Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Refuses to Hand Over Fighter Source Code to UK
orbitalia writes "The UK is heavily involved in the JSF (Joint Strike Fighter program) but has recently considered abandoning the project because the US refuses to share the source code. The UK had intended to purchase $120 billion dollars worth of aircraft to operate on two new aircraft carriers, but is now seriously considering Plan 'B'. This is likely to be further investments in the Eurofighter Typhoon project." From the article: "It appeared that Tony Blair and George Bush had solved the impasse in May, when they announced an agreement in principle that the UK would be given access to the classified details on conditions of strict secrecy. The news was widely seen as evidence that the Prime Minister's close alliance with the American President did have benefits for Britain ... 'If the UK does not obtain the assurances it needs from the US then it should not sign the Memorandum of Understanding covering production, sustainment and follow-on development,' the MPs insisted."
As unpopular as any kind of ground strike other than laser-guided has become politically, I have to wonder why the UK or the US would continue to waste money on these machines. They are not as stealthy as the current F-117, which is apparently all that will be in use for some time to come. Close air support is no longer granted unless the target is in a location which can absolutely guarantee no collateral damage. This means that CAS is no longer granted. If you are lucky you might get a helo with a chaingun. What a waste of money from the budget of both countries.
Of course it's all up to Dubya who gets the source code. *rolls eyes*
The president doesn't directly make every decision the goverment makes.
Gone!
Al Quida probably already has it and would sell it to the UK for a discount. After all, they cracked our radio codes in Somolia.
Table-ized A.I.
Very few weapon systems can fire just after being under water.
Nuclear submarines are pretty advanced, can fire under water, and carry a wide array of missiles and fusion bombs...
What happened to the buck stops here?
If this actually gets to the point where it needs to stop at the White House, then it will. This isn't one of those things (yet, if ever).
And why does Bush refer to himself as "the decider"?
Clearly context doesn't mean much to you, but of course you know that he used that phrase while speaking about a specific topic, indicating that another party wasn't going to be making a decision, he was. Just like when you get some unsolicited (or even asked-for) advice from someone else. You're still the one to decide on a course of action. If you don't have that juice, then you're not The Decider on that particular topic. Doesn't matter - you're presuming this is something that's already on the C-in-C's desk, and I'll bet that it's not... at least, not in any way that matters.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Let's get a few things straight here:
:o)
1. The primary reason for the invasion of Iraq was USA's need to prop it's depleting oil reserves. Excuses such as:
a) Search for WMD's (They found none)
b) Ousting a tyrant (There are many of those, Kim Jong Il, Robert Mugabe etc etc, why not pick on a country that actually needs help?)
c) The 'War on Terror'. (There were no connections between Al Quaeda and Saddam Hussein, even though they desperately tried to find one).
2. Dubya is carrying on where his Father left it incomplete. The man couldn't even find the place on a map.
3. In the first Gulf war, the British lost more servicemen from American 'friendly fire' than they did from the Iraqis. It's about time the US employed trained soldiers instead of Gung-ho idiots that think they are John Wayne. (And even John Wayne didnt rape kids and torture civilians)
4. The usual US military procedure is to carpet bomb an entire area from a great height to minimise casualties. (On their side, of course) - See Bosnia for reference.
5. Often tyrants are the only thing holding disparate factions together, obviously with an iron hand. Remove the lynch-pin and the entire edifice comes tumbling down. They return to hacking each other to pieces. See Romania, Yugoslavia and many African states.
The entire 'Gulf War II - The Sequel' was grossly undermanned from the outset. Look at any major military takeover in history and you will see it requires massive manpower, NOT a reliance in technology and weaponry. One would have thought the US would have figured that out from their failure in Vietnam. I heard USA recently described not as an empire, but an "impire", as most people are going there, rather than leaving. An empire relies on the expansion of it's people in huge numbers to achieve an effect. The fact that less than 20% of US citzens possess a passport explains a lot. Dropping 50,000 men and billions of dollars worth of technology is NOT going to prevent urban terrorism and guerilla warfare. The only way is to come down like a ton of bricks with a huge deployment of manpower and pin them down so hard they cannot sniff without anybody knowing. Then you can slowly release your grip once you have all your 'good guys' in place.
Well that's my view of the world and I've been wanting to say that lot for quite some time.
PS: Oh, and as for the Aircraft sales, we all know that the British/American detente only goes one way. They don't call Blair a poodle for nothing. The sooner UK drops its ridiculous snivelling attitude to America, the sooner it might earn the respect of the rest of the world again.
"I like to skate on the other side of the ice"
but since you are asking; I would trust Germany and Belgium more than the US.>>>>
I understand You are from UK... I was living in Germany last 8 years, and I would like to assure you that 95% of Germans would like to give back London the same Dresden received on 1945. Are British really so naive to trust sauerkraut Nazis? Belgium - that#s not a power to consider.
It took humiliation of our army to learn that lesson.
I would have thought that Ireland taught you that you failed to even learn that lesson. The only thing the English were good at was mowing down musketmen with machine guns. Even the current shambles in Iraq can be blamed upon their staggering ineptitude, thanks for that, Churchill.
What he can't kill, he has sex on. Trent.