 |
|
Jack_www
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Does anyone know what is it? |
can you tell us? I really dont know.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Lefty Scaevola
|
 |
San Antonio TX USA
Oct 2000
time: 23:32
|
|
"TUNGUSKA"
Well, isn't that an auspicious choice by the Russkies, naming an air defense system after a place that was smeared of the map by a dirty snowball faling out of the sky.
http://www.s-d-g.freeserve.co.uk/tunguska.html
Last edited by Lefty Scaevola on 02-01-2004 at 22:36
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Joseph
|
 |
Ca. USA
Feb 2000
time: 21:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jack_www
Russians do have good tanks and planes. If a world war broke our between the old Soviet Union and United States, I would bet it would be a stalemate. |
Now Serb is not going to like this but it would not be stalemate, I assured you.
Russia, 134 million pop. 50% or so are woman. 62 million men left. How many under 50 years of age?
Let's say 50%. 31 million to fight.
US, 280 million pop. 51% are woman. 135 million men.
I think it up to 54% are under 50. About 66 to 68 million are able to fight. That is about 2 to 1 for the USA.
The best equipment is still the F-14, 15, 16, and 18. They have never lost a air to air battle while being flown by US pilot. The best Tank is the M1A2. They have never lost a battle with an another tank.
Remember the first Gulf War, and you saw the picture of the highway with all of the bomb out vehicle, well there is this guy who was there, now working with me, and he told me, that picture was only part of it. He said it was far worse than they were allow to show.
Serb the F-117 that was shot down because the people on the ground saw the plane. Maybe it was not dark enough or the plane was to low or what ever, but they saw it with their eyes and fired the missile and shot it down. If you can see it, you can shoot at it. If you cannot see it, it petty hard to shoot at.
Also the SU-30 is just an update of the SU-27.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vince278
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Serb
Ok, I give up. What are you talking about? |
Breaking a treaty - One party to the treaty unilaterally refusing to fulfill a treaty obligation without cause or never intending to fulfill them in the first place. (example: German violation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939 to attack the Soviet Union)
Withdrawing from a treaty - Giving notice, within the provisions of the treaty, that you no longer wish to be bound by the terms of the treaty after a specified time. (example: DeGaulle taking France out of NATO)
The difference, you see, is that breaking a treaty is generally considered illegal and dishonorable. Withdrawing from a treaty, however, is entirely legal when allowed by that treaty, another treaty, or by consent of the parties to the treaty.
So, to bring it all together, President Bush withdrawing the US from the ABM Treaty is entirely legal because the provisions of the treaty allow it as long as formal notice was given.
Hope that helps. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000
time: 06:32
|
|
Were did Wittmann fight? did he kill rooskies or yanks?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-01-2004 16:28
The deal was illegal of course, in accordance with both Russian and Ukranian law. S-300 was a classified hardware and this firm had no right to sell it to anybody.
It's flying! It's Flying!!!
Attachment: 
|
