U.S. Drops Largest Non-Nuclear Bomb in Afghanistan targeting ISIS

13

Comments

  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 12,570
    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?
    You are severely underestimating analysts and experts who could, and did, predict these results from the end of WWII onward.
    Could you please point me to these analysts who predicted this? and from world war 2 onwards?! wow.
    who knew on august 9, 1945 japan and the united would be really close allies in 2017?!
    who knew one of the men responsible for the v2 rocket would put 2 americans on the moon in 1969?
    Crazy that supporting iraq in the 80's would come back to bite us in the ass.

    being a monday morning quarterback is easy
    The destabilisation of the Middle East was not a surprise for anyone. Period.

    I don't know how Japan and the Moon are relevant.
    you said it was easy to predict the results of ww2 and onwards and I presented two huge consequences of world war 2.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 12,570
    by the way...where are these analysts from 1945 who predicted the future?
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,527
    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?
    You are severely underestimating analysts and experts who could, and did, predict these results from the end of WWII onward.
    Could you please point me to these analysts who predicted this? and from world war 2 onwards?! wow.
    who knew on august 9, 1945 japan and the united would be really close allies in 2017?!
    who knew one of the men responsible for the v2 rocket would put 2 americans on the moon in 1969?
    Crazy that supporting iraq in the 80's would come back to bite us in the ass.

    being a monday morning quarterback is easy
    The destabilisation of the Middle East was not a surprise for anyone. Period.

    I don't know how Japan and the Moon are relevant.
    you said it was easy to predict the results of ww2 and onwards and I presented two huge consequences of world war 2.
    I meant that in the context of this topic.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 12,570
    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?
    You are severely underestimating analysts and experts who could, and did, predict these results from the end of WWII onward.
    Could you please point me to these analysts who predicted this? and from world war 2 onwards?! wow.
    who knew on august 9, 1945 japan and the united would be really close allies in 2017?!
    who knew one of the men responsible for the v2 rocket would put 2 americans on the moon in 1969?
    Crazy that supporting iraq in the 80's would come back to bite us in the ass.

    being a monday morning quarterback is easy
    The destabilisation of the Middle East was not a surprise for anyone. Period.

    I don't know how Japan and the Moon are relevant.
    you said it was easy to predict the results of ww2 and onwards and I presented two huge consequences of world war 2.
    I meant that in the context of this topic.
    ok. where are these analysts that predicted the middle east from world war 2 to the present? can you show me how uk influence prevented hitler from moving into the middle east to the present? i mean it's easy to predict creation of israel 1948 onwards in all muslim world but to predict anything else...i'm open with all ears. give me some credible authors.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,527
    mcgruff10 said:

    by the way...where are these analysts from 1945 who predicted the future?

    I don't know their names, the CIA holds it's cards pretty close. It's pretty hard to imagine the CIA's Iran coup in 1953 was a spur of the moment decision, and even harder to imagine that it wasn't expressly the goal to destabilise.
    Pretty much everything that has happened since is more of the same old same.
    Even if the Mujahedeen turning on us wasn't an obvious possibility, perhaps we should have learned our lesson before propping up and then toppling Saddam, Bin Laden, and ISIS.
    It's​ only Monday morning quarterbacking if you weren't on the field on Sunday.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 12,570
    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?
    You are severely underestimating analysts and experts who could, and did, predict these results from the end of WWII onward.
    so you cite analysts and experts but can't name any? If I said a statement like that i'd have at least three sources to back it up.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 12,570
    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    by the way...where are these analysts from 1945 who predicted the future?

    I don't know their names, the CIA holds it's cards pretty close. It's pretty hard to imagine the CIA's Iran coup in 1953 was a spur of the moment decision, and even harder to imagine that it wasn't expressly the goal to destabilise.
    Pretty much everything that has happened since is more of the same old same.
    Even if the Mujahedeen turning on us wasn't an obvious possibility, perhaps we should have learned our lesson before propping up and then toppling Saddam, Bin Laden, and ISIS.
    It's​ only Monday morning quarterbacking if you weren't on the field on Sunday.
    from 1953 to 1979 iran remains an ally to the united states. so the united states government is supposed to know 26 years later that the iranian government would be over thrown and eventually take u.s. citizens hostages?
    the us staged that coup during the cold war just like we sent aid to the afghan rebels fighting the soviet union in the late 70's during the cold war. our main fight during this time was the soviet union...no way we can predict 20 years down the line when we are worrying about communism. that's like saying gulf of tonkin is the reason for the cambodian gonocide.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,527
    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?
    You are severely underestimating analysts and experts who could, and did, predict these results from the end of WWII onward.
    so you cite analysts and experts but can't name any? If I said a statement like that i'd have at least three sources to back it up.
    You can hang your hat on my lack of sources if you want, but the obvious will remain obvious.
    The folks who make careers in military geopolitics have been seeing supported rebel factions turning on us throughout conflicts across the world.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 12,570
    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?
    You are severely underestimating analysts and experts who could, and did, predict these results from the end of WWII onward.
    so you cite analysts and experts but can't name any? If I said a statement like that i'd have at least three sources to back it up.
    You can hang your hat on my lack of sources if you want, but the obvious will remain obvious.
    The folks who make careers in military geopolitics have been seeing supported rebel factions turning on us throughout conflicts across the world.
    don't cite authors and evidence if you don't have any. your credibility is now shot.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • Halifax2TheMaxHalifax2TheMax Posts: 10,029
    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    by the way...where are these analysts from 1945 who predicted the future?

    I don't know their names, the CIA holds it's cards pretty close. It's pretty hard to imagine the CIA's Iran coup in 1953 was a spur of the moment decision, and even harder to imagine that it wasn't expressly the goal to destabilise.
    Pretty much everything that has happened since is more of the same old same.
    Even if the Mujahedeen turning on us wasn't an obvious possibility, perhaps we should have learned our lesson before propping up and then toppling Saddam, Bin Laden, and ISIS.
    It's​ only Monday morning quarterbacking if you weren't on the field on Sunday.
    from 1953 to 1979 iran remains an ally to the united states. so the united states government is supposed to know 26 years later that the iranian government would be over thrown and eventually take u.s. citizens hostages?
    the us staged that coup during the cold war just like we sent aid to the afghan rebels fighting the soviet union in the late 70's during the cold war. our main fight during this time was the soviet union...no way we can predict 20 years down the line when we are worrying about communism. that's like saying gulf of tonkin is the reason for the cambodian gonocide.
    After overthrowing a democratically elected nationalist president of the people in that he was one of them, who wanted Iranian oil revenue to go to the people and not international corporations and installing the shah, who was from the wealthy elite class and not only allowed the wealth of the nation to flow out, enriched himself and his cronies, but killed and tortured all manner of opponents. Some ally. You make it sound as if Iran was similar to post war France and Germany. That experience alone should have widened us to Afghanistan, the grave yard of empires, which in turn, should have wisened us up to Iraq. But some folks never learn nor care to understand history.
    09/15/1998, Mansfield, MA; 08/29/00 08/30/00, Mansfield, MA; 07/02/03, 07/03/03, Mansfield, MA; 09/28/04, 09/29/04, Boston, MA; 09/22/05, Halifax, NS; 05/24/06, 05/25/06, Boston, MA; 07/22/06, 07/23/06, Gorge, WA; 06/29/08, 06/30/08, Mansfield, MA; 08/18/08, O2 London, UK; 10/30/09, 10/31/09, Philadelphia, PA; 05/15/10, Hartford, CT; 05/17/10, Boston, MA; 05/20/10, 05/21/10, NY, NY; 06/22/10, Dublin, IRE; 06/23/10, Northern Ireland; 09/03/11, 09/04/11, Alpine Valley, WI; 09/11/11, 09/12/11, Toronto, Ont; 09/14/11, Ottawa, Ont; 09/15/11, Hamilton, Ont; 07/02/2012, Prague, Czech Republic; 07/04/2012 & 07/05/2012, Berlin, Germany; 07/07/2012, Stockholm, Sweden; 09/30/2012, Missoula, MT; 07/16/2013, London, Ont; 07/19/2013, Chicago, IL; 10/15/2013 & 10/16/2013, Worcester, MA; 10/21/2013 & 10/22/2013, Philadelphia, PA; 10/25/2013, Hartford, CT; 11/29/2013, Portland, OR; 11/30/2013, Spokane, WA; 12/04/2013, Vancouver, BC; 12/06/2013, Seattle, WA; 10/03/2014, St. Louis. MO; 10/22/2014, Denver, CO; 10/26/2015, New York, NY; 04/23/2016, New Orleans, LA; 04/28/2016 & 04/29/2016, Philadelphia, PA; 05/01/2016 & 05/02/2016, New York, NY; 05/08/2016, Ottawa, Ont.; 05/10/2016 & 05/12/2016, Toronto, Ont.; 08/05/2016 & 08/07/2016, Boston, MA; 08/20/2016 & 08/22/2016, Chicago, IL;

    "If you're looking down on someone, it better be to extend them a hand to lift them up."

    Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.

    Brilliantati©
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,426
    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".
    Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?
    I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 21,338



    **************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

    We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
    AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,527
    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?
    You are severely underestimating analysts and experts who could, and did, predict these results from the end of WWII onward.
    so you cite analysts and experts but can't name any? If I said a statement like that i'd have at least three sources to back it up.
    You can hang your hat on my lack of sources if you want, but the obvious will remain obvious.
    The folks who make careers in military geopolitics have been seeing supported rebel factions turning on us throughout conflicts across the world.
    don't cite authors and evidence if you don't have any. your credibility is now shot.
    I didn't cite anything, I alluded.
    I'm not concerned too much about my credibility rating around here, everyone has their issues. Unless I have you mixed up with another poster, I have been disturbed by your obsession with war and glorifying it, and wonder what impact that has on your history students. That doesn't mean I discount everything you say because I don't trust your credibility, it just means that in issues of the US going to war I assume you may or may not have patriotic bias.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 12,570

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".
    Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?
    I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.
    No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".
    Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?
    I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.
    No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.
    Some Canadians on here forget they are one.
    I got the fun jab you were trying to make.

    Talk to all you fine folks tomorrow!
    Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not. Both ideas are overwhelming. AE
  • mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".
    Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?
    I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.
    No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.
    I'm glad we don't.

    Watched War Dogs last night. I know it's Hollywood, but I agreed with the premise of the show: war is an economy. Those 50+ missiles you guys fired into that asphalt need to be replaced. Missile makers must have rejoiced!
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 9,568
    edited April 17

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".
    Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?
    I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.
    No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.
    I'm glad we don't.

    Watched War Dogs last night. I know it's Hollywood, but I agreed with the premise of the show: war is an economy. Those 50+ missiles you guys fired into that asphalt need to be replaced. Missile makers must have rejoiced!
    Bingo! But the right will tell you that Hollywood is nothing but a bunch of liberal snowflakes and they made the movie to express that point intentionally.
    Lord of War is another good one!
    Post edited by HesCalledDyer on
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 12,570
    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?
    You are severely underestimating analysts and experts who could, and did, predict these results from the end of WWII onward.
    so you cite analysts and experts but can't name any? If I said a statement like that i'd have at least three sources to back it up.
    You can hang your hat on my lack of sources if you want, but the obvious will remain obvious.
    The folks who make careers in military geopolitics have been seeing supported rebel factions turning on us throughout conflicts across the world.
    don't cite authors and evidence if you don't have any. your credibility is now shot.
    I didn't cite anything, I alluded.
    I'm not concerned too much about my credibility rating around here, everyone has their issues. Unless I have you mixed up with another poster, I have been disturbed by your obsession with war and glorifying it, and wonder what impact that has on your history students. That doesn't mean I discount everything you say because I don't trust your credibility, it just means that in issues of the US going to war I assume you may or may not have patriotic bias.
    I 'm definitely not glorifying war. War sucks.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,527
    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    rgambs said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    it really is easy to be a monday morning quarterback huh?
    You are severely underestimating analysts and experts who could, and did, predict these results from the end of WWII onward.
    so you cite analysts and experts but can't name any? If I said a statement like that i'd have at least three sources to back it up.
    You can hang your hat on my lack of sources if you want, but the obvious will remain obvious.
    The folks who make careers in military geopolitics have been seeing supported rebel factions turning on us throughout conflicts across the world.
    don't cite authors and evidence if you don't have any. your credibility is now shot.
    I didn't cite anything, I alluded.
    I'm not concerned too much about my credibility rating around here, everyone has their issues. Unless I have you mixed up with another poster, I have been disturbed by your obsession with war and glorifying it, and wonder what impact that has on your history students. That doesn't mean I discount everything you say because I don't trust your credibility, it just means that in issues of the US going to war I assume you may or may not have patriotic bias.
    I 'm definitely not glorifying war. War sucks.
    I must have you confused with the poster who eagerly jumps into anything related to WW2 and who collects WW2 weapons.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,426
    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".
    Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?
    I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.
    No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.
    That was a joke, eh?

    Geez, dude, you've gotta work on your delivery ;)
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 3,265

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".
    Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?
    I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.
    No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.
    I'm glad we don't.

    Watched War Dogs last night. I know it's Hollywood, but I agreed with the premise of the show: war is an economy. Those 50+ missiles you guys fired into that asphalt need to be replaced. Missile makers must have rejoiced!
    The MOAB was designed in 2002 and produced in 2003. So the MOAB was 14 years old. What if the expiration time was 15 years and we were just trying to use them up before they go bad?

    Do Tomahawks have a shelf life? Maybe this is our way of rotating stock?
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 12,570

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".
    Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?
    I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.
    No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.
    That was a joke, eh?

    Geez, dude, you've gotta work on your delivery ;)
    all good bud. the internet sucks for sarcasm lol.
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 3,265
    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".
    Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?
    I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.
    No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.
    That was a joke, eh?

    Geez, dude, you've gotta work on your delivery ;)
    all good bud. the internet sucks for sarcasm lol.
    you need to use the SarcMark
    Interrobang also would have been acceptable
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,426
    Didn't we have the sarcasm talk just a day or two ago? Some posters were opposed. I can't imagine why.
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • CM189191 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".
    Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?
    I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.
    No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.
    I'm glad we don't.

    Watched War Dogs last night. I know it's Hollywood, but I agreed with the premise of the show: war is an economy. Those 50+ missiles you guys fired into that asphalt need to be replaced. Missile makers must have rejoiced!
    The MOAB was designed in 2002 and produced in 2003. So the MOAB was 14 years old. What if the expiration time was 15 years and we were just trying to use them up before they go bad?

    Do Tomahawks have a shelf life? Maybe this is our way of rotating stock?
    My wife and I do this all the time. We say, "Hey. We gotta use this chicken today or tomorrow." Then we cook the chicken.

    Sooo... you're probably right:

    General 1: "Guys. We got a freaking set of missiles we gotta use."
    General 2: "Okay. Anyone got a target? Doesn't have to be anything great. Just something we can blow up."
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 3,265

    CM189191 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".
    Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?
    I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.
    No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.
    I'm glad we don't.

    Watched War Dogs last night. I know it's Hollywood, but I agreed with the premise of the show: war is an economy. Those 50+ missiles you guys fired into that asphalt need to be replaced. Missile makers must have rejoiced!
    The MOAB was designed in 2002 and produced in 2003. So the MOAB was 14 years old. What if the expiration time was 15 years and we were just trying to use them up before they go bad?

    Do Tomahawks have a shelf life? Maybe this is our way of rotating stock?
    My wife and I do this all the time. We say, "Hey. We gotta use this chicken today or tomorrow." Then we cook the chicken.

    Sooo... you're probably right:

    General 1: "Guys. We got a freaking set of missiles we gotta use."
    General 2: "Okay. Anyone got a target? Doesn't have to be anything great. Just something we can blow up."
    Just a theory I've been working on. Now it has a name, thank you. Going forward, this will be referred to as the "Chicken Tonight Theory". I have already written the jingle:
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,426
    edited April 17
    ..... no chicken tonight in my coffee, no chicken tonight in my tea....
    Post edited by oftenreading on
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 3,039

    ..... no chicken tonight in my coffee, no chicken tonight in my tea....

    dut, dut-it, da, dada, dut, da....
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 3,039
    CM189191 said:

    CM189191 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".
    Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?
    I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.
    No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.
    I'm glad we don't.

    Watched War Dogs last night. I know it's Hollywood, but I agreed with the premise of the show: war is an economy. Those 50+ missiles you guys fired into that asphalt need to be replaced. Missile makers must have rejoiced!
    The MOAB was designed in 2002 and produced in 2003. So the MOAB was 14 years old. What if the expiration time was 15 years and we were just trying to use them up before they go bad?

    Do Tomahawks have a shelf life? Maybe this is our way of rotating stock?
    My wife and I do this all the time. We say, "Hey. We gotta use this chicken today or tomorrow." Then we cook the chicken.

    Sooo... you're probably right:

    General 1: "Guys. We got a freaking set of missiles we gotta use."
    General 2: "Okay. Anyone got a target? Doesn't have to be anything great. Just something we can blow up."
    Just a theory I've been working on. Now it has a name, thank you. Going forward, this will be referred to as the "Chicken Tonight Theory". I have already written the jingle:
    What about a book? Tomahawk Missiles for the Soul?
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 3,265
    tbergs said:

    CM189191 said:

    CM189191 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:

    mcgruff10 said:


    Yes the cia probably helped build it during the cold war. Tough to predict the future.

    Not probably. They were built by the CIA for the mujahideen (al Qaeda). I bet the war didn't feel too cold to afghanis.
    Not really hard to predict, either. The saying 'chickens come home to roost' has been around for about 700 years.
    Similar things are happening in Iraq. And Libya. And Syria. How many times can they say oops before the public believes that 'oops' was part of the plan?
    You are telling me that it was easy to predict that the same afghans who fought the soviets during the Cold War would have eventually been responsible for 9/11?
    And dirty, you always have hawks but no way close to a majority want to drop an atomic bomb. And where exactly do people think we are going to drop an atomic bomb? North Korea with a major ally to the south and a billion person nation to the north?
    it shouldn't be hard to figure out that when you ally with extremists to fight your enemy, it could backfire. terror attacks against western targets are a foregone conclusion thanks to these ongoing policies.
    And ya.....the whole point to the new weapons upgrades is to make nukes tactical. They are guided, and have adjustable loads. They can be 'dialled down' to close to the same tonnage as the MOABs, and are deliverable via fighter jet. the US stores these bombs in several European countries, including our wonderful ally turkey.
    They are also bunker-busters, ie: they detonate below ground, so less fallout.
    The whole point to them is to make them feasible for use....They are basically custom made for a situation like North Korea, where invasion and occupation is not desirable - only need to destroy a few large, well protected, underground facilities.
    And thus the problem. We didn't learn anything from our last experiments with nukes, other than "let's make the next one better!".
    Is that what canadians say when their government tests nuclear weapons?
    I personally would say that no matter who was testing or using nukes. Are you, for some reason, assuming all Canadians hold the same opinion? I don't know why you would, unless you are particularly ignorant about the larger world around you. I don't assume all Americans hold the same opinions on any topic.
    No I was just poking fun because Canada doesn't have any atomic weapons.
    I'm glad we don't.

    Watched War Dogs last night. I know it's Hollywood, but I agreed with the premise of the show: war is an economy. Those 50+ missiles you guys fired into that asphalt need to be replaced. Missile makers must have rejoiced!
    The MOAB was designed in 2002 and produced in 2003. So the MOAB was 14 years old. What if the expiration time was 15 years and we were just trying to use them up before they go bad?

    Do Tomahawks have a shelf life? Maybe this is our way of rotating stock?
    My wife and I do this all the time. We say, "Hey. We gotta use this chicken today or tomorrow." Then we cook the chicken.

    Sooo... you're probably right:

    General 1: "Guys. We got a freaking set of missiles we gotta use."
    General 2: "Okay. Anyone got a target? Doesn't have to be anything great. Just something we can blow up."
    Just a theory I've been working on. Now it has a name, thank you. Going forward, this will be referred to as the "Chicken Tonight Theory". I have already written the jingle:
    What about a book? Tomahawk Missiles for the Soul?
    Way ahead of you...working movie title in progress:


    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
Sign In or Register to comment.