Iran Has Signed Up 10,000 For Suicide Missions Against The US In Iraq - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE · 06-18-2004, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by M_M
I wouldn't be surprised if US invaded Iran. It's all planned out.

Step 1. Install puppets on two countries.

Step 2. Let them fight each other. (Iraq-Iran war).

Step 3. Sell weapons to both countries at the same time.

Step 4. Make lotsa money from selling weapons, and watch how they beat the shit out of eachother.

Step 5. Now that both countries have become extremely weak, just walk in with your military force, with very low casualties such as for instance 1 soldier a day in average.

Step 6. Now that you control the country, you control every single auction and make sure american companies "buy" all the infrastructure and resources.

Step 7. The country practically becomes a colony and the history repeats itself.

The only sure way to wealth is sucking others resources. No matter who is the president, no matter who is impeached of what crime, the whole plan will be followed through.

At least you should be glad your goverments are making and keeping you rich as they keep the 1st/3rd world gap as wide as possible.
Only thing to be able to interfere with such long term plans are other top world powers, such as EU, China etc.. If conflicts between the biggest powers get worse, middle east will be the least of your worries.

Thanks for reading, and now go back to micro-managing the stuff you hear on the media, in your little minds.

Bingo...

But it still don't make things right.

benc · 06-18-2004, 04:37 PM

Thats a good point and something a lot of people are blind to. America is a rich country, and because of that we have enjoyed a much higher standard of living that most countries out there.

A country dosen't get to that point without making aggressive moves. Its like a big porn player. You think they got that way by being a passive choir boy. Nope, by being ruthless and operating on the edge of ethics, sometimes crossing the line.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a 3rd world shit hole. I like have nice living conditions, clean water, electricity, car, etc.

If a lot of people had their way on how this country should be run, it wouldn't be an industrial power, thats for sure.

cosis · 06-18-2004, 04:41 PM

you all need to concentrate back to porn, forget this shit.... worrying is pointless

angelsofporn · 06-18-2004, 04:45 PM

Iran massing troops on Iraqi border

cosis · 06-18-2004, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by angelsofporn
Iran massing troops on Iraqi border

good we can kill them easier

Fletch XXX · 06-18-2004, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by benc
Nope, by being ruthless and operating on the edge of ethics, sometimes crossing the line.

yes yes yes, we all know theres money in lolitas.

Centurion · 06-18-2004, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
I can't wait til Israel and the US fly into Iran and starts taking out these fucktards too.

Shouldn't be too much longer now.

Wait a minute!

You want us to make the SAME mistake in Iran that we did in Iraq?

How would an attack on Iran be successful when we can't even win the peace in Iraq with overwhelming military superiority?

I thought we were finally LEARNING something about unilaterally invading countries who have not attacked us? (ok..bilateral..Israel will join us..that will really be a hit with the rest of the moslem world! SHEESH!)

Centurion · 06-18-2004, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
Luckily western countries far out number the Islamic extremist population.

So it will be a short one.

Where do we put the radioactive debris and air??

Centurion · 06-18-2004, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cosis
do they have the ability to deliever one to the US? no

US has the ability to deliever 100 nukes on Iran in a moments notice

You keyboard warriors do not live in the real world do you?
"Let's nuke them and then get on with our back yard bbq"

Like radiation and problems like that will stay in Iran and atom bombs are so damn smart they'll kill all the militants while leaving the innocents alone?

Come on people..you need to get out more into the REAL world!

KRL · 06-18-2004, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cosis
LOL okay they do that and their hole country will be 3,000 degrees farenheit in about 2 seconds flat.... not even arabs are that stupid

Yeh they are. They're fucking with us right now and seem to have forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We only take so much bullshit and then the Nukes come out.

theking · 06-18-2004, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion
Wait a minute!

You want us to make the SAME mistake in Iran that we did in Iraq?

How would an attack on Iran be successful when we can't even win the peace in Iraq with overwhelming military superiority?

I thought we were finally LEARNING something about unilaterally invading countries who have not attacked us? (ok..bilateral..Israel will join us..that will really be a hit with the rest of the moslem world! SHEESH!)

Yea...of no comprehension...point out where he used the word "invading" or any derivative...there of.

Centurion · 06-18-2004, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Yea...of no comprehension...point out where he used the word "invading" or any derivitive...there of.

Oh, I see..we'll "bomb them from afar" insted of invading them.
They won't be upset then eh?

IDIOT CHILD!

cosis · 06-18-2004, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
Yeh they are. They're fucking with us right now and seem to have forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We only take so much bullshit and then the Nukes come out.

good - bomb them back into the stone age, oh wait they still are in the stone age

KRL · 06-18-2004, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Specifically...where do we have "tens of thousands of Americans" massed?

The bulk of our troops are in Saddam's old gigs at the green zone.

KRL · 06-18-2004, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cosis
good - bomb them back into the stone age, oh wait they still are in the stone age

Dude when the Nukes come out you don't go back to the stone age, you and your whole scumfilled city get fucking vaporized.

theking · 06-18-2004, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion
Oh, I see..we'll "bomb them from afar" insted of invading them.
They won't be upset then eh?

IDIOT CHILD!

The last person...whose ass I kicked...was upset...but there wasn't a fucking thing he could do about it.

KRL · 06-18-2004, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion
You keyboard warriors do not live in the real world do you?
"Let's nuke them and then get on with our back yard bbq"

Like radiation and problems like that will stay in Iran and atom bombs are so damn smart they'll kill all the militants while leaving the innocents alone?

Come on people..you need to get out more into the REAL world!

I hate to break the news to you but the United States still has a shit load of nuclear weapons ready to rock and roll on a moments notice.

If we didn't ever plan on using them don't you think we'd put them back into storage by now? The cold war is long over.

We also have 150 nukes ready to go at US bases in European countries.

theking · 06-18-2004, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL

The bulk of our troops are in Saddam's old gigs at the green zone.

Can you verify...your statement? I would be surprised if this were to factually be the case..."tens of thousands"?

Centurion · 06-18-2004, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
The last person...whose ass I kicked...was upset...but there wasn't a fucking thing he could do about it.

That's what's happening now in Iraq eh..and will then happen in Iran?

King..you're just plain stupid some times.

And kicking your dog doesn't count!

theking · 06-18-2004, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
I hate to break the news to you but the United States still has a shit load of nuclear weapons ready to rock and roll on a moments notice.

If we didn't ever plan on using them don't you think we'd put them back into storage by now? The cold war is long over.

We also have 150 nukes ready to go at US bases in European countries.

In addition new monies have just recently been approved by the Congress to do R&D for "designer" nukes as small as 1 Kiloton...5 Kilotons etc.

Centurion · 06-18-2004, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
I hate to break the news to you but the United States still has a shit load of nuclear weapons ready to rock and roll on a moments notice.

If we didn't ever plan on using them don't you think we'd put them back into storage by now? The cold war is long over.

We also have 150 nukes ready to go at US bases in European countries.

[IMG]

Ah..you're still pushing a military solution to the problem in the middle east. And now you're pushing a nuclear strike at that.

Because we HAVE nuclear weapons doesn't mean that we WILL use them! We had them for 50 years in the cold war and didn't use one and if there was EVER a time they could have been used it was then!

Having & using are TWO different things. The solution to this problem is NOT a military, but a socio/economic one.

How can you even THINK of toasting hundreds of thousands of innocent people and children JUST to try and stop the radical moslems of the world??

cosis · 06-18-2004, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
Dude when the Nukes come out you don't go back to the stone age, you and your whole scumfilled city get fucking vaporized.

it's called a figure of speech

KRL · 06-18-2004, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion
Ah..you're still pushing a military solution to the problem in the middle east. And now you're pushing a nuclear strike at that.

Because we HAVE nuclear weapons doesn't mean that we WILL use them! We had them for 50 years in the cold war and didn't use one and if there was EVER a time they could have been used it was then!

Having & using are TWO different things. The solution to this problem is NOT a military, but a socio/economic one.

How can you even THINK of toasting hundreds of thousands of innocent people and children JUST to try and stop the radical moslems of the world??

Aaaahhh, lets just invite them all over for a picnic. Maybe we could all just become friends.

What a bunch of flower power hippies some of you guys act like .

Do you understand the objective of the radical Muslim extremists is to fucking destroy the United States?

Fletch XXX · 06-18-2004, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL

Do you understand the objective of the radical Muslim extremists is to fucking destroy the United States?

Do you think turning the rest of the world basically against us is anyhing else but?

Centurion · 06-18-2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by KRL
Aaaahhh, lets just invite them all over for a picnic. Maybe we could all just become friends.

What a bunch of flower power hippies some of you guys act like .

Do you understand the objective of the radical Muslim extremists is to fucking destroy the United States?

Yeah..that's what I and other "hippies" have said..yeah RIGHT!
Your solution is "lets throw some nukes at them..that'll fix things!"

Tell ya what..you live in Florida, right? For starters: Pick some little sleepy burg and drop a low yield atomic bomb right in the middle of town and tell me there will be NO reprecussions from radioactive fallout anywhere else in Florida.

You make it seem so simplistic and easy. Nuke em, and there are no complications. I'm glad you're a damn good webmaster. But you'd make me very nervous if you were the Sec of Defense (though Rummy gives me the chills as it is!)

theking · 06-18-2004, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion
Ah..you're still pushing a military solution to the problem in the middle east. And now you're pushing a nuclear strike at that.

Military solutions have...have historically...been viable solutions.

Quote:

Because we HAVE nuclear weapons doesn't mean that we WILL use them! We had them for 50 years in the cold war and didn't use one and if there was EVER a time they could have been used it was then!

Having & using are TWO different things. The solution to this problem is NOT a military, but a socio/economic one.

Nukes were considered for use in Korea...Vietnam...the 1st Gulf War...and I am satisfied they were considered for use in the 2nd Gulf War. Just recently the Congress approved new monies to be spent on R&D of "designer" nukes...ranging from 1 kiloton upward to 5 kilotons etc. Nukes are considered to be viable military weapons.

Quote:

How can you even THINK of toasting hundreds of thousands of innocent people and children JUST to try and stop the radical moslems of the world??

It must be a consideration...unless you prefer Americans and their children being killed.

Centurion · 06-18-2004, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking

It must be a consideration...unless you prefer Americans and their children being killed.

This is where I'm suppose to say "Better Red than Dead!" eh?
I've heard that scare routine before.

King..you get a hardon (well, mentally at least) at ANYTHING even related to the military.

Fletch XXX · 06-18-2004, 05:38 PM

cant we just give them small pox blankets like we did the Indians?

terrorists need blankets too

Centurion · 06-18-2004, 05:42 PM

To those that say "Kill the moslems.." "Nuke the moslems"..do you
distinguish ANY difference between the common moslem man/woman/child and the extreme radical moslem?

Or are you saying we might as well kill ALL Moslems?

Or, define it down to Iran. Kill ALL Iranians?

If you do differentiate..how the heck are you going to protect the innocents with nuclear attacks?

theking · 06-18-2004, 05:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion

You make it seem so simplistic and easy. Nuke em, and there are no complications.

Two nukes were dropped on Japan...and of course there were "complications" but they were somewhat minimal...and the owerwhelming majority of the Japanese population survived with rather good health and are thriving today.

We detonated many, many, airburst nukes in the United States before moving to detonating many, many more underground tests...and the "complications" were minimal. Nukes...are not "dooms day" devices.

KRL · 06-18-2004, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Military solutions have...have historically...been viable solutions.

Nukes were considered for use in Korea...Vietnam...the 1st Gulf War...and I am satisfied they were considered for use in the 2nd Gulf War. Just recently the Congress approved new monies to be spent on R&D of "designer" nukes...ranging from 1 kiloton upward to 5 kilotons etc. Nukes are considered to be viable military weapons.

It must be a consideration...unless you prefer Americans and their children being killed.

Exactly. If there was no plan to ever use nukes again then you wouldn't see the "football" going everywhere the President goes.

The Football

It follows the President wherever he goes and is never more that a few steps from his side. It is carried by a military officer who must undergo the nation's most rigorous security background check - the "Yankee White".

It contains a secure SATCOM radio and handset, the nuclear launch codes known as the EAM "Gold Codes" and the President's Decision Book - the nuclear playbook that the President would rely on if he would ever have to decide to use nuclear weapons.

theking · 06-18-2004, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Centurion

If you do differentiate..how the heck are you going to protect the innocents with nuclear attacks?

In conflicts...historically...as well as within recent history...and history that is currently being made...what you probably are defining as "innocents" are killed...it is virtually unavoidable. This is the real world and there are real consequences in the real world and this has been the case since the beginning of "warfare".

D-man · 06-18-2004, 05:52 PM

wow we sure do have a shit load of arm chair generals in this thread -

I did like the nuke missle inventory chart that was cool but what that does not include is a the low yeild nukes fired from artillary, tanks etc. we have thousands of smaller yeild nukes that don't hit that list - plus that cruse missle number is way off - what we used in the gulf depleted the stock and I think Bush ordered something like $1 Billion worth of them last year - at what a million per - thats a lot of smart bombs

slackologist · 06-18-2004, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by D-man
wow we sure do have a shit load of arm chair generals in this thread -

jimmyf · 06-18-2004, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by cosis
how many allies does Iran have that would fight the US?

None

The question should be how many does the USA have when it comes 2 Iran.

A fucking bunch, two off the top of my head
Franch and Germany.

jimmyf · 06-18-2004, 06:18 PM

Quote:

[i]
Nukes were considered for use in Korea...Vietnam...the 1st Gulf War...and I am satisfied they were considered for use in the 2nd Gulf War. Just recently the Congress approved new monies to be spent on R&D of "designer" nukes...ranging from 1 kiloton upward to 5 kilotons etc. Nukes are considered to be viable military weapons.

[/B]

We had all kinds of small nukes in the 1960's had the things mounted on Jeeps, they fired' em from a gun that looked like a 106.
had' em in my unit, had some crazy fuckers on those Davey Crockett teams.

Davey Crockett's if you haven't heard of' em do a search on google

KRL · 06-18-2004, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf
We had all kinds of small nukes in the 1960's had the things mounted on Jeeps, they fired' em from a gun that looked like a 106.
had' em in my unit, had some crazy fuckers on those Davey Crockett teams.

Davey Crockett's if you haven't heard of' em do a search on google

The Davy Crockett consisted of an XM-388 projectile launched from either a 120-millimeter (XM-28) or 155-millimeter (XM-29) recoilless rifle (the 120 millimeter version is shown above). This weapon had a maximum range of 1.24 miles (120 millimeter) to 2.49 miles (155 millimeter). The XM-388 casing (including the warhead and fin assembly) weighed 76 pounds, was 30 inches long and measured 11 inches in diameter (at its widest point).

The W54 warhead used on the Davy Crockett weighed just 51 pounds and was the smallest and lightest fission bomb (implosion type) ever deployed by the United States, with a variable explosive yield of 0.01 kilotons (equivalent to 10 tons of TNT, or two to four times as powerful as the ammonium nitrate bomb which destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995), or 0.02 kilotons-1 kiloton. A 58.6 pound variant?the B54?was used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM), a nuclear land mine deployed in Europe, South Korea, Guam, and the United States from 1964-1989.

Nice!!!

theking · 06-18-2004, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf
We had all kinds of small nukes in the 1960's had the things mounted on Jeeps, they fired' em from a gun that looked like a 106.
had' em in my unit, had some crazy fuckers on those Davey Crockett teams.

Davey Crockett's if you haven't heard of' em do a search on google

Until recently...I am aware that we had nukes that could be fired by artillary...and may still have some...but they are in the process of destroying them...if they have not yet destroyed all of them. I think they were fired by the 280 mm artillary piece.

KRL · 06-18-2004, 06:34 PM

Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500

Total number of nuclear bombers built, 1945-present: 4,680

Total number and types of nuclear warheads and bombs built, 1945-1990: more than 70,000/65 types

Number currently in the stockpile (2002): 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile)

Number of nuclear warheads requested by the Army in 1956 and 1957: 151,000

Projected operational U.S. strategic nuclear warheads and bombs after full enactment of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2012: 1,700-2,200

Largest and smallest nuclear bombs ever deployed: B17/B24 (~42,000 lbs., 10-15 megatons); W54 (51 lbs., .01 kilotons, .02 kilotons-1 kiloton)

States with the largest number of nuclear weapons (in 1999): New Mexico (2,450), Georgia (2,000), Washington (1,685), Nevada (1,350), and North Dakota (1,140)

Total known land area occupied by U.S. nuclear weapons bases and facilities: 15,654 square miles

Number of secret Presidential Emergency Facilities built for use during and after a nuclear war: more than 75

Total number of U.S. nuclear weapons tests, 1945-1992: 1,030 (1,125 nuclear devices detonated; 24 additional joint tests with Great Britain)

Largest U.S. explosion/date: 15 Megatons/March 1, 1954 ("Bravo")

Number of attack (SSN) and ballistic missile (SSBN) submarines (2002): 53 SSNs and 18 SSBNs

Number of designated targets for U.S. weapons in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) in 1976, 1986, and 1995: 25,000 (1976), 16,000 (1986) and 2,500 (1995)

Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11

Source: The Brookings Institute

jimmyf · 06-18-2004, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Until recently...I am aware that we had nukes that could be fired by artillary...and may still have some...but they are in the process of destroying them...if they have not yet destroyed all of them. I think they were fired by the 280 mm artillary piece.

The Davey Crockett team was across the hall from me, use 2 party with them, as a matter of fact the 1st weed I ever smoked one of them gave it 2 me.

Was in contact with one of them about 2 months ago.

I look back and wonder what the Army was thinking giving a bunch of crazy troopers Nukes.

KRL · 06-18-2004, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf
The Davey Crockett team was across the hall from me, use 2 party with them, as a matter of fact the 1st weed I ever smoked one of them gave it 2 me.

Was in contact with one of them about 2 months ago.

I look back and wonder what the Army was thinking giving a bunch of crazy troopers Nukes.

Yeh, looking at those pics its hard to believe the security was so light with nuclear weapons on jeeps that someone could have easily driven off with.

theking · 06-18-2004, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jimmyf
The Davey Crockett team was across the hall from me, use 2 party with them, as a matter of fact the 1st weed I ever smoked one of them gave it 2 me.

Was in contact with one of them about 2 months ago.

I look back and wonder what the Army was thinking giving a bunch of crazy troopers Nukes.

Crazy toopers is a good description. AIRBORNE!!

jimmyf · 06-18-2004, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
Crazy toopers is a good description. AIRBORNE!!

All the way

Minte · 06-18-2004, 06:43 PM

This would've been a job for PERSHING!

56th 1/41st FA

theking · 06-18-2004, 06:44 PM

KRL...I am surprised to learn that 11 nukes were not recovered. I am aware that nukes have been lost due to accident but I thought they all had been recovered. If I recall correctly several nukes have "fell" out over the US...and also into the Ocean...and I believe over Spain...among others.

BlueDesignStudios · 06-18-2004, 06:54 PM

regardless of who has how many weapons / nukes.. this is one war that cannot be won by conventional means.

Veterans Day · 06-18-2004, 06:57 PM

All the talk about arm chair generals, there is far more arm chair politicians on this board that have no clue how politics work.

KRL · 06-18-2004, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by theking
KRL...I am surprised to learn that 11 nukes were not recovered. I am aware that nukes have been lost due to accident but I thought they all had been recovered. If I recall correctly several nukes have "fell" out over the US...and also into the Ocean...and I believe over Spain...among others.

That figure astonished me also. Although I imagine losing a nuke is not something the govt. would want publicized.

lunchbox · 06-18-2004, 07:03 PM

reasons for using nukes:

a)u just got yer ass handed to you
b)your too pussy to go fight and prefer pressing a button

i dont see why the us should use em yet..although bush can relate to B, so it wouldnt surprise me if he does do it. Which makes me wonder why bush was so keen on the missile defence system a while ago. I guess he knew what was coming.

KRL · 06-18-2004, 07:08 PM

A lot of you guys have a misunderstanding about nuclear weapons. It won't be the end of the world if the US deploys a few.

Blast damage from a nuclear weapon comes from the overpressure in the air and from winds which result from the pressures. For a 10 kiloton blast at the height where it would produce the most damage, severe damage to frame houses would occur out to 1.6 km and moderate damage to 2.4 km. For a 10 megaton blast, 1000 times as powerful, the severe damage would extend out about ten times as far, to 17.7 km. (Figures from Microsoft Encarta). A 10 kiloton blast would produce a fireball of about 300 m diameter and would cause moderate flash burns (second degree) at a range of about 2.4 km. A 10 megaton blash would create a fireball about 4.8 km and moderate flash burns to 32 km. Accompanying the blast is a burst of neutrons and gamma rays, as well as lingering residual radiation from radioactive fallout.

This is what the city of Hiroshima looked like after the blast.

06-18-2004, 04:37 PM	#52
benc Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Florida Posts: 788	Thats a good point and something a lot of people are blind to. America is a rich country, and because of that we have enjoyed a much higher standard of living that most countries out there. A country dosen't get to that point without making aggressive moves. Its like a big porn player. You think they got that way by being a passive choir boy. Nope, by being ruthless and operating on the edge of ethics, sometimes crossing the line. I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a 3rd world shit hole. I like have nice living conditions, clean water, electricity, car, etc. If a lot of people had their way on how this country should be run, it wouldn't be an industrial power, thats for sure. __________________ Numerous Adult and Non Adult Domains For Sale Such as SlutVideos.com, FitWomen.com Listed on Sedo or can do direct sale

06-18-2004, 05:38 PM	#78
Fletch XXX GFY HALL OF FAME DAMMIT!!! Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: that 504 Posts: 60,840	cant we just give them small pox blankets like we did the Indians? terrorists need blankets too __________________ Want an Android App for your tube, membership, or free site? Need banners or promo material? Hit us up (ICQ Fletch: 148841377) or email me fletchxxx at gmail.com - recent work - About me

06-18-2004, 06:34 PM	#89
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500 Total number of nuclear bombers built, 1945-present: 4,680 Total number and types of nuclear warheads and bombs built, 1945-1990: more than 70,000/65 types Number currently in the stockpile (2002): 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile) Number of nuclear warheads requested by the Army in 1956 and 1957: 151,000 Projected operational U.S. strategic nuclear warheads and bombs after full enactment of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2012: 1,700-2,200 Largest and smallest nuclear bombs ever deployed: B17/B24 (~42,000 lbs., 10-15 megatons); W54 (51 lbs., .01 kilotons, .02 kilotons-1 kiloton) States with the largest number of nuclear weapons (in 1999): New Mexico (2,450), Georgia (2,000), Washington (1,685), Nevada (1,350), and North Dakota (1,140) Total known land area occupied by U.S. nuclear weapons bases and facilities: 15,654 square miles Number of secret Presidential Emergency Facilities built for use during and after a nuclear war: more than 75 Total number of U.S. nuclear weapons tests, 1945-1992: 1,030 (1,125 nuclear devices detonated; 24 additional joint tests with Great Britain) Largest U.S. explosion/date: 15 Megatons/March 1, 1954 ("Bravo") Number of attack (SSN) and ballistic missile (SSBN) submarines (2002): 53 SSNs and 18 SSBNs Number of designated targets for U.S. weapons in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) in 1976, 1986, and 1995: 25,000 (1976), 16,000 (1986) and 2,500 (1995) Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11 Source: The Brookings Institute __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains

06-18-2004, 06:43 PM	#94
Minte Babemeister Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Madison Posts: 7,081	This would've been a job for PERSHING! 56th 1/41st FA __________________ You might not be as anonymous as you think you are.

06-18-2004, 06:44 PM	#95
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	KRL...I am surprised to learn that 11 nukes were not recovered. I am aware that nukes have been lost due to accident but I thought they all had been recovered. If I recall correctly several nukes have "fell" out over the US...and also into the Ocean...and I believe over Spain...among others. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

06-18-2004, 04:41 PM	#53
cosis Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Beach Posts: 5,281	you all need to concentrate back to porn, forget this shit.... worrying is pointless

06-18-2004, 04:45 PM	#54
angelsofporn Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CA Posts: 3,218	Iran massing troops on Iraqi border

06-18-2004, 05:42 PM	#79
Centurion Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: SeATtle Posts: 6,033	To those that say "Kill the moslems.." "Nuke the moslems"..do you distinguish ANY difference between the common moslem man/woman/child and the extreme radical moslem? Or are you saying we might as well kill ALL Moslems? Or, define it down to Iran. Kill ALL Iranians? If you do differentiate..how the heck are you going to protect the innocents with nuclear attacks?

06-18-2004, 05:52 PM	#83
D-man Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Respect the join date noob! Posts: 1,291	wow we sure do have a shit load of arm chair generals in this thread - I did like the nuke missle inventory chart that was cool but what that does not include is a the low yeild nukes fired from artillary, tanks etc. we have thousands of smaller yeild nukes that don't hit that list - plus that cruse missle number is way off - what we used in the gulf depleted the stock and I think Bush ordered something like $1 Billion worth of them last year - at what a million per - thats a lot of smart bombs

06-18-2004, 06:54 PM	#96
BlueDesignStudios Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 9,492	regardless of who has how many weapons / nukes.. this is one war that cannot be won by conventional means. __________________ Blue Design Studios - Adult Design Specialists! Email me for a free quote: [email protected]

06-18-2004, 06:57 PM	#97
Veterans Day Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: The Windy City Posts: 8,403	All the talk about arm chair generals, there is far more arm chair politicians on this board that have no clue how politics work. __________________ Build a Massive Traffic Network, Hands FREE, Totally Automated

06-18-2004, 07:03 PM	#99
lunchbox Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 129	reasons for using nukes: a)u just got yer ass handed to you b)your too pussy to go fight and prefer pressing a button i dont see why the us should use em yet..although bush can relate to B, so it wouldnt surprise me if he does do it. Which makes me wonder why bush was so keen on the missile defence system a while ago. I guess he knew what was coming.

06-18-2004, 07:08 PM	#100
KRL Entrepreneur Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: USA Posts: 31,429	A lot of you guys have a misunderstanding about nuclear weapons. It won't be the end of the world if the US deploys a few. Blast damage from a nuclear weapon comes from the overpressure in the air and from winds which result from the pressures. For a 10 kiloton blast at the height where it would produce the most damage, severe damage to frame houses would occur out to 1.6 km and moderate damage to 2.4 km. For a 10 megaton blast, 1000 times as powerful, the severe damage would extend out about ten times as far, to 17.7 km. (Figures from Microsoft Encarta). A 10 kiloton blast would produce a fireball of about 300 m diameter and would cause moderate flash burns (second degree) at a range of about 2.4 km. A 10 megaton blash would create a fireball about 4.8 km and moderate flash burns to 32 km. Accompanying the blast is a burst of neutrons and gamma rays, as well as lingering residual radiation from radioactive fallout. This is what the city of Hiroshima looked like after the blast. __________________ If you would like to develop your domains, you can lease inexpensive foreign labor from the leaders in the field at iWebmasters.com TO LOWER YOUR COSTS AND INCREASE YOUR PRODUCTION! * * * * * * * * * * * * Domains Adult News KRL's Newsletter Biz Tips Just Listed Domains