|
Would you support going to war with Iran? (pg. 4)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Fir3start3r |
| quote: | Originally posted by atbell
Twenty feet of earth is about enought to stop all but extremely high yeild nukes.
|
Negative.
>Meet GRU-28<
| quote: |
Bye bye bunker! This dramatic image shows the first GBU-28 test article milliseconds before impacting the test target at the Tonopah test range. The weapon buried itself so deep during this drop, that the USAF did not bother trying to dig it out. During a rocket sled test conducted at that time, the BLU-113 test warhead punched through a 22 foot thick stack of steel reinforced concrete slabs, to be later found one half mile down-range from the target (TI).
|
>>Source<<
| quote: |
The colateral damage (civilian lives lost, environmental carnage, and destroyed infrastructure) associated with hitting these targets is massive.
|
That would depend on how close they've created the facility to their urban centers.
Frankly, I can't see a nuclear facility being built downtown, can you?
And since they wouldn't be using a nuclear device, casualties should be minimal in comparison.
| quote: |
It's really not hard to make a facility that is secure from arial assult. The only way to really hit these targets is to put boots on the ground. |
As above, not necessarily. |
|
|
| Arbiter |
Those things have come a long way since the 90s too. I think they manufacture the upgraded version over in Florida; I forgot what it's called though. Not really my area of expertise.
Suffice to say, underground facilities aren't a big obstacle, if we were to choose that route. |
|
|
| hardcore trancer |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
And since they wouldn't be using a nuclear device, casualties should be minimal in comparison.
|
ya I mean the casualities could only be around a few thousands and by your standards thats probably normal.:rolleyes:
These are innocent people we are talking here not a bunch of animals gettting slaughtered.:mad: |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
People need to watch Weaponology on the Military channel |
Erm no, I really don't think I do need to watch "Weaponology" on the "Military Channel"! Actually, the fact that there is a program called 'weaponology' and a channel called the 'military channel' worries me slightly less than the fact that people actually subscribe to it!!!
Did you have to pay extra to watch the start of the Iraq war?!?
I can just see it now, them advertising it through Feb and March - "Make sure you don't miss Saddam's deadline too! For only $9.99 you can watch the Iraq War live only on pay-per-view (all major credit cards accepted)" |
|
|
| Purple |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Uh, the UN Headquarters property is SOVEREIGN territory, not US. Get your facts straight before you talk about my country.
Please, name your source that says Israel, France, Poland, Germany, France, Japan, South Korea, Indonesia, Thailand, China, Russia, Latvia, Lithuania, Tukey, South Africa will send troops to Iraq under a UN mandate. I'll be anxiously waiting. Spain left, the UK wants to leave, Ukraine left, even the US wants to leave. What media are you reading everyday? Do you live in the Mid East? |
I think you have some misconception about the whole process..
Step 1: US decides and agrees to withdraw completely from Iraq... no partial withdrawal.. this demands complete withdrawal from Iraq including oil fields.
Step 2: US apologies and admits its mistake in an open speech at UNO in attendance from the parties involved like Collin, Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush, US ambassador to UN.. who deliberately lied in all UN General Meetings.
Step 3: US ambassador to UN requests UNO and its members for help and ask them to deploy their (UN) peace keeping forces in Iraq.
Step 4: Here your anxious wait ends when UN decides which countries troops should be sent to Iraq, like in case of Somalia UN asked neighboring African countries to send its troop.. and they had to follow it. Countries don't decide they want to send their troops or not, when you sign the UN treaty as its member you pledge certain number of forces to UN.. UN decides in civilized discussion general meetings and its country members follow the ruling. |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
I think you have some misconception about the whole process..
Step 1: US decides and agrees to withdraw completely from Iraq... no partial withdrawal.. this demands complete withdrawal from Iraq including oil fields.
Step 2: US apologies and admits its mistake in an open speech at UNO in attendance from the parties involved like Collin, Rice, Rumsfeld, Bush, US ambassador to UN.. who deliberately lied in all UN General Meetings.
Step 3: US ambassador to UN requests UNO and its members for help and ask them to deploy their (UN) peace keeping forces in Iraq.
Step 4: Here your anxious wait ends when UN decides which countries troops should be sent to Iraq, like in case of Somalia UN asked neighboring African countries to send its troop.. and they had to follow it. Countries don't decide they want to send their troops or not, when you sign the UN treaty as its member you pledge certain number of forces to UN.. UN decides in civilized discussion general meetings and its country members follow the ruling. |
Actually, the US, Russia, UK, France and China have to agree on military action under the UN flag as they are permanent representatives on the security council and therefore each maintains a veto.
That meant that the "UN" would not allow intervention in Kosovo (Russian veto), would not allow intervention in Darfur (China veto), intervention in Iraq (France veto) or any meaningful interventions in Palestine (US veto)
Edited to add: I'm trying very very hard to think of a polite way of saying you seem to know absolutely all about the UN, but I can't, so you seem to know absolutely all about the UN (which to fair seems to be a requirement of most people using this forum!) |
|
|
| Purple |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
Actually, the US, Russia, UK, France and China have to agree on military action under the UN flag as they are permanent representatives on the security council and therefore each maintains a veto.
That meant that the "UN" would not allow intervention in Kosovo (Russian veto), would not allow intervention in Darfur (China veto), intervention in Iraq (France veto) or any meaningful interventions in Palestine (US veto)
Edited to add: I'm trying very very hard to think of a polite way of saying you seem to know absolutely all about the UN, but I can't, so you seem to know absolutely all about the UN (which to fair seems to be a requirement of most people using this forum!) |
Actually I think exactly the opposite.. that you dont know all that about UN..
France will veto UN intervention in Iraq?
| quote: | | France supports the reinforcement of the UN role in Iraq. |
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/9...77/6237085.html |
|
|
| Purple |
| quote: | Originally posted by hardcore trancer
and in the other news:
Iran riches key nuclear goal
So I wonder now whats going to happen now? would this be the so called smoking gun and Bush has been waiting for?:rolleyes: |
Yes.. this could be it.. let the fall of US begin:
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?i...ctionid=3510203
Or did it already began with twin tower collapse as predicted by Nostradamus..?;) |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
Actually I think exactly the opposite.. that you dont know all that about UN..
|
out of every one here, George Pretty Much knows his ..... actually allot of TA know more than your feeble mind can comprehend.... |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by LazFX
out of every one here, George Pretty Much knows his ..... actually allot of TA know more than your feeble mind can comprehend.... |
When you typed "....." did you actually mean to type "about everything"?!
:D |
|
|
| George Smiley |
| quote: | Originally posted by Purple
France will veto UN intervention in Iraq?
|
No, France DID veto UN intervention in Iraq |
|
|
| LazFX |
| quote: | Originally posted by George Smiley
When you typed "....." did you actually mean to type "about everything"?!
:D |
 ;) |
|
|
|
|
