[KoRn]

We also have a few thousand ICBMs.

If they sank one of our carriers, I’d say that would be more than enough provocation to justify using one.

[Vigilant1]

First, there is no proof that this system even works. Second, even several direct hits from weapons of this size will not sink a carrier. Third, our carrier task groups each include Aegis cruisers and destroyers that are capable of shooting down incoming ballistic missile. This is an additional threat that must be taken into account, to be sure, but it is *not* a ‘carrier killer’.

[heshtesh]

We also have a few thousand ICBMs.

If they sank one of our carriers, I’d say that would be more than enough provocation to justify using one.

5 posted on Saturday, January 01, 2011 3:51:40 PM by KoRn

When you say one i take it your refering to a baker’s dozen?

[EQAndyBuzz]

“If they sank one of our carriers, I’d say that would be more than enough provocation to justify using one.”

Like Soros will allow Obama to start a war with our country’s benefactor.

[andyk]

We also have a few thousand ICBMs.

Not with the New START, we don't. It limits delivery systems.

[The Comedian]

We also have a few thousand ICBMs.

All of which have been functionally deactivated by Komrade Kenyan.

Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.

[sport]

At one time we did and maybe still have a few.

But on November 4, 2008, the American voters said, via their votes,that we should not be concerned about the United States being a World power and elected one barack obama to make it happen.In fact, they [the voters] said again, via teir votes, we should not be concerned with anything but hope and change.

Then in 2010 the United States Senate said don’t worry about our icbms and nuclear arsenal, the SALT Treaty they voted to ratify would take care of them.