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 yesterdays briefing. Kim Jong-Il, take note.
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
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)
To: Excuse_My_Bellicosity
Could you please tell me directly if theres 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
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?)
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)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson