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.
and i strongly disagree with obama's decision to start destroying our nuclear stockpile.
The stock-pile is irrelevant.
Nuclear weapons exist as a system, ie they are component parts, and one of those components is the delivery system. That could be a missile and TEL (transporter-erector-launcher) or an aircraft.
The US built aircraft to deliver specific nuclear weapons, and also built nuclear weapons to be delivered by specific aircraft. Many of those aircraft, in fact nearly all of them, are no longer in service in the US or anywhere in the world (although there are few countries that still fly the A-7).
You no longer have F-101s, F-105s, or B-58s, and because you don't, there are hundreds of weapons that you have no possible way to deliver, so those weapons are totally worthless to you, but they cost you a lot of money to store and maintain.
You still have hundreds of Pershing I/IA, and Pershing II warheads sitting at places like Pantex.
Do you have an 1st stage motors? No. Any second stage boosters? No. Any guidance control adapters? No. Any radar sections? No. Any transporters? No. Any of the firing cables or other equipment that goes with them? No.
Then what good are they?
The PIIs have PAL-A/B systems. You have to launch that on a missile or it will not function. It has to detect itself at a certain altitude and moving at a certain speed, and if it does not detect those things, the system will never arm itself to fire.
So, again, what good are they? They're of no value.
Also consider the high rate of spontaneous fission for plutonium. Many of the warheads are contaminated with fission products to the extent that they don't even work.
That's why I had to laugh because some idiot says the IAEA said there might be warheads or fissile material on the black market from the Soviet Union.
How freaking stupid can you be?
That was 20 years ago. And the Soviets made that fissile material in the 1950s and 1960s.
Do the freaking math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeLucasLongLostChin
I'd be nice not to be in a continuous state of war for a change...
Um, yeah. No one disputes that Iraq once possessed chemical weapons. The al-Anfal campaign is well-known. The issue in 2003 was the claims that:
*Saddam Hussein is (note the present tense) amassing vast stockpiles of WMD
You know, the Bush Administration long ago admitted Iraq had no WMD program in 2003 and, in fact, no WMDs. Even Bush himself admitted in, seven long years ago:
That's right, seven years after Bush admitted Iraq had no WMDs, you're still insisting they did.
But what you're claiming is that President Bush was wrong when he grudgingly conceding that there were no WMDs because some E-4 you know who was in Iraq says otherwise?
Get a clue already. After seven years, get a clue!
Brilliant post.
I would add though that Sadam played "ducky-hidey" with the anemic UN inspectors for years though in an effort to retain some regional swagger. I personally believe that his attempts to appear *strong* and *defiant* basically suckered Bush & friends. The end result is the US looked rash and the UN looked pathetic.
This doesn't really change anything though. Does it make things any less or right that Sadam had those? It was a grasping justification in the first place....sucks to be Iraq.
I would add though that Sadam played "ducky-hidey" with the anemic UN inspectors for years though in an effort to retain some regional swagger. I personally believe that his attempts to appear *strong* and *defiant* basically suckered Bush & friends. The end result is the US looked rash and the UN looked pathetic.
This doesn't really change anything though. Does it make things any less or right that Sadam had those? It was a grasping justification in the first place....sucks to be Iraq.
That STINKING Un-Justified INSANITY by Dubya (much innocent blood on his hands) Bush, attacking the WRONG NATION after 9/11....was a blatant mistake...which caused innocent Iraqi's and U.S. Troops maimed and dead results.
Um, yeah. No one disputes that Iraq once possessed chemical weapons. The al-Anfal campaign is well-known. The issue in 2003 was the claims that:
*Saddam Hussein is (note the present tense) amassing vast stockpiles of WMD
You know, the Bush Administration long ago admitted Iraq had no WMD program in 2003 and, in fact, no WMDs. Even Bush himself admitted in, seven long years ago:
That's right, seven years after Bush admitted Iraq had no WMDs, you're still insisting they did.
But what you're claiming is that President Bush was wrong when he grudgingly conceding that there were no WMDs because some E-4 you know who was in Iraq says otherwise?
Get a clue already. After seven years, get a clue!
When we want to go to war with a country, we will find a reason, any reason. We are working on doing just that with Iran. We dropped chemical weapons on Libya.
I just heard on the news they are claiming another operation by Iran on a Saudi. Wonder if this one will work to garner the support we are seeking. I say we are creating these false flags. Iran would not be that foolish, especially now.
You no longer have F-101s, F-105s, or B-58s, and because you don't, there are hundreds of weapons that you have no possible way to deliver, so those weapons are totally worthless to you, but they cost you a lot of money to store and maintain.
I don't think this is true. Which weapons in the nuclear stockpile of the United States were formerly delivered by these aircraft so now cannot be used?
The aircraft you mentioned could deploy the B61 freefall nuclear bomb, which is still in the stockpile, but today so can the F-15, F-15E, F-16, and going forward the F-35.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mircea
You still have hundreds of Pershing I/IA, and Pershing II warheads sitting at places like Pantex.
Do you have an 1st stage motors? No. Any second stage boosters? No. Any guidance control adapters? No. Any radar sections? No. Any transporters? No. Any of the firing cables or other equipment that goes with them? No.
Then what good are they?
Pershing I used a W-50 nuclear warhead, Pershing II used W-85. Neither is in the US enduring stockpile. In fact:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W50_%28atomic_weapon%29 "The W50 was manufactured from 1963 through 1965, with a total of 280 being produced. They were retired from service starting in 1973 with the last units retired in 1991."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W85 "After the Pershing missiles were scrapped, all 120 of the W85 warheads produced were modified into B61 bombs, in this case the B61-10 free-fall weapon."
Those warheads you claim are sitting in places were converted to B61 bombs that can in fact be delivered by many modern aircraft.
that reminded me of something that i read years ago, and i wondered why it wasn't developed. (if true).
here is what i pulled:
Not too many people are aware of the oil infrastructure that is already in place in the Middle East. Before Israel was in the news on a daily basis, there were already two oil pipelines built (by 1946) that fed the refineries and terminals of Israel's port city, Haifa from the Muslim oil fields in the east. One pipeline ran directly from Iraq. The other ran from Iraq to Haifa through Jordan. In the 1950s an 1100-mile pipeline was built by the Trans-Arabian Pipeline Company (Tapline) and was a major factor in economic development of Lebanon after independence. It was a joint venture by Standard Oil of New Jersey (Esso), Standard Oil of California (Chevron), the Texas Company (Texaco) and Socony-Vacuum Oil Company (Mobil). The pipeline was the largest of its time, transporting Saudi Arabian oil from the gulf fields to the terminal at Zahrani south of Saida, where it was shipped to the markets of Europe and the United States. At the peak of its operations "Tapline" is said to have transported up to 30 percent of Aramco's production of Saudi Arabian crude.[12]
Tapline has an interesting history. It was originally planned to run from Saudi Arabia's Abqaiq oil fields to the port of Haifa in what was then known as Palestine. Haifa was already a modest terminal facility for the Iraqi Kirkuk oil field pipeline. However, oil magnates and politicians were concerned about the continuing conflict between the British Mandate and the Israeli independence movement. They consequently decided the Tapline Company develops an alternate route. A very similar situation concerning the instability of Afghanistan has occurred with the Bush Administration's negotiations with the Taliban for building a pipeline from Kazakhstan through Afghanistan to the Pakistani port city of Karachi. It is well known that the American petroleum giant Unocal was very interested in this project and pursued it for years. However, in 1998 its efforts were thwarted because of the Afghanistan civil war and then after bin Laden was accused of blowing up two American embassies in Africa. This caused the Taliban to become diplomatically isolated. The regional instability halted any further discussions of the Afghanistan pipeline. Although, Bridas, a former Argentinean oil firm was favored by the Taliban and was willing to start building the pipeline despite the civil war.[13]
It is interesting to note, the Taliban was first funded and installed by the American government, but were then ultimately overthrown by the U.S. Taliban delegates met with State Department officials ante bellum and Unocal in Washington D.C. and may have infuriated their hosts with their continued interest in Unocal's competitor Bridas, (Bridas has since merged with BP Amoco Argentina). There are several reports that describe the Bush administration's negotiations concerning the pipeline with the Taliban including threats of war if the project was not allowed to pass through Afghanistan. The Taliban is now gone and a new Afghani President, Harmid Karzai has been installed in the Afghanistan government. It is more than coincidence that President Karzai was a former Unocal consultant.
the plot is always changing, isn't it?
Not really, no.
Is it any coincidence the apparent new leader of Libya was a BP consultant? (JP Morgan is major stockholder in BP).
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.
Does it make things any less or right that Sadam had those? It was a grasping justification in the first place....sucks to be Iraq.
That STINKING Un-Justified INSANITY by Dubya (much innocent blood on his hands) Bush, attacking the WRONG NATION after 9/11....was a blatant mistake...which caused innocent Iraqi's and U.S. Troops maimed and dead results.
I shall keep ya posted, dad! 
