Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Not my idea.

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

tothelineplz

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 23, 2002
Posts
62
Remembering the policy shift Billary signed in '97 regarding the U.S. and its use of nukes against "rogue states." Uncle Sam has had nukes trained on So Dam Insane for years dude, where have you been? The following from the LA Times:

First appeared in The Los Angeles Times July 21, 2002

Deep beneath Iraqi soil, armored bunkers protect Saddam Hussein's arsenal of chemical and biological weapons. As the Bush administration lays plans for taking Baghdad, these bunkers are much on the minds of military planners.
The problem has brought back to life the idea of tactical nuclear weapons on the battlefield. Powerful administration proponents often characterize their position as choosing a lesser evil: Either develop the nuclear bunker killers or let Hussein and his cronies hide safely underground with their weapons.

Unfortunately, irradiation of the land and atmosphere makes re-building extremely hazardous and therefore does little to ensure long-term peace and stability in the region. That's why they're called tactical and not strategic. Do your homework before adding snide comments...lest you sound like a "jaded tickle-brained wagtail."
 

Latest resources

Back
Top