|
Shots fired to stop Scud ship
[quote:877f8]Shots fired to stop Scud ship
WASHINGTON (CNN) --One dozen Scud missiles were found aboard a ship stopped in the Indian Ocean by a Spanish frigate that had to fire warning shots to keep the unflagged vessel from fleeing, U.S. and Spanish authorities said Tuesday. The ship -- called the So San -- was under the watchful eyes Tuesday of a number of coalition warships several hundred miles off the coast of Yemen. A senior aide to the Spanish defense minister said he believed it was being escorted to Bahrain, where it was expected to arrive Wednesday morning. (View map) A senior Bush administration official told CNN the United States is "99 percent sure" the vessel originally was "headed for Yemen." Asked why the United States and others did not wait until the vessel was closer to Yemen before acting, the official said the choice was between "plausible deniability" or to "slap 'em in the face." In other words, by intercepting the ship so far away, Yemen's government can deny the allegations. Yemen has played a key role in the U.S.-led war on terrorism. A team of U.S. ordnance disposal specialists that the Spanish asked for assistance wanted to ensure the explosive material was stabilized before moving the ship, the Spanish defense aide said. At one point the U.S. military was concerned the missiles might be booby-trapped, he said. Although the ship did not have a flag, the Spanish official said the 21 crew members were North Korean. One U.S. senior official told CNN the ship appeared to be a "stateless vessel" and that there was not much official paperwork on board. The Spanish official said a Cambodian flag was discovered on board, although he said the Spanish Defense Ministry considers the vessel a "pirate ship" operating illegally. The ship had been tracked by U.S. intelligence since leaving North Korea several days ago headed for the Arabian Sea region, Pentagon officials said. U.S. officials stressed the ship did not appear to be headed to Iraq, which used Scuds during the 1991 Persian Gulf War. Later models of the ballistic missile have a range of up to 550 miles. The Spanish official said the frigate Navarra, carrying a crew of 200, warned the vessel to stop, but it accelerated instead. The crew then fired the warning shots. The vessel was not hit. Once the ship stopped, about a dozen armed Spanish naval inspectors flew over by helicopter and boarded it. The Spanish official said the American ordnance team was called in after the Spanish inspectors found suspect metal cargo containers beneath an enormous number of cement sacks. The Spanish official said the first container opened had two entire Scud missiles. The inspectors then found another 10 intact Scuds and parts to make another eight. The Spanish support ship Patino carrying 150 sailors also took part in the operation. The two Spanish ships have been deployed in that area as part of Operation Enduring Freedom, leading a fleet that includes French and German vessels. U.S. and British warships also have taken part in monitoring the area. News of the ship's interception came amid increased tension between the United States and North Korea. In October, North Korea acknowledged it was developing nuclear weapons despite its 1994 agreement to freeze its nuclear weapons development program. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld last week called North Korea the "single biggest proliferator of ballistic missiles" and said the communist nation is "a danger to the world." President Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, earlier this year called North Korea a "merchant for ballistic missile technology" and said Pyongyang was willing to sell the weapons "to just about anybody who will buy." "The North Koreans have been known to go around with glossy brochures about their ballistic missiles. They're stocking a lot of the world right now," Rice said. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage was due in South Korea for talks Wednesday and scheduled to travel to China and Russia for consultations on Iraq. A senior administration official told CNN that one of the main topics of Armitage's discussions in Beijing would be the latest missile intercept from North Korea. Armitage will attempt to persuade North Korea's "sugar daddy" to "turn the screws tight" on Pyongyang, the official said, noting that 90 percent of the North's energy is provided by China. On the other hand, it did not appear the Bush administration intends to take punitive action against Yemen, which has been cooperating in the war on terror. U.S. forces traveled to Yemen this summer to train the country's troops in counterterrorism. As this same senior official described it, Yemen is "in an area of the world where respect, prestige and protection" come from the barrel of a gun. Yemen was not, in the opinion of the United States, "looking for missiles for terrorism." Yemen President Ali Abdullah Saleh confirmed in August that it bought Scud-C tactical ballistic missiles (TBMs) from North Korea around 1999 and 2000, according to Jane's Defense Weekly. Saleh defended the purchase as a legitimate arms transfer because his country was under no arms ban, Jane's said. According to the weapons research organization, Yemen is reported to have about six Soviet-built Scud-B transporter-erector-launcher vehicles and about 18 Soviet-built 300 kilometer-range Scud-B missiles. Yemen is the ancestral home of al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, where U.S. officials say some al Qaeda leaders may have fled after being pushed out of Afghanistan last year. The 2000 attack on the USS Cole in the port of Aden killed 17 sailors. The U.S. State Department recently warned Americans to avoid traveling to Yemen because the threat against U.S. interests remains high. CNN Madrid Bureau Chief Al Goodman and correspondents Barbara Starr, Andrea Koppel and Frank Buckley contributed to this report. [/quote:877f8] http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/e ... index.html |
They should have sunk the fucker bigzooka:
|
probably chinese scuds hake:
|
what kind of a stupid name is scud? sounds like something you call a hobo.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
BTW. the Iraqi "extended range" SCUDS were modified by a GERMAN company, so they ended up like the V-2, aim for London land in Dublin biggrin: |
[quote="Sgt Stryker":6bc0f]
Quote:
BTW. the Iraqi "extended range" SCUDS were modified by a GERMAN company, so they ended up like the V-2, aim for London land in Dublin biggrin:[/quote:6bc0f] Or in the channel. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Actually they prefer the M4 eek: maybe use the AK 47 to blend into other nations. I talked to a few weapons specialists for the marines, they said the AK47 is very reliable but its design is poor, and its very innacurate.
|
Quote:
[quote:688ac]Yeah, thats why US Special Forces would prefer the Ak-47 alot of times.[/quote:688ac] Like Johnny said, they use the M4 fire2: oOo: The AK is fine if you are a camel humper or some african guerilla in Zambia. |
rofl camel humper
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
the Stalin series were better than Tigers, T-34s were better than MkIII and IV, I'll take an IL-2 over a Stunka bomber any day, the Yak 3 could beat a messershit with one gun tied behind its back. actually troops in 'Nam liked to pick up AK-47 because they penetrate stuff better than the puny 5.56 of the "Mattel Toy" as vets called the M-16. |
1. We killed "Charlie" in Vietnam.
2. The weapon is only as good as the guy using it. 3. The kill ratio in the Vietnam War was 20 to 1. do the math...America lost 58,000 men...what is 58,000*20?it = a lot of dead "Charlies" 1,160,000 __________________________________________________ ___________________ I Think American will be drawn into a war.....but near the middle east area....but near 38th Parallel....A War with North Korea...which may eventually cause a chainreaction which will also bring China into it. China doesnt worry me much...besides the Nuc. Weapons....All they have going for them is numbers...Their militaryand economy is in shambles like the russian military...and the Russians arnt even "commies" anymore...China would be fighting with allies that couldnt defend a hamburger stand. |
[quote="-Blitzer-":05dd8]1. We killed "Charlie" in Vietnam.
2. The weapon is only as good as the guy using it. 3. The kill ratio in the Vietnam War was 20 to 1. do the math...America lost 58,000 men...what is 58,000*20?it = a lot of dead "Charlies" 1,160,000 __________________________________________________ __________________ [/quote:05dd8] I believe the exact quote was "all Russian weapons are useless". as far as I know useless equipment does not kill 58, 000 people. PS. The Russian equipment is mostly good to decent, its the Chinese knockoffs that fall apart after 5 shots (but then again so does most anything made in China biggrin: ) |
[quote="-Blitzer-":80aba]1. We killed "Charlie" in Vietnam.
2. The weapon is only as good as the guy using it. 3. The kill ratio in the Vietnam War was 20 to 1. do the math...America lost 58,000 men...what is 58,000*20?it = a lot of dead "Charlies" 1,160,000 __________________________________________________ ___________________ [/quote:80aba] 1. And "charlie" killed quite a few americans in vietnam. 2. Wouldn't say so, the m16 back then was basically a piece of shit which was VERY sensitive to dust and dirt. The AK-47 could get mucked up left and right and still function properly, basically it suited the environemnt more and was a better weapon because of that. Today though im not sure what is the better weapon, the ak-74 is a big improvement over the 47 and the m16-a2 is obviously a big improvement over the prototype m-16. 3. And still they kept coming. Doesn't really matter how much they lost they were fanatics and kept coming and coming. I don't think america could have won that war short of dropping nukes on the country. |
One must also note that we never fought a competent foe armed with Soviet weaponary.
Opfor (aka "red team") seems to be doing a good job kicking butt with captured Soviet equipment in simulated combat. Even though they are only trying to train not own blue team, they still beat them up pretty hard. |
[quote:d3766]the Stalin series were better than Tigers,
T-34s were better than MkIII and IV, I'll take an IL-2 over a Stunka bomber any day, the Yak 3 could beat a messershit with one gun tied behind its back.[/quote:d3766] Tiger II kicked the shit out of the IS class Tiger I's beat the stuffing out of T-34's Panther's could beat the shit out of T-34's also Pz Kpf IV's would usually beat any soviet tank from 1941-1943 FW 190's were supieror to most Yaks Ever hear of the Kursk Submarine? Ever read about the Soviet space programme? How is the modern Russian military doing? Ever heard of a LAGG 3? |
The AK-47 is not "badly deisnged", I'd say its far better designed than the M4. Simple, reliable, cheap, fairly accurate.
The reason why all AK-47 armed enemies never manage to kill is that they know not how to use a gun. Alfa team of Spetznaz uses AK-74s and other soviet wepaonry, and it has supposedly never lost a man in tis counter-terrorist ops. BLITZ- German weaponry is soo superior, thats why they won. *sarcasm* The tiger II was a heavy piece of shit [quote:eb342]Tiger II kicked the shit out of the IS class Tiger I's beat the stuffing out of T-34's Panther's could beat the shit out of T-34's also Pz Kpf IV's would usually beat any soviet tank from 1941-1943 FW 190's were supieror to most Yaks Ever hear of the Kursk Submarine? Ever read about the Soviet space programme? How is the modern Russian military doing? Ever heard of a LAGG 3? [/quote:eb342] Tiger II no way could defeat it, they couldn't even target the bloody things, and what, there were like 10 made? King TIgers, anyone can tell you that knows their ass from their ears, are pieces of shit Tiger Is were crap, expensive, slow, UNMANEUVRABLE. IS-2s could beat the crpa out of them. Your saying that tigers could kill T34s, sure, if the T34 is stationary, then the round could technically penetrate it if it doesn't bounce off, but since when is a medium tank gonna kill a heavy tank? Your saying in an lesser exxageraed way "A nuclear missile could kill that piece of shit M1 Abrams" Pz 4s DIED to ANY T34, KV1, or anything with a semblence of firepower, what the fuck are you smoking? Sure, it might defeat a BT-5, but thats from the bloody 20s About the FW190 thing- thast why the luftwaffe completely lost any air superiority on the eastern front- because it had better airplanes? The kursk submarine was a fuckup, but an isolated one. You moron, dod you know that the russian space program was the firts to get into space? Do you know that most ISS personel are Russian? idiot, read a fucking book, get off the computer and get a fuckign education, please Ever heard of the XP-50? |
Quote:
Tiger I's beat the stuffing out of T-34's Panther's could beat the shit out of T-34's also Pz Kpf IV's would usually beat any soviet tank from 1941-1943 FW 190's were supieror to most Yaks Ever hear of the Kursk Submarine? Ever read about the Soviet space programme? How is the modern Russian military doing? Ever heard of a LAGG 3?[/quote:40401] 1. not from what I read 2. you're comparing heavy tanks with medium tanks dumbass 3. the T-34/85 was superior in firepower and equal in armor 4. sure, is this the same 40mm max armor MkIV I know about? 5. play IL-2, it was created using REAL DATA FROM RUSSIAN AND GERMAN FLIGHT TESTS, the Yak is far superior and the FW flies like a brick. 6. we may never know what happened aboard her 7. hey they beat us into space 8. lack of funding does not mean crappy designs try to refute these nazi boy. |
Chechnya statistics- 5,000 Russian KIA
~1,000,000 chechen killed |
Quote:
|
He asked about the condition of the RUssian Military, those figures imply that they are "pwning" chechens ;)
Hey, we're both against blitz :D |
[quote="Sgt Stryker":4a537]
1. not from what I read.[/quote:4a537] [quote:4a537]There are no records or photographs to prove that the Tiger II's frontal armor was ever penetrated in combat.[/quote:4a537] [quote:4a537]"On the road from Bollersdorf to Strausberg stood a further 11 Stalin tanks, and away on the egde of the village itself were around 120-150 enemy tanks in the process of being refuelled and re-armed. I opened fire and destroyed first and last of the 11 Stalin tanks on the road....My own personal score of enemy tanks destroyed in this action was 39." SS-Hauptscharführer Karl Körner, schwere SS Panzer Abteilung (103) 503 / III SS Panzer Corps, East Germany, April of 1945. [/quote:4a537][quote:4a537]2. you're comparing heavy tanks with medium tanks dumbass[/quote:4a537] Yeah, and you compared a T-34 to a Pz Kmf III, which is a much smaller and lighter tank you dumb sack of inbred faggotry [quote:4a537]3. the T-34/85 was superior in firepower and equal in armor[/quote:4a537] Actually the 75mm on the Panther had more penetration power than the Tiger's 88mm. Panther's armour: Front Turret: 110/11 Front Upper Hull: 80/55 Front Lower Hull: 60/55 Side Turret: 45/25 Side Upper Hull: 50/30 Side Lower Hull: 40/0 Rear Turret: 45/25 Rear Lower Hull: 40/30 Turret Top / Bottom: 16/84 / 16/90 Upper Hull Top / Bottom: 40/90 / 16/90 Lower Hull Top / Bottom: 30/90 / 16/90 Gun Mantlet: 100/round Also the Panther could take out targets from 2,000 [quote:4a537]4. sure, is this the same 40mm max armor MkIV I know about?[/quote:4a537] No, the the 50mm max armour MkIV! [quote:4a537]5. play IL-2, it was created using REAL DATA FROM RUSSIAN AND GERMAN FLIGHT TESTS, the Yak is far superior and the FW flies like a brick.[/quote:4a537] Yeah dumbass that's what happens when you don't figure out that it is best to use a Zoom n' Boom tactic instead of dogfighting when using a FW 190 like a dripwad. Also I should have mentioned the "D" variant was one of the best prop airplanes of the war. [quote:4a537]6. we may never know what happened aboard her [/quote:4a537] We already know, well, mayber you don't. [quote:4a537]try to refute these nazi boy.[/quote:4a537] I did RFOLMAO evil: |
Quote:
|
Tiger II no way could defeat it, they couldn't even target the bloody things, and what, there were like 10 made? King TIgers, anyone can tell you that knows their ass from their ears, are pieces of shit
Tiger Is were crap, expensive, slow, UNMANEUVRABLE. IS-2s could beat the crpa out of them. Your saying that tigers could kill T34s, sure, if the T34 is stationary, then the round could technically penetrate it if it doesn't bounce off, but since when is a medium tank gonna kill a heavy tank? Your saying in an lesser exxageraed way "A nuclear missile could kill that piece of shit M1 Abrams" [/quote] eek: Can i have some of what you're smoking? The tiger tank was probably the best tank of ww2, the only reason the t-34 was any good against it was because it had sloped armour which could deflect the shells. The king tiger although slow was armoured like a fucking battleship, there was only like 2 king tigers left to defend berlin and they raped their fair share of t34's before getting destroyed through numerical superiority of their opponents. |
Quote:
[quote:ec375]Tiger Is were crap, expensive, slow, UNMANEUVRABLE.[/quote:ec375] The Tiger I was one of the most maneuverable tanks. Haven't you ever read a book? [quote:ec375]Pz 4s DIED to ANY T34, KV1, or anything with a semblence of firepower, what the fuck are you smoking? Sure, it might defeat a BT-5, but thats from the bloody 20s[/quote:ec375] Well considering the fact firstly that a machine cannot "DIE", the T-26, T-27, T-40, T-50, and T-60 were easy meat for any german tank. Also the KV-1 is a heavy tank so comparing it to a medium tank is like saying "A nuclear missile could kill that piece of shit M1 Abrams" While we are talking about KV's, why not mention the KV-2 built so shitty that it's turret couldn't rotate if it was on an incline. [quote:ec375]About the FW190 thing- thast why the luftwaffe completely lost any air superiority on the eastern front- because it had better airplanes?[/quote:ec375] More likely because they were outnumbered 3:1. [quote:ec375]You moron, dod you know that the russian space program was the firts to get into space? Do you know that most ISS personel are Russian? idiot, read a fucking book, get off the computer and get a fuckign education, please [/quote:ec375] An education like yours? Yeah they were the first to get into space, but have you ever read about their failures and how they covered them up? [quote:ec375]The kursk submarine was a fuckup, but an isolated one.[/quote:ec375] That's like saying Bush bieng a moron is an isolated incident. I could dig up quite an array of soviet naval blunders if you wish. Also the retaking of a Theatre and killing 112 HOSTAGES sounds like yet another resounding success. |
Don't start with the country vs country shit, every country makes fuck ups including america.
|
Yeah America fucks up more on average than most others
|
this guy hates Russia and America, YOU MUST BE A FUCKING NAZI.
Pfc. Green, would you be kind enough to help me throw this guy out. |
Canada seems like a nice place, england too.
|
getting back to the original topic (despite some people's best efforts to start in a flame war with me)
Why does Yemen need SCUDs? a SCUD is a medium to short range ballistic missile, which means it has rather poor accuracy (better than V-2, and early US/Soviet attempts, but still crappy). It is designed to be tipped with a tactical nuke for use against attacking or defending ground units. Mind you with a nuke it doesn't matter if you miss your mark by half a mile will still kill the guys at the objective. But Yemen has no nukes (as far as we know that is...). same with Iraq. interesting is it not? |
1.The Tiger 2 could destryo just about any tank. but it had major problems....the turret could not traverse fast enough...it was hand cranked....
2.it had narrow tracks causing major problems in the snow. 3.it was very slow and hard to turn and drive I would say in the summer the germans would kill anyone (WW2) In the winter the russian tanks with wide tracks and high speed would win |
[quote="Sgt Stryker":f5c6a]getting back to the original topic (despite some people's best efforts to start in a flame war with me)
[/quote:f5c6a] Errrrmmmmm..... [quote:f5c6a]Why does Yemen need SCUDs?[/quote:f5c6a] Why ask why? [quote:f5c6a]It is designed to be tipped with a tactical nuke for use against attacking or defending ground units. Mind you with a nuke it doesn't matter if you miss your mark by half a mile will still kill the guys at the objective. But Yemen has no nukes (as far as we know that is...)[/quote:f5c6a] I'm sure you can fit some nerve agents in it's payload. |
[quote="-Blitzer-":b6a95]1.The Tiger 2 could destryo just about any tank. but it had major problems....the turret could not traverse fast enough...it was hand cranked....
2.it had narrow tracks causing major problems in the snow. 3.it was very slow and hard to turn and drive I would say in the summer the germans would kill anyone (WW2) In the winter the russian tanks with wide tracks and high speed would win in the winter[/quote:b6a95] I am pretty sure King Tiger had an automatic turret. but yes, most of Jerry's equipment was not too suited for winter operations. |
[quote=Blitz]
Quote:
[quote:cbffb]Why does Yemen need SCUDs?[/quote:cbffb] Why ask why? [quote:cbffb]It is designed to be tipped with a tactical nuke for use against attacking or defending ground units. Mind you with a nuke it doesn't matter if you miss your mark by half a mile will still kill the guys at the objective. But Yemen has no nukes (as far as we know that is...)[/quote:cbffb] I'm sure you can fit some nerve agents in it's payload.[/quote:cbffb] anyone who knows me well enough knows that spreading lies about allied technology and propagating the nazi superiority myth is a surefire way to get me in a flame war. as far as nerve agents, unlikely, the SCUD's warhead section is not too particularly big and could not hold much nerve gas. Considering that nerve gas is active for an extremely short time after release (they are bulky (molecule wise), unstable compounds) it will not be very effective. (remember that SCUD has a +- half mile accuracy) |
Quote:
but even 100, 000 dead Islamic militants is a good step in the global fight against terrorism. I hope Chechneya can return to being civilized soon and your soldiers can go home. |
[quote="Sgt Stryker":79266]
propagating the nazi superiority myth [/quote:79266] Show me the EXACT quote where I made any reference to the "Aryan" race |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:03 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.12 by ScriptzBin
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
© 1998 - 2007 by Rudedog Productions | All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners. All rights reserved.