USA dropping nukes soon?

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • mikeyddddd
    Viva la vulva!
    • Mar 2003
    • 16557

    #51
    Fiddy nukes

    Comment

    • Doug E
      Confirmed User
      • Sep 2005
      • 511

      #52
      Bush talked of using tactical nukes before he came to office. No idea why people elected him. Can anybody read down south?

      Somehow, someone so far has talked him out of it, or the chance to use them hasn't come about. In the first years of his presidency someone in government perseuded him to back off tactical nukes until research was finished on the mega conventional bombs they were working on. They dropped one in Florida, largest conventional explosion ever, but still not as big as they needed to rival a nuke.

      The experts agree that the nuclear bunker complexs in Iran are untouchable with conventional weapons, they're simply buried too deep. Apparently a small nuke could take them out, or at least contaminate the facilities and prevent them from being used for another 50 years.

      Israel will nuke Iran with a silent nod from US when all avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. They would be forced too with whats been said by Ahmadinejad.

      Hopefully Iran smartens up. A nuke nowadays would open the doors to their use by other nuclear nations.

      Comment

      • sweetpurple04
        Confirmed User
        • Jan 2007
        • 425

        #53
        We need to at least talk to the Iranians first before we nuke them.

        Comment

        • ContentSHOOTER
          Confirmed User
          • Dec 2005
          • 3770

          #54
          Originally posted by Rochard
          Seems to me like we can strike anyone for any reason at any time.

          Perhaps we should. It would start teaching people a lesson. I'm guessing the terrorists would find it most difficult to operate when they have radiation sickness. At the very least it would make watching the news on TV much more interesting.

          Everyone should thank God I don't work in the White House.
          You are sooooo FUCKING RETARDED
          Shooting Exclusive Content for over 16 years


          You can reach me at [email protected]


          I have survived in this industry shooting exclusive for 16 years.

          Comment

          • YanksAngel
            Confirmed User
            • Dec 2006
            • 134

            #55
            Got another question, our troops say there is nothing left to destroy in Iraq we have practically leveled the place ... so what is the real reason we are over there? All I know is to invade yet another country we will likely have to have another terrorist attack. I feel like a sitting duck.. Am I seeing this wrong or are the US residents chopped liver.
            YanksCash.com
            -->Check out our FREE content feed here.
            ICQ 421-670-215

            Comment

            • JP-pornshooter
              Confirmed User
              • Sep 2006
              • 4007

              #56
              Originally posted by Rochard
              I'm not gonna answer all of your questions because you guys are taking me way too serously.

              What percentage of all foreign aid goes to Israel? Do you honestly believe that if Iran nuked Israel we are fire back with our own nukes in hours?
              The Israeli lobby community is by far the most productive in DC, many a President have tried to put Israel in its place but sooner or later they all let it go as the jews all pull together their leverage, financially and otherwise. I'd dare to say the US would treat any WMD attack on Israel as an attack on US soil.

              Apparently Putin is now also worried that new radars in Czech have upset the global strategic balance.. this could be concerning for the US/EU.
              "Obscenity is whatever gives the Judge an erection." -- Author Unknown

              Comment

              • The Duck
                Adult Content Provider
                • May 2005
                • 18243

                #57
                Tactical nukes, a new term invented and designed to trivialize nuclear bombs.
                Skype Horusmaia
                ICQ 41555245
                Email [email protected]

                Comment

                • nAtuRaLbEautY
                  Confirmed User
                  • May 2006
                  • 6107

                  #58
                  how could this even be debateable issue in the first place? US gov't is just trying to keep it's political power above any living entity in the world!morally wrong and illogical... and they are just justifying it and covering it up with the so-call war against terror , which is really a war against impending power grab from the white house...
                  Prime Outsourcing│offshore solutions│manual labor│staff leasing│full time employees
                  starting at $695.00/month=managed and dedicated
                  | icq: 309570461 | live chat

                  Comment

                  • yota71
                    Porn Blogger
                    • Jan 2006
                    • 822

                    #59
                    Originally posted by kandah
                    Tactical nukes, a new term invented and designed to trivialize nuclear bombs.
                    Best Point yet,

                    Apparently there are some folks who don't understand the result of any nuclear class weapon, ground detonated anywhere in the Mid-East or the US.

                    Unfortunately I have a feeling we shall soon find out.

                    How do you think Russia will respond to US setting of a nuke in that area.

                    Fallout is a B*tch..
                    ICQ-307696001 kingfisher.kj [at] gmail.com

                    Comment

                    • _Richard_
                      Too lazy to set a custom title
                      • Oct 2006
                      • 30989

                      #60
                      Originally posted by YanksAngel
                      I totally believe that the Russian president has been a pillar of democracy and believes it is working very well.
                      I'm sure the homosexuals, political prisoners, and the last communist leader would sure disagree with you, and what you totally believe.

                      The simple fact that republican primarys are talking about tactical nuking (preemptive) is SO far up crazy street..

                      If the americans are talking about "bombing them back to the stoneage", why the hell WOULDN'T iran try and develop nuclear missiles?

                      Comment

                      • madawgz
                        8.8.8.8
                        • Mar 2006
                        • 30509

                        #61
                        hopefully they dont drop anything..........:\
                        TAEMDLRMSKRJIXMRLSMRJ.

                        Comment

                        • _Richard_
                          Too lazy to set a custom title
                          • Oct 2006
                          • 30989

                          #62
                          Originally posted by yota71
                          Best Point yet,

                          Apparently there are some folks who don't understand the result of any nuclear class weapon, ground detonated anywhere in the Mid-East or the US.

                          Unfortunately I have a feeling we shall soon find out.

                          How do you think Russia will respond to US setting of a nuke in that area.

                          Fallout is a B*tch..
                          wouldn't be just russia.. it be basically everyone. No one would accept USA dropping nuclear weapons. They tried that idea in Korea, and the politicians balked. If they dropped it on Iran, AFTER stating that Iran isn't safe enough to have them.. sure goes along way at creating a "responsible" reputation

                          Comment

                          • yota71
                            Porn Blogger
                            • Jan 2006
                            • 822

                            #63
                            Originally posted by Mr.Sexbankroll
                            wouldn't be just russia.. it be basically everyone. No one would accept USA dropping nuclear weapons. They tried that idea in Korea, and the politicians balked. If they dropped it on Iran, AFTER stating that Iran isn't safe enough to have them.. sure goes along way at creating a "responsible" reputation
                            True, very true

                            The sad thing is that it seems that some political leaders have given up on reputation. We are in a shit-hole so deep that maybe "they", (I am using that term very loosely) feel that the only way out is to esculate and try to regain control with that aproach.

                            Sad situation..
                            ICQ-307696001 kingfisher.kj [at] gmail.com

                            Comment

                            • SuckOnThis
                              So Fucking Banned
                              • Oct 2003
                              • 6844

                              #64
                              Originally posted by Rochard

                              Seems to me like we can strike anyone for any reason at any time.

                              Perhaps we should. It would start teaching people a lesson.
                              And some still wonder why people are out to destroy us. Seems to me your thoughts are no different than the 9/11 terrorists.

                              Comment

                              • bhutocracy
                                Not making A Comeback
                                • Dec 2001
                                • 10218

                                #65
                                Originally posted by IllTestYourGirls
                                RON PAUL 2008!!! Listen to this guy talk about oil, man he is so right, everyone listen
                                Which bits? All I've ever heard him say... or vote for, is against alternative energy sources and that the free market will deal with peak oil and governments shouldn't invest to ease the transition.. which I find pretty ridiculous... Energy dependency isn't something we can afford to be reactionary about.

                                Comment

                                • pocketkangaroo
                                  Confirmed User
                                  • Jan 2005
                                  • 8452

                                  #66
                                  Originally posted by bhutocracy
                                  Which bits? All I've ever heard him say... or vote for, is against alternative energy sources and that the free market will deal with peak oil and governments shouldn't invest to ease the transition.. which I find pretty ridiculous... Energy dependency isn't something we can afford to be reactionary about.
                                  He didn't vote against alternative energy, he voted against the government funding it. He votes against a lot of things that the government wants to fund. He's a libertarian. Small government. Low taxes.

                                  Comment

                                  Working...