To: chance33_98
Bummer. This is not a good thing, I'm afraid.
3 posted on
12/12/2003 9:54:36 AM PST by
Prof Engineer
(...just a moment, just a moment...I've detected a fault in the AE35 unit.)
To: Prof Engineer
Why is this not a good thing?
Does any branch of our armed services even use an 8-inch artillery piece? If it won't fit, why should we keep it?
5 posted on
12/12/2003 10:02:37 AM PST by
ZOOKER
To: Prof Engineer
They are kind of an obsolete weapon, are they not? I will be concerned when we start dismantling nuclear cruise missles. Remember that we were outrageously out numbered back then. Now we have bases in Uzbekistan and are about to open one in Georgia. Let us how that the RUssians upheld their part of the bargin. I would not, however want small tactica, nukes emmeded with our troops in the field.
Bush seems to have lifted the ban on small nuke research. This might be the was to go - let fall out (of the non-political type, at least.)
To: Prof Engineer
If you are judged by the Quantity of Nukes you have, it's better to have a 2003 Nuke vs. a 1957 Nuke.
9 posted on
12/12/2003 10:10:00 AM PST by
UNGN
(I've been here since '98 but had nothing to say until now)
To: Prof Engineer
au contraire nuclear artillary was always one of Robert Oppenheimer's nuttier ideas.
Position nuclear weapons where they can be overrun by an advancing Warpac force. Second worst idea ever. (The Davy Crockett nuclear bazooka beats it)
54 posted on
12/12/2003 11:51:38 AM PST by
Oztrich Boy
("Noöne has the right not to be offended" John Cleese)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson