1 posted on
06/04/2012 8:28:44 AM PDT by
PRePublic
To: PRePublic
2 posted on
06/04/2012 8:31:45 AM PDT by
bmwcyle
(Romney - not Obama - not a Conservative - not a real Christian)
To: PRePublic
Good for Israel... Iran probably feels they can knock out Israel with fewer than 5 nukes - maybe 3... and that once the deed is done, there's won't be retaliation - what's to fight over, right? This puts an end to that fantasy. Israel needs nukes in subs - and the sub's locations hidden. Again, good for Israel - hats off to them.
3 posted on
06/04/2012 8:32:47 AM PDT by
GOPJ
( "A Dog In Every Pot" - freeper ETL)
To: PRePublic
reverify range to target, one ping only.
4 posted on
06/04/2012 8:35:02 AM PDT by
LukeL
(Barack Obama: Jimmy Carter 2 Electric Boogaloo)
To: PRePublic
MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) only works with rational beings; besides, Israel is likely planning to attack Iran so the nuke-armed subs are not meant as deterrents but rather, as pointed out, the means to retaliate after crippling nuke attacks by Iran.If that scenario plays out there will be little left of either country.
5 posted on
06/04/2012 8:48:39 AM PDT by
luvbach1
(Stop the destruction in 2012 or continue the decline)
To: PRePublic
I’d support a nuclear first strike against Iran.
Just stop playing.
6 posted on
06/04/2012 8:56:01 AM PDT by
TheThirdRuffian
(I will never vote for Romney. Ever.)
To: PRePublic
To: PRePublic
I believe only Israel’s possession of nukes has kept the Muslims from launching open warfare.
14 posted on
06/04/2012 10:32:33 AM PDT by
hoosierham
(Freedom isn't free)
To: PRePublic
I wonder if Mecca is one of the targets for Israeli nukes?
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
