Here we go again! Do we really need a $550 million dollar bomber? (weapon, how much)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Shocking and aweing brown-skinned people who aren't Christian. Or, the next president who has a personal grudge against some third world dictator because of his daddy's actions. (hint: George W)
I see it as a cultural thing. Israel is the only country in the Middle East we can really identify with as white, Judeo-Christian people. (I'm a straight, white, atheist male btw). Meanwhile, conservatives can't tolerate those brown-skinned Palestinians, so kudos to Israel for blowing them up!
It's an astounding revelation by him.
I mean...you kidding me? He can't bear to see Israel in a protracted war, so we should drop 55 billion on a useless bomber program.
But he routinely supports HIS OWN COUNTRY being in a few long and protracted wars.
Seriously...I couldn't have made that up. That nugget just fell into my lap.
Why should the world be any more concerned with the potential for Iran becoming a nuclear power than it is with North Korea already being one?
I don't care if it's Switzerland that is seeking to obtain nuclear weapons. As more nations obtain them we are that much closer to a nuclear armed conflict. NK and Iran are of particular concern for two different reasons. The top leadership in NK is simply insane and the leadership in Iran has religious reasons.
I think you have to ask yourself how much confidence you would put in a Christian Fundamentalist being in charge of nuclear weapons here in the US. I know that wouldn't make me feel safe.
Personally, I think you arm every country with a nuclear weapon and you will find out how quick peace treaties come after that... Give only one country a nuke they will never use and peace is guaranteed to not happen....
There is more weapons than nuclear, dirty bomb, biological warfare...
A dirty bomb is a nuclear/radiological weapon. Biological warfare? The US military could pay me to run around sneezing on people, that'd technically be bio-warfare. Iran has no effective WMD. Your concerns are unfounded.
With nuclear missile carrying submarines, ship based cruise missiles, B-1s, B-2s, and missile packing drones, why do we need to replace the aging B-52s?
Because dropping GPS guided bombs is much much cheaper than firing missiles, plus the sheer quantity of munitions that can be carried and deployed over a long period of time is unmatched.
Plus you cannot look at just the cost of building the new bomber, you have to look at the costs compared to maintain the current fleet. The older the design the more maintenance needed per hour of flight time. If too much maintenance is required then you have to either reduce flights or increase units to keep the same capabilities.
In the grand scheme of military contracts, replacing an air craft that served during the Korean War is probably a good place to spend the money.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
