Reply
Sun 9 Feb, 2003 10:47 pm
i just heard on the radio, that 28 bombers are bound for guam. north korea is just a hop skip and jump away.
what would you make of that?
Interesting. Can't think of another darn thing to say.
It is going to get loud in the skies over Guam.
bombers aren't too bad, noise wise. it's the jet fighters that really make this place noisy.
Oh I don't know I lived by a fighter wing that did virtical take offs but those b-52s you could hear them warming up ofr about five minutes, then they hit full power, fly over and you hear them for about 15 more minutes. I thought it was way worse than the F-4s in after burner. But then I spent a lot of time in San Diego at test sight on how sonic booms affect the pupulation plus they would run up the atlas missle all the time during the 60s at Ryan at night.
I live near an Air National Guard base where they train pilots to fly F-16s. Talk about noisy! I got to where I didn't think about it much until the 9/11 attack. Now every time they do a lot of flying, I wonder what's going on.
Pueo, what I make of it is ... well ... things I don't even want to think about.
Stay safe!
I cannot exclude possibility of attempt to force N. Korea to give up her nuclear programs. The latter are dangerous not per se -- I am not sure that Kim is crazy enough to attack Japan or S. Korea -- but as a source of terrorists' access to the WMD. Maybe, the turn of N. Korea (if Kim does not get impressed with Iraqi leaders' destiny) will come after defeating Saddam.
Here is praying it is only for the purposes of chess-like psychological warfare and it works.
Sigh.
You already got those things near Perth - unless they already went to the Gulf - and you dropped one on us...
This war will be psychological only if Pyongyang learns lessons of Baghdad and acts correspondingly. Otherwise, it may be a real war.
it turns out that n. korea has missiles capable of striking guam. we make a tempting target with the naval and air force bases. the bombers are supposed to be defensive. i would think that interceptor/fighter aircraft would be defensive.
just a thought, are bombers a defensive or an offensive weapon?
Bombers are only defensive in the sense of 'the best defense is a good offence.' You knew that already, didn't you?
The standard military theory for the last 60 years or so has been the bombers are for defensive purposes in strategic sense and for offensive purposes in a tactical sense.
Are they sticking around or just enroute to Diego Garcia?
roger, yeah i know that. just sounds funny that bombers are considered "defensive".
fishin' the bombers are staying here for the foreseeable future. there a two submarines which have home ported here within the last 18 months. the third sub was supposed to arrive in 2004, but it arrived about three weeks ago.
should be interesting.
Thanks pueo.
"As part of our global efforts to address worldwide requirements, we are deploying additional forces to the Western Pacific as U.S. forces are preparing for possible military action elsewhere in the world. These moves are not aggressive in nature."
Oz government has told Australian citizens to leave Iraq. Forget all the denials. It's on.
Bombers here as 'a completely defensive action'
That's the headline. I just can't decide if it's the funniest thing I've ever seen.....................................or the most pathetic.
That is a pathetically funny headline! So ... does that mean we (meaning "we", whoever "we" are) wait until they (whichever evil place decides to be "they" "first") attack us (take your pick) ... then the aforementioned "we" will counterstrike? And not a moment sooner?
Oh, I don't know. It's all too complicated for me ... scary too.
I hope all of us know what we're getting ourselves into, but I fear none of us do.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace