sometimes i think we should never have let america become independant, then they would be sensible, and civilised, like the uk

Windows NT crashed.
I am the Blue Screen of Death.
No one hears your screams

heh,.

as for me, well, i don't live in the US so its all based on what i accumulated from the net and books and stuff.

as for me, i'd personally get hold of a loong range single-fire sniper rifle. if i cna't get that, i'll get an M1 rifle. nothing better than the good'ol.

oh yeah i gotta Paintball gun too i love the life of a spoiled 10 year old

For every TIE Fighter you destroy,a thousand more take its place-Anonymous Imperial TIE Pilot

@ff If america had not become independent, we would never have had that little tea party up in Boston, nor would anyone have desighned the sweetest plane ever, the F14 Tom Cat. A great modern weapon. That and by becoming independant, we don't have exploding street toilets either....

Finalday

Until that final day. /Keith Green\ (1953-1983)

Edited by - Finalday on 2/6/2004 6:36:01 PM

Interesting thing about who may get involved in the gun making business here in the US. There's a relative newcomer to the handgun trade. It's reason for business is to deliver large calibers in small packages.

They make .40 caliber and 9mm pistols that have as small as 3" barrels.

Kahr Arms

Here's a 3" 9mm.


Anyone care to guess who the owner/founder of this little enterprise may be?

Edited by - Indy11 on 2/6/2004 6:40:57 PM

I would've expected Taw to post some massive essay about the state of todays weaponry.....maybe he's getting a bit old

With modern, can it be anything within the 20th century, WWII etc?
I wouldn't have anything less than an Mk 941-U SSBN Akula class nuclear submarine. The Akula SSBN carries 20 MIRVed ICBMs (Inter-Continental Ballistic Missiles); each missile has 10 nuclear warheads and a 10,000-km range. It even has a swimming pool on board. It can also wipe out a small European country or 50 percent of Afghanistan.

whatcha gonna do with your little machine pistols?

You miss his post? I thought it said it all...... for him, that is.

@griffon, i thought it was a bad thing if you had a large body of water in a submarine...

how do you think submarines sink and rise? Ballast tanks with water and compressed air.

nuclear weapons really shouldn't count as you can't actually use them, can you? not without risking a massive escalation or the impact of fallout on non-hostile nations.

modern weapons are terribly destructive and very expensive. that's why the pace of modern war is so fast, no-one can afford to keep up the tempo. Even the United States had to wait a t least a year to replenish the stocks of missiles and bombs after the Afghanistan campaign.

I doubt many of you have actually seen firsthand the carnage modern munitions do. Fragmentation and phosphor weapons are particularly horrible as they maim rather than kill (a perfectly legitimate tactic of course) but you know, of course, that it's always the civilians who pay the price.

and it's the smell, of course, that acrid stink of cordite and burning rotting flesh, and having to pick up human remains bit by bit. it's disgusting.

Edited by - Tawakalna on 2/7/2004 3:13:25 AM

Mmm, Taw's feeling cheerful today! What do you think about aerial bombing? I have always felt that, while it is a cowardly way to wage war, it is very effective in removing "obstacles". Those "dam-busters" from WW2 were very nice. Plus, they didn't send destruction over a wide area which is always a plus.

I'm intrigued by Indy's post on the last page. Who is the owner/founder might I ask?

Aerial bombing just follows Gen. Patton's ideas. A solder once said to him, that he, the solder, was willing to give his life for his country. Patton fired back, that it was wrong, Make the other guy give HIS life for His country. The object is to kill the other guy while preserving yours. In hand to hand combat, many on both sides die.

Finalday

Until that final day. /Keith Green\ (1953-1983)

@taw, if it was fresh meat i would say that they have a barbeceu...

they i looked to the house next door and saw this;



i guess i was wrong.......

ow... i founded a nice launcher also...


the most newest weaps are not all mass destruction... look at laser guided missiles, such as the Paveway (GBU-10, -12, -16 and -24) and the Bunker Buster (GBU-28)...

also a quote off thus laserguided missiles;

---

"In World War II it could take 9,000 bombs to hit a target the size of an aircraft shelter. In Vietnam, 300. Today we can do it with one laser-guided munition from an F-117."
USAF, Reaching Globally, Reaching Powerfully: The United States Air Force in the Gulf War (Sept. 1991), p. 55.

---

also stealth technology have some good things... weaps must be more and more accurate to have lesser civilian kills by war... but unlike the newer weaps, their are also still bussy with the more mass destruction weaps (unfortunaitly);

States Possessing, Pursuing or Capable of Acquiring
Weapons of Mass Destruction

some think that their already bussy with a newer kind off weap for mass destruction, so called the anti-matter weaps... i think that that weap doesn't works how they think... co'z anti-matter is the same as matter, only if you put them togheter both will disapear (when use the same amount, otherwhise their will be lesser off both)... but we will see later to what it will lead...

_________________
Spamius Threadius