Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 02/17/2005 12:15:22 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
“The North Koreans were very intrigued by the notion that we were looking to pursue a deep-earth penetrator to get at their underground complexes,” he said during yesterday’s briefing.

Kim Jong-Il, take note.

2 posted on 02/17/2005 12:16:11 PM PST by Excuse_My_Bellicosity (Please leave a message after the burp....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity

"U.S. Representative Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) suggested that North Korean officials during his recent visit to Pyongyang expressed concern about the United States obtaining a more capable nuclear earth penetrator. "

Deterrant to N.Korea. They will soon be unable to hide underground. HAARP can see you underground, and bunker busting nukes can kill you. Once they realize their facilities are about as safe as the fort you used to make with your mom's sofa cushions we can then ask them "Now, are you ready to play nice?"


3 posted on 02/17/2005 12:22:55 PM PST by Sax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity

David Hobson is an absolute fool.


4 posted on 02/17/2005 12:24:30 PM PST by Mr.Clark (From the darkness....I shall come)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
“Could you please tell me directly if there’s a military need for this robust nuclear earth penetrator?” asked Representative Terry Everett (R-Ala.) at a Defense Department budget hearing before the House Armed Services Committee.
I suppose the question needs to be asked...if you're dumb as a bag of hammers.
5 posted on 02/17/2005 12:46:02 PM PST by samtheman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Isn't it true that during the last series of live fire nuclear tests conducted by the U.S., the device was buried underground to minimize the radiation at the surface or in the atmosphere?

If so, how's this for a reason.

The nuclear penetrator gives us a nuclear option that achieves our military objectives with little or no radiation to the surrounding populace. Think of it as finally having "surgical precision" with nukes.

Best Regards

Sergio
8 posted on 02/17/2005 12:55:54 PM PST by Sergio (If a tree fell on a mime in the forest, would he make a sound?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Congressional opponents and independent critics of the effort have argued that no weapon is likely to plow deep enough to significantly contain a blast; that such a weapon would be unlikely to be used because it would create massive surface destruction and fallout on populated areas; and that the program undermines efforts to strengthen international nonproliferation cooperation.

err....then you've already conducted a study. May we have a copy? It sure would save us a lot of time and money.

16 posted on 02/17/2005 1:55:38 PM PST by Donald Rumsfeld Fan ("Memos on Bush Are Fake but Accurate". NYTimes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson