Yeah ...it's not as though the US hasn't got any wide open spaces eh?

...there's plenty between GW's ears!

(and our own JH's too )

Dunno. They may want to test it over logn trips over ocean and all that. No idea why too.

We test them on our soil, so it is not like we are picking on you.  besides, if you paid attention to the war in Afghanistan and iraq, you would see they are pretty damn accurate!  Got any demolition projects that need taking care of?

We test them on our soil

so why bother to test them elsewhere?

you would see they are pretty damn accurate

and if you've already figured out they work, why the need to continue testing?

Though I'm not really against the testing of conventional weapons since Australia already tests its own and I'm guessing they are using places that are already used as firing ranges anyway.
However, I do not agree with the 'they're pretty damn accurate' statement. Sure you guys see the bombcam on the news all the time and think "Gee whizz, they can even direct them through window."
You don't see the ones that miss and hit Red Crosses, Chinese Embassies or over fly Iraq and hit Syria! All of my last example are things that have actually happened. One again proving that bombs are only as smarts as the people that use them. Also you have to take into account all the collateral damage the do with flying debris.

Reply #7 By: Toblerone (Anonymous) - 11/12/2004 8:51:37 PM Though I'm not really against the testing of conventional weapons since Australia already tests its own and I'm guessing they are using places that are already used as firing ranges anyway. However, I do not agree with the 'they're pretty damn accurate' statement. Sure you guys see the bombcam on the news all the time and think "Gee whizz, they can even direct them through window." You don't see the ones that miss and hit Red Crosses, Chinese Embassies or over fly Iraq and hit Syria! All of my last example are things that have actually happened. One again proving that

Do you have links for this?

Chinese Embassies

Sorry but I don't buy this one. China would be all up in arms over. That would be considered an act of war. Especially since embassies are considered to be a part of the country it's attached to.

What do mean "OUR OWN SOIL"? Wake up mate and smell the roses! Ours is a global community or haven't you heard? Nobody has a right to what used to be their Country!

http://agitprop.org.au/stopnato/19990508chineseembassy.php
http://agitprop.org.au/stopnato/20000323robyuguard.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/china/stories/embassy050899.htm
http://www.wsws.org/articles/1999/may1999/yugo-m21.shtml
^^^are all links regarding the bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade in 1999

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/03/30/1048962644831.html?oneclick=true
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/03/24/1048354541931.html?oneclick=true
^^^are examples of other missile launches that have *somehow* managed to drift off target....

perhaps these "smart bombs" have better navigational equipment in them to stop these sorts of 'mishaps' from happening?

__more people were killed from so called 'friendly fire' and equipment failure during the recent iraqui war than in actual combat.__

The chinese embassy thing happened in belgrade in 1999. I should have said chinese embassy not embassies. I'm not sure that they were actually using smart bombs to tell you the truth but the point I was making is that even if they are accurate you need to aim at the right target to start with hence: bombs are only as smarts as the people that use them.


Here is a link (it is one a many just search for chinese emabassy bombing).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/339217.stm

A link for the red cross bombing in Afghanistan, check it out they actually bombed it twice!


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1621921.stm

The Syrian thing involved innocent Syria in a bus getting killed. The reports are mixed. Some say they were hit before the border other say the were hit 100km inside the border (although I think the later reports sourced Pravda so that might be crap) some even say that two of the missiles missed and hit turkey. I do remember hearing it from a more reliable source in Austrlia I thought they said in hit Syria but that could be faulty memory. Either way these definately were smart bombs and the US admitted they were trying to blow up a bridge. Admittedly this story has probably been twisted a bit but core facts that the US admitted to are still pretty bad.

Link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2881119.stm

The three examples I gave are just a few that I heard about, and there have been so many I've forgotten most of them.

Champas, I haven't heard this, but I sure don't blame you for being angry. I find it so dispicable that the US goes around and condemns other countries for developing weaponry, but doesit themselves. I'll also bet that the US is strong arming Australia into the testing, by stating that if you expect any protection from US, you better let us do this. I dunno. I've not read anything about this. How about some links to Australian news that discuss this issue. Thanks.

Reply #12 By: little_whip - 11/13/2004 8:22:14 AM drmiller, the Chinese incident made headlines all over the world....perhaps you werent paying attention that week. Just a suggestion, before you accuse someone of bullshit, do a little research...it will prevent you from looking foolish.

Right now I believe you're the one looking foolish LW. No where on this thread did I use the term bullshit nor did I accuse anyone of it.

No little whip, I haven't abandoned ship, I just don't have the net at home, and right now I only have a few minutes at a net cafe so I can't respond adequately. I don't think war is wrong in all situations, and the line about only truly smart bombs was an exaggeration to make a point in a semi-humorous way.

DR G I'm not interested in their accuracy, but how much more of a terrorist target we are likely to become and any other possible unforeseen ramifications of these tests. As well as where the sites for testing will be, particularly whether it will be on any sacred land.

Again, I ask why not test these on your own soil? As allies we are signing an FTA, and that's enough of a concession for me.

And drmiller, you are always the one looking foolish.

there are now talks of the USA testing smart bombs in Australia

...yeah, let's do testing in the middle of the rain forest too!

Are you that dense? Maybe we are testing new and improved stuff! Maybe we are testing in other climates! Maybe we are testing them for stability after theyve aged! Maybe the folks in charge of the military know more about the reasons than some anonymous blogger who just wants to scream "its wrong its wrong its wrong!!!"

Lot's of "maybe". May be you don't know, but argue for it all the same..."defense" at any cost?

Just out of curiousity.  Wouldn't testing bombs use up the bombs?  By which I mean, sure you know that the bombs you've tested work, but what about all the rest of them?  Yes I know it's for a statistical thing, but we only really need to test the bombs when we actually need the bombs.

A truly smart bomb would refuse to go to war. A truly smart weapon of any kind would do the same. If everyone's bombs were smart, they wouldn't go to war.
However, Hitler didn't have weapons of this type of intelligence and so war was necessary and justified.
I wasn't convinced by the justifications for the large majority of wars in the 20th Century, so if truly smart bombs were involved then they wouldn't have happened.

"Are you the type of person who believes in 'peace at any price?'"

No but nor do I believe in war at any price. There comes a point where you are no longer defending what you believe in. Part of the reason I love Australia is its peacefulness. But where to draw the line is the subject of much debate.

"We are allies, and that means we do favors for each other, right? Im sure theres something in this for oz....money, jobs, "

There's likely to be something in it for Howard, and he may even believe there is something in it for Australia, but as I generally don't agree with his judgment calls, then I don't agree with the trade-off. We are allies and because of this Australia has gone to Iraq, signed an FTA, done a lot of sucking up to the USA, backed you up on the Kyoto Protocol etc. I think we've made enough concessions for now.

As far as the benefits we will reap, I question what we will be using these smarter bombs for. I don't subscribe to the value system that we are a great race for creating so many different ways of killing each other. The USA and Australian armies are already pretty strong. Reasons for developing "better" weapons are likely to be that Bush wants to engage in wars that I won't agree with in all likelihood, going on his record up to date. Therefore I object to the testing of these bombs on Australian soil.