Well, gee, Uriel, could the casualty numbers have anything to do with the DIFFERENT BEACHES THAT WERE LANDED ON? Ever hear of Darby's Rangers? If you want to question the efficacy of American troops, you might want to read up on their performance.
BTW, all the troops on D-Day were riding in an American invention, the Higgins boat. All those Allied troops returning to France after their glorious retreat from Dunkirk wouldn't have made it across the Channel without American help. Plus, the convoy support the Brits gave to American merchant ships also involved another American item -- Lend-Lease destroyers. Remember those ships that were given to the Brits when they were losing so many of their own? Nasty U-boats.
Oh, and that's right, the Americans were at the same time almost singlehandedly retaking the entire Pacific Ocean. Minor feat.
<< Recent tests with Patriot (?) missiles showed that the number of intercepted missiles was extremely low, less than a 1% successrate. >>
Would you care to cite a source for this information? Last news I read had two out of three missiles being intercepted. I am not sure if it was the Patriot system or if it was a new system. Nevertheless, the Patriot was not originally designed as a theater missile defense system (it's not BMD -- ballistic missile defense) but was shoe-horned into that mission during the Gulf War.
<< The used technology is already obsolete and with the development of new missiles (missiles that travel in the water and will leave the water just before it reaches the coast-line. No current detection technology is capable of detecting such missiles and destroying it before it's too late) >>
Ok, now you've said this in a couple threads, and it was pointless then and now. Even if a country were able to field a credible attack weapon that used the high speed cavitation technology (it's not new), the range of such a weapon would be fairly short since the weapon would have to continually burn fuel to reach the target, rather than relying on momentum and gravity to take it to target (free fall through the atmosphere). Since that's the case, the launch vehicle (presumably a submarine) would have to approach the US coast against an enormous submerged listening net and against the world's most advanced navy. There isn't a single country or GROUP of countries that even REMOTELY challenge the United States Navy for dominance of the world's oceans. In particular, the US sub fleet so far outdistances its potential adversaries that it's almost embarrassing. The US sub fleet, through the Los Angeles and Sea Wolf classes, is MORE than capable of defending the US against a submerged attack.
<< And Bush wants to get rid of this treaty which ended the Cold War. >>
The Cold War ended because the Soviet Union's economy died and the Warsaw Pact collapsed. Hate to burst your little bubble, but no treaty ended the Cold War.
<< There'll come a day when violence and technology will fail and only counseling will offer a way out. >>
LMAO!! Spoken like a true believer in the Munich Accords. So, is Chamberlain your personal hero?
<< China has no intention to attack the US at the moment >>
No, but they do have the intention to dominate the politics of Asia. Believe it or not, there are countries in Asia that do not want that to happen. Could it be because China is a terribly oppressive regime that runs tanks over its own people when they express their discontent?
No, that can't be it. Must be something else. The food -- they don't like the food. Yes, that's it.