Tweet
Originally posted by PLATO
29.1 million a piece is cheap? When a Tomahawk can do the same thing in nearly every situation?
29.1 million a piece is cheap? When a Tomahawk can do the same thing in nearly every situation?
-
Can't we just get some Christian fundamentalists to volunteer to act as suicide bombers.
-
To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
No.Life is not measured by the number of breaths you take, but by the moments that take your breath away.
"Hating America is something best left to Mobius. He is an expert Yank hater.
He also hates Texans and Australians, he does diversify." ~ BraindeadComment
-
You and Ned are first in line Tex
We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham LincolnComment
-
That would work in the short run but it the long run it might seriously diminish our supplies of Christian fundamentalists.Originally posted by Zkribbler
Can't we just get some Christian fundamentalists to volunteer to act as suicide bombers.
Comment
-
K, so what's the downside?Originally posted by Geronimo
That would work in the short run but it the long run it might seriously diminish our supplies of Christian fundamentalists.Resident Filipina Lady Boy Expert.Comment
-
Or we could... I don't know, station some aircraft nearby, given that we might know ahead of time that we intend to bomb Iran. This weapon is really only good in cases where we need to smash something within the hour and there's no one in position to do it. Targets like Iran don't fit that description unless the Iranians suddenly declare that they've had nukes for awhile, and actually they're about to lob one at Israel to prove it.Originally posted by Sava
Something like this would be useful in dealing with an Iran scenario... should diplomatic options fail.
I'm not advocating any use of such weapons against Iran... I happen to feel that diplomacy should be used with Iran. But in the event things turn bad and the world needs to act against Iran (not just the US mind you, but the world), a weapon like this would be more than helpful in taking out a variety of conventional targets."The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists."
-Joan RobinsonComment
-
I don't think that a missile strike in one hour can stop an iminent threat and save any of our lives. At best, all it an do is nail some leaders having a meeting in Siberia. Not too sure Russia would be all that keen on the U.S. firing a nuke capable missile into its borders.Christianity: The belief that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree...Comment
-
The chief of the U.S. Strategic Command thinks so. BTW, how much experience do you have in strategic planning? Just curious.Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't think that a missile strike in one hour can stop an iminent threat and save any of our lives.
Not that I have any either, but it seems a lot of the non-political people seem to want this. It's not a very expensive project. And I suspect if we went around and asked various "experts", well versed in such matters, they would no doubt conclude this is a weapon worth having in the arsenal.
There are two choices here:
A. Having another option to deal with potential threats
B. Limiting our options
Considering this project is not all that expensive, can anyone give me a good reason why we should limit our options?
I've heard people give hypothetical scenarios where this weapon would not be useful. That's good... think of scenarios where this weapon would not work. It's the scenarios I can't think of that really scare me.
One of the things about war is, you never want to limit your options.To us, it is the BEAST.Comment
-
Yeah you do. Like, when the chances of happening are really remote, and the expense of trying to come up with a defense can be justified.
What kind of threat is there that can be remedies by this new weapon that can't be remedied by an already existing, less expensive weapon?Comment
-
More money for the militaryindustrial complex = more jobs at East Camden = a new lease on life for Camden.
Go bombs! Boo foreigners!
meet the new boss, same as the old bossComment
-
Chechnya..?Originally posted by chegitz guevara
I don't think that a missile strike in one hour can stop an iminent threat and save any of our lives. At best, all it an do is nail some leaders having a meeting in Siberia. Not too sure Russia would be all that keen on the U.S. firing a nuke capable missile into its borders.Comment
-
ICBMs are getting precise, but they are not that precise. Within 100m can be very precise for nuclear warheads, but not so for coventional ones.Originally posted by SlowwHand
Excuse me? Worse than "strategic nuke"?
Why don't we just throw water balloons?(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."Comment
-
Hitting an alleged terrorist base camp at a moment's notice isn't really strategic planning.Originally posted by Sava
So because you don't understand the finer points of strategic military planning, this is a bad idea...
okay, I think I get your argument now
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."Comment
-
Building the capability to do so, is.Comment
Comment