space is making a deliberate attempt to destabilise the world and endangering us all. On the otherhand arms races never stand still. To pretend that they do just means you will fall behind. At least up in space everything you do is clear for all to see. There aren't likely to be too many suprises in any build up of forces there. You have to fo it in plain view of everyone else by it's very nature.
?
Russia won that one mate.
Sputnik!
ICBM.
There are three countries I know of with anti-satelitte missiles. Russia has had them for decades, China got theirs very recently and the U.S. just after that.
I can't imagine anyone in their right mind shooting down a Chinese space station. Given that the Chinese can shoot down space stations too and space stations cost a lot of money as do satelittes. He who has the most lose is least like to risk it.
The part of the space race the U.S. won was the race to put a man on the moon. Everything else, the Russians won.
One of the dangers of weapons in space is that they can be used to deny mutually assured destruction or the launching of nuclear forces. They allow for a first strike scenario again, ending the stalemate that has bought world peace for so long.
I feel that any nation weaponising space is making a deliberate attempt to destabilise the world and endangering us all. On the otherhand arms races never stand still. To pretend that they do just means you will fall behind. At least up in space everything you do is clear for all to see. There aren't likely to be too many suprises in any build up of forces there. You have to fo it in plain view of everyone else by it's very nature.
Arms races mate, not the space race.
Russia kicked our asses with that one (good for you Russia!).
We're talking about weapons, and the ability to create charred space.
Though the ICBM's did assist.
We came through with SBL which in my opinion is more like having a mini deathstar.
I'm not doing a whoms weapon penis is bigger here as quite frankly is scary enough we have.
Ballistics is one thing, I think they launched theirs a few month earlier, were less reliable and tended to have alot of hardware faults, as compared to the US release of far reliable technologies.
Kind of like a musket versus a fully functional assault rifle. Just like Sputnik versus Mir (though I believe mir was a collaboration)
Sputnik was there first but it was built on many failing systems, as opposed to Mir which at the time of it's decent could of last (though it would of been useless) many years.
When we say race, i guess it does kind of go for who was there first.
Maybe I should change the analogy to "Space superiority".
Because yes, while first, true, they were not reliable or well built systems.
Good lookin on reminding me of the ICBM's.
Edit: Added what was left out of my quote after your edit, wish to pick up a piece from it as it has a very good point.
That's the thing though, of course it's a bad idea, it's playing open handed cards, showing your hand to everyone.
The biggest thing is though, how could one group of people declare such when they have charred space mechanisms placed on all of their satalite based things. They've essenstially placed weapons into orbit that would do damage for decades over that orbial plane. Screwing future generations. They are only worried about this because it is the one ADVANTAGE they do not have over the world. China has been vastly slower than most of the other super powers in doing space research/weapons tech.
They have advantage of nuclear power,spending power, population. (I believe the term was, when , yes WHEN nuclear war happend, ten million Chinese could over run the remaining US population with ease, this was the basics of their war plan).
They do not have this advantage and given to the art of war the fear their tactical weakness. Eventually they will in fact catch up, however do we really want them to? Christ they'd essentially have every tactical advantage over the entire world. As they have since the early days of the Revolution (Chinese).
We all know they are developing their own weapons. They are masters of war after all.
The U.S. has won more wars than it has lost.
You take your own signature WAY too seriously about trolling. Silliness is not a virtue when mixed with hyperbole about the record of our troops.
Perhaps a tour or two would have given you a better perspective of our nation's military service.
Or at least a cursory look inside a history book. Just to name a few of our outright victories:
1. Revolutionary War.
2. War of 1812.
3. World War I (with allies)
4. World War II (with allies)
5. Mexican-American War
6. Spanish-American War
7. Persian Gulf War
Ties:
1. Vietnam
2. Korea
"TO MICHAEL!"
Everybody's kinda lacking & behind on the whole "space thing" lately. But the country that controls space or earth's orbit first will control the world, so they do have a point and valid concern. The last thing we really want is having everybody trying to send military satellites up there and starts building their own space stations. Although the point that many countries simply can't afford to do so is also a valid one.
EQ1-AC1-DAOC-FFXI-L2-EQ2-WoW-DDO-GW-LoTR-VG-WAR-GW2-ESO
I'm not aware of any weapons systems used in space that are not ballistic missiles.
What is an SBL?
There were a whole load of Disney animations made in the Reagun era. Lasers and shotguns etc fired from killsats. But animations is all they are.
ICBM and Anti-satelitte BM's. Both of which Russia had first and the anti sat missile, America only got in the last year or so.
When it comes to missiles and rocketry, the Russians are streaks ahead.
No ones ballistic missiles are more reliable than the Russians. That's why NASA uses them.
China has not been slower than the U.S. making space weapons. They got anti satelitte weapons first. America got ICBM's first. Their space arms race is broadly on parity.
The U.S. has won more wars than it has lost.
You take your own signature WAY too seriously about trolling. Silliness is not a virtue when mixed with hyperbole about the record of our troops.
Perhaps a tour or two would have given you a better perspective of our nation's military service.
Or at least a cursory look inside a history book. Just to name a few of our outright victories:
1. Revolutionary War. - Have we really won it? Trading the same system for the ...Same system? When was the last time your congressman got back to you?
2. War of 1812. -Granted.
3. World War I (with allies) - THE WORLD won that one.
4. World War II (with allies) THE WORLD won that one two. (sorry puns), Aside from the Pacific theater, which took german technology to win. Which would of been us had we not had THE WORLD. See>Amerika Bomber
5. Mexican-American War - Once again a stalemate. The tactic changed to instead of conquest by arms, a conquest by nationalization. This "war" is ongoing today. (I personally feel they had a right to be pissed at us)
6. Spanish-American War -Granted.
7. Persian Gulf War- That my friend was a stale mate, we came back into the middle east again to...do the same thing we originally set forward doing, in the end causing much more death than had we stayed out of it.
Ties:
1. Vietnam
2. Korea
The Vietnam- was no tie man, we lost. We got our asses kicked pure and simple. We fell back, retreated.
Don't even try to tell me won, I've taken care of Vets as a caregiver, I have long spoken with many vets who say the same thing; it was a war we couldn't win. The french don't call it a tie, they call it a smashing loss.
Further more when coming home, our men were spat upon, as though it was the right thing to do. Who WON there?!
Korea we have still yet to win, we're still at war. No treaty was made, just a cease fire.
War In Iraq: We lost, they won. We gained nothing but loss of our boys over meaningless battles. (I applaud all service men who fought there/still do fight, but it wasn't our war) further more had we remained, we saw no victory in sight. See>Vietnam.
I do not see how a tour or two would change my mind or history of facts present. If anything it has bred into you a MY TEAM IS THE BEST mentality that one could only get through regiment.
I'm a military brat, I started life on a base and chances are in the end I'll end up there anyhow.
Anyhow I can't possibly see how being made to kill another human being would give me anymore insight into history of facts.
What you take as trolling is one mans objectivity.
Then again I've addressed your "wins/0 losses" with facts.
We've won a few, when they are on our soil. WE THE "FREE" WORLD won out WW1-2, Without Russia we'd all be speaking German FYI.
I'm not aware of any weapons systems used in space that are not ballistic missiles.
What is an SBL?
There were a whole load of Disney animations made in the Reagun era. Lasers and shotguns etc fired from killsats. But animations is all they are.
ICBM and Anti-satelitte BM's. Both of which Russia had first and the anti sat missile, America only got in the last year or so.
When it comes to missiles and rocketry, the Russians are streaks ahead.
No ones ballistic missiles are more reliable than the Russians. That's why NASA uses them.
China has not been slower than the U.S. making space weapons. They got anti satelitte weapons first. America got ICBM's first. Their space arms race is broadly on parity.
SBL was a space based laser satalite , it was held up by the UN (from said talks in the past). It was a manufactured ready to be sent (when final notice that a CLEAR NO by the U.N) hit it was abandoned.
The working unit shifted around, and who knows where it ended up.
I really wish i could find the pictures on it, I have them in a book , but no scanner to scan them in..
Anyhow it had the ability to target up to a nickles radius, to a small cars (or missile), it's next gen is the one we are finally sending up into space, once again at the shaking of heads with the U.N (like it matters now, the U.N has essentially lost much of it's brokering power).
This was project was started in early 1980, and was ended in 1987. Not animations , a full out laser unit. It's younger sibling is about to see orbit shortly.
Had it not been for the U.N we'd of had our self a deathstar by now. GOOD LOOKIN UN!
Could this partially be a response to the rods from god, proposed weapon system?
Here we go, the article is very limited and not detailed but it gets the point across.
www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/sbl.htm
Edit: I want you to know I went through hell to find this link literally. I came across a misclick that will leave me limp for many MANY hours to come. It involved a ancient kooter, and laser hair removal. Needless to say. EW.
I saw the largest laser in the world at Glastonbury once in the 90's. They used two petrol tankers full of water to cool it. I can't see that getting launched into space.
I think you'll find that the Star Wars program ended when America run out of money. America has never listened to the U.N. about anything ever.
Sorry, but as yet SBL does not exist. There was a research program, and that's it. There has been a research program for the last 40 years, so I wouldn't hold your breath. Congress cut off the funding 9 years ago, presumably because it's a load of bollocks. Futher development has been postponed indefinitely and they have switched over to missile based systems for the current R&D preference instead.
Maybe one day hey?
But er... lol, don't hold your breath.
Well there is a valuable resource on the moon. It's called Hellium-3, used for fusion reactors. So if fusion reactors replace nuclear reactors completly then the moon could be harvested for it and create huge profits.
The U.S. has won more wars than it has lost.
You take your own signature WAY too seriously about trolling. Silliness is not a virtue when mixed with hyperbole about the record of our troops.
Perhaps a tour or two would have given you a better perspective of our nation's military service.
Or at least a cursory look inside a history book. Just to name a few of our outright victories:
1. Revolutionary War. - Have we really won it? Trading the same system for the ...Same system? When was the last time your congressman got back to you?
2. War of 1812. -Granted.
3. World War I (with allies) - THE WORLD won that one.
4. World War II (with allies) THE WORLD won that one two. (sorry puns), Aside from the Pacific theater, which took german technology to win. Which would of been us had we not had THE WORLD. See>Amerika Bomber
5. Mexican-American War - Once again a stalemate. The tactic changed to instead of conquest by arms, a conquest by nationalization. This "war" is ongoing today. (I personally feel they had a right to be pissed at us)
6. Spanish-American War -Granted.
7. Persian Gulf War- That my friend was a stale mate, we came back into the middle east again to...do the same thing we originally set forward doing, in the end causing much more death than had we stayed out of it.
Ties:
1. Vietnam
2. Korea
The Vietnam- was no tie man, we lost. We got our asses kicked pure and simple. We fell back, retreated.
Don't even try to tell me won, I've taken care of Vets as a caregiver, I have long spoken with many vets who say the same thing; it was a war we couldn't win. The french don't call it a tie, they call it a smashing loss.
Further more when coming home, our men were spat upon, as though it was the right thing to do. Who WON there?!
Korea we have still yet to win, we're still at war. No treaty was made, just a cease fire.
War In Iraq: We lost, they won. We gained nothing but loss of our boys over meaningless battles. (I applaud all service men who fought there/still do fight, but it wasn't our war) further more had we remained, we saw no victory in sight. See>Vietnam.
I do not see how a tour or two would change my mind or history of facts present. If anything it has bred into you a MY TEAM IS THE BEST mentality that one could only get through regiment.
I'm a military brat, I started life on a base and chances are in the end I'll end up there anyhow.
Anyhow I can't possibly see how being made to kill another human being would give me anymore insight into history of facts.
What you take as trolling is one mans objectivity.
Then again I've addressed your "wins/0 losses" with facts.
We've won a few, when they are on our soil. WE THE "FREE" WORLD won out WW1-2, Without Russia we'd all be speaking German FYI.
Umm you really are a Sucsefull Troll
Props on your mad Trolling skills.
If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude; greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Samuel Adams
The U.S. has won more wars than it has lost.
You take your own signature WAY too seriously about trolling. Silliness is not a virtue when mixed with hyperbole about the record of our troops.
Perhaps a tour or two would have given you a better perspective of our nation's military service.
Or at least a cursory look inside a history book. Just to name a few of our outright victories:
1. Revolutionary War. - Have we really won it? Trading the same system for the ...Same system? When was the last time your congressman got back to you?
2. War of 1812. -Granted.
3. World War I (with allies) - THE WORLD won that one.
4. World War II (with allies) THE WORLD won that one two. (sorry puns), Aside from the Pacific theater, which took german technology to win. Which would of been us had we not had THE WORLD. See>Amerika Bomber
5. Mexican-American War - Once again a stalemate. The tactic changed to instead of conquest by arms, a conquest by nationalization. This "war" is ongoing today. (I personally feel they had a right to be pissed at us)
6. Spanish-American War -Granted.
7. Persian Gulf War- That my friend was a stale mate, we came back into the middle east again to...do the same thing we originally set forward doing, in the end causing much more death than had we stayed out of it.
Ties:
1. Vietnam
2. Korea
The Vietnam- was no tie man, we lost. We got our asses kicked pure and simple. We fell back, retreated.
Don't even try to tell me won, I've taken care of Vets as a caregiver, I have long spoken with many vets who say the same thing; it was a war we couldn't win. The french don't call it a tie, they call it a smashing loss.
Further more when coming home, our men were spat upon, as though it was the right thing to do. Who WON there?!
Korea we have still yet to win, we're still at war. No treaty was made, just a cease fire.
War In Iraq: We lost, they won. We gained nothing but loss of our boys over meaningless battles. (I applaud all service men who fought there/still do fight, but it wasn't our war) further more had we remained, we saw no victory in sight. See>Vietnam.
I do not see how a tour or two would change my mind or history of facts present. If anything it has bred into you a MY TEAM IS THE BEST mentality that one could only get through regiment.
I'm a military brat, I started life on a base and chances are in the end I'll end up there anyhow.
Anyhow I can't possibly see how being made to kill another human being would give me anymore insight into history of facts.
What you take as trolling is one mans objectivity.
Then again I've addressed your "wins/0 losses" with facts.
We've won a few, when they are on our soil. WE THE "FREE" WORLD won out WW1-2, Without Russia we'd all be speaking German FYI.
We forced the Vietnamese to the table and that's why we tied. If we had just left, that would have been a loss. Both sides agreed to cease hostilities. That's called a tie.
Revolutionary War- You don't think we beat the British? Ask King George.
World War I- No U.S. no victory. It's like I said we won WITH allies. Stop splitting hairs. Same with WW II.
Mexican American War- Terms of Surrender signed. Them. Us? California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. We win. "Outnumbered militarily and with many of its large cities occupied, Mexico could not defend itself and was also faced with internal divisions. It had little choice but to make peace on any terms."
Persian Gulf War- Which is the FIRST gulf war. You deny we won that? Saddam ran and went back to Iraq from Kuwait.
Just because your parents are in the military, they don't automatically give you knowledge of wars by osmosis.
Please stop.
"TO MICHAEL!"
The U.S. has won more wars than it has lost.
You take your own signature WAY too seriously about trolling. Silliness is not a virtue when mixed with hyperbole about the record of our troops.
Perhaps a tour or two would have given you a better perspective of our nation's military service.
Or at least a cursory look inside a history book. Just to name a few of our outright victories:
1. Revolutionary War. - Have we really won it? Trading the same system for the ...Same system? When was the last time your congressman got back to you?
2. War of 1812. -Granted.
3. World War I (with allies) - THE WORLD won that one.
4. World War II (with allies) THE WORLD won that one two. (sorry puns), Aside from the Pacific theater, which took german technology to win. Which would of been us had we not had THE WORLD. See>Amerika Bomber
5. Mexican-American War - Once again a stalemate. The tactic changed to instead of conquest by arms, a conquest by nationalization. This "war" is ongoing today. (I personally feel they had a right to be pissed at us)
6. Spanish-American War -Granted.
7. Persian Gulf War- That my friend was a stale mate, we came back into the middle east again to...do the same thing we originally set forward doing, in the end causing much more death than had we stayed out of it.
Ties:
1. Vietnam
2. Korea
The Vietnam- was no tie man, we lost. We got our asses kicked pure and simple. We fell back, retreated.
Don't even try to tell me won, I've taken care of Vets as a caregiver, I have long spoken with many vets who say the same thing; it was a war we couldn't win. The french don't call it a tie, they call it a smashing loss.
Further more when coming home, our men were spat upon, as though it was the right thing to do. Who WON there?!
Korea we have still yet to win, we're still at war. No treaty was made, just a cease fire.
War In Iraq: We lost, they won. We gained nothing but loss of our boys over meaningless battles. (I applaud all service men who fought there/still do fight, but it wasn't our war) further more had we remained, we saw no victory in sight. See>Vietnam.
I do not see how a tour or two would change my mind or history of facts present. If anything it has bred into you a MY TEAM IS THE BEST mentality that one could only get through regiment.
I'm a military brat, I started life on a base and chances are in the end I'll end up there anyhow.
Anyhow I can't possibly see how being made to kill another human being would give me anymore insight into history of facts.
What you take as trolling is one mans objectivity.
Then again I've addressed your "wins/0 losses" with facts.
We've won a few, when they are on our soil. WE THE "FREE" WORLD won out WW1-2, Without Russia we'd all be speaking German FYI.
We forced the Vietnamese to the table and that's why we tied. If we had just left, that would have been a loss. Both sides agreed to cease hostilities. That's called a tie.
Revolutionary War- You don't think we beat the British? Ask King George.
World War I- No U.S. no victory. It's like I said we won WITH allies. Stop splitting hairs. Same with WW II.
Mexican American War- Terms of Surrender signed. Them. Us? California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and Wyoming. We win. "Outnumbered militarily and with many of its large cities occupied, Mexico could not defend itself and was also faced with internal divisions. It had little choice but to make peace on any terms."
Persian Gulf War- Which is the FIRST gulf war. You deny we won that? Saddam ran and went back to Iraq from Kuwait.
Just because your parents are in the military, they don't automatically give you knowledge of wars by osmosis.
Please stop.
I personally love how you derail the topic with military rhetoric, but I'll play since .. I'm cool like that.
The Vietnam war, was not a tie. Not even close. We got our asses kicked. In order to fight longer there we'd of essentially had to of used a nuclear option. Much like your "Saddam went running back" WTF did we do?What did we gain?
The Revolutionary War, what changed? I'll let you have this one, but honestly I don't see what changed or how exactly we won.
The Civil War, (Since we seemed to have forgotten that one) who won there? I'd say that was a pretty big loss for America as a whole. What did we gain?
The Persian Gulf War, Dear god man, if anything that was a stale mate until much later. You carry an argument with the same standards for the Vietnam war as Saddam did so why is they do not get a tie?What did we gain?
Just because you were regimented doesn't mean you know all of war.
As for WW1-2 Splitting hairs? How ignorant are you? That was a world wide victory, it was not America Tag team with the world to fight the bad guys.
It was THE FREE WORLD (which included those Brits, you know those "evil "people we succeeded from,only to fall back to a same system) Christ on a cracker during the 4th of July. It was the World until America decided to come in. Before that it had bee "The world" alone. You cannot claim a victory "with allies" on this one. First off it's offensive to those other countries who had been fighting long before America got off her ass to assist, second it's just plain arrogant.
In order to win a war something must be gained. You total war jar heads amaze me. You think because someone showed you to point your iron sights or scope here, press a button here, you have the absolute authority on war.
You act as though you were a general with your "absolute" know how. Have you actually studied war? I don't care about your regimental training, I'm saying from an unbiased point of view.
Allow me to explain something simple. For war to be a WIN there must be something obtained in order for that win.
Please stop the GO TEAM AMERICA crap, and read the art of war. Every conflict we have been in past WW2 has been a gain nothing war.
Please describe more of these delusions you've been having. This was a space thread until you mixed in other warfare and claimed the U.S. won "few".
If you stop lying about the U.S. war history, I won't call you on it.
"TO MICHAEL!"