To: hershey; judicial meanz; ExSoldier
If they don't have nuclear tips on a couple of sunburns right now, they will very shortly.
This may be an attempt by Iran to move up an Israeli pre-emption and justify an nuclear response.
113 posted on
08/10/2004 5:59:33 PM PDT by
HipShot
(EOM couldn't cut the head off a beer with a chainsaw)
To: ExSoldier; judicial meanz
Another "over extension" ping.
118 posted on
08/10/2004 6:02:32 PM PDT by
HipShot
(EOM couldn't cut the head off a beer with a chainsaw)
To: HipShot
Israel better get cracking. They should strike BEFORE our elections. Make the RATS and the 'Pubbies put up or shut up.
127 posted on
08/10/2004 6:13:30 PM PDT by
ExSoldier
(M1A: Any mission. Any conditions. Any foe. At any range.)
To: HipShot
Part of why we went into Iraq was to establish a US base in the Middle East. Presumably we have nuclear subs over there, one or two? And why were we talking loudly two weeks ago about the MOAB, 300,000 lbs., that we'd just built. This would make sawdust of concrete/steel reinforced bunkers of any depth. Was this bit of Pentagon news information aimed at Iran? If so, we got our answer.
132 posted on
08/10/2004 6:19:11 PM PDT by
hershey
To: HipShot
If they don't have nuclear tips on a couple of sunburns right now, they will very shortly."Sunburns?" Aka missiles?
Also, I always thought that for an ICBM it wasn't the warhead that was as complicated as either the guidance or the capability of the actual missile to make the range. Doesn't an ICBM have to go at least suborbital?
149 posted on
08/10/2004 6:41:22 PM PDT by
ExSoldier
(M1A: Any mission. Any conditions. Any foe. At any range.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson