Iran has suicide boats outfitted with large warheads (Ron Paul, soldiers, gasoline)

[BentBow]

I stated before, the use of the word "Warhead", will confuse many ignorant followers.

A 55 gallon drum of fertilizer is a warhead, if you place it on a projectile.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by BentBow

I stated before, the use of the word "Warhead", will confuse many ignorant followers.

A 55 gallon drum of fertilizer is a warhead, if you place it on a projectile.

I remember that post. Also, I knew that the deflectors would use that method of talking about this thread's topic.

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

We are talking about the iranians here, not the Wehrmacht. So let's not blow their abilities out of proportion :-P.

[Memphis1979]

Originally Posted by BentBow

I stated before, the use of the word "Warhead", will confuse many ignorant followers.

A 55 gallon drum of fertilizer is a warhead, if you place it on a projectile.

Not to mention that one nuclear warhead actually contains about 10 to 20 separate warheads inside of it.

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

We are talking about the iranians here, not the Wehrmacht. So let's not blow their abilities out of proportion :-P.

Neither are they a tribe of New Guinea headhunters, so let's not underestimate them either.

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

Why don't you round up some proof of what you say? Can you?

That's easy. Here's a thread on the subject and a quote from the OP's post:

Obama to reduce U.S. nuclear weapons 80% - no reductions for other nations mentioned

"No final decision has been made, but the administration is considering at least three options for lower total numbers of deployed strategic nuclear weapons cutting to: 1,000 to 1,100; 700 to 800, and 300 to 400, according to a former government official and a congressional staffer. Both spoke on condition of anonymity in order to reveal internal administration deliberations."

And, that's a thread you left FIVE POSTS IN.

You do read the threads you participate in, don't you?

[~HecateWhisperCat~]

Originally Posted by stillkit

Neither are they a tribe of New Guinea headhunters, so let's not underestimate them either.

Well given how well the iraqi forces fought i would say the headhunters are probably more to worry about .

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

I wonder what our leader will say to the Admiral who says this is the case. I also wonder what happens when Iran, the nation that has the fastest torpedoes in the world uses them with nuclear warheads. They wouldn't do a thing like using those after the US unilaterally gets rid of all but 300 of their nuclear bombs, would they? I bet Obama thinks the answer is no.


U.S. Naval Commander: Iran Has (http://cowboybyte.com/4289/u-s-naval-commander-iran-has-suicide-boats-outfitted-with-large-warheads/ - broken link)

Scary...

[J746NEW]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

Is there a reason why we must sit on our butts waiting on someone else to be the attacker? Just wondering since recovery might take a very long time.

Looks like we are the aggressive ones and I am surprised Iran has not launched a defensive attack yet. Hopefully, Russia and China back them and allows it to escalate so the Neocon Satanists running the show can burn in hell.

We have all manner of ships and birds on their door step waiting to pounce on them.

If that is not offensive and warmongering, then riddle me this scenario?

Is it ok if I were to park a battle tank in your driveway, pointed at your kids bedroom, then call you a warmonger when you attempt to defend yourself and your family?

[stillkit]

Originally Posted by Lucidkitty

Well given how well the iraqi forces fought i would say the headhunters are probably more to worry about .

Iran fought pretty darn well during the Iran/Iraq war, wouldn't you say?