Anti-Balistic-Missile-Defense

Oh god, those outdated Scuds? Come on, the Scuds were obsolete even when the Russians had them. And most of the Scuds Iraq had were “has-beens” from the Iraq-Iran War. :wink:

But the other missile platforms are some of the best. The Aegeis missile system will plain knock out any missile from the sky given half a chance

they reached israel alright!

And the V1 “Buzz bombs” hit London alright. Still, unless those are tactical nukes (and the Scuds Saddam used were only HE’s), accuracy counts for a whole lot. Saddam wasted his scuds on some civilian buildings and many of them landed way off their intended targets. (Of course, Saddam was really trying to incite the Israelites into the war so, accuracy and damage assessment wasn’t key)

I was in Israel during the Gulf War and my whole house shook when Saddam’s scuds passed over my house! It was scary. I was in the gas masks too, which were near impossible to breathe in.

Wow, talk about a real war experience.

Scuds couldn’t carry a nuke, they have a relatively small payload.

@Yanny:

Scuds couldn’t carry a nuke, they have a relatively small payload.

I’m sure they could hold biological and chemical payloads…hitler wasn’t even crazy enough for that!

I believe they did carry those payloads :)

Hitler didn’t use Chem/Bio weapons because of a mutual unsaid agreement between the Axis and Allies to not use them.

Yes, i wonder how real gulf war syndrome really is.

Who had more bombers, Hitler or the allies…would it benefit him to use those weapons? The threat remained to the end, even when moron eisenhower slowed our forces even more, because fear of the “National Redoubt.” My grandfather would tell my dad stories how his tank and all the others were well supplied and ready to go, b ut stalled so the Russians can advance more. What a load.

“Who had more bombers, Hitler or the allies…would it benefit him to use those weapons? The threat remained to the end, even when moron eisenhower slowed our forces even more, because fear of the “National Redoubt.” My grandfather would tell my dad stories how his tank and all the others were well supplied and ready to go, b ut stalled so the Russians can advance more. What a load.”

Damn politics have to ruin everything, don’t they? Who got supplied following the liberation of Paris, Monty (Market Garden) or Patton (Saar)? Whoes plan was much more feasible? And yet the supplies and the lies still went to Monty. Same thing with Berlin. Patton could’ve taken Berlin but we had to give it up to the Soviets, who in turned raped and looted it.

BTW: THe SS-1 SCUD could use nukes. It’s Warhead had a weight of 1892 lb, which included HE, chemical, training, 40kT or 100kT tactical nuclear.

The scuds could have carried nuclear warheads, but Iraq doenst have nuclear weapons thanks to Israel.

I guess I’ll add my oponion to this debate. I voted yes but for a different reason. Now before you guys jump down my throat please hear my entire reason why.

A small nuclear strike would be devasting for our country, lets say it came from North Korea and the targets were Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Portland, and Sacramento, Targets on the west coast. The Strike would kill millions!! The Land would be ruined for a long time!! However the effect on the polotical landscape would be dramatic!! Most voters for the Democrat Party tend to live in the city, with this strike the 3 west coast states: Washington, Oregon, and California would most likely become Republican strongholds with the Senators and elactoral votes that go with them. Yes the states would be worth less in elactoral votes after the nuclear strike but the Republican Party would still benefit from them, with those 3 states and the South they would be hard to stop in the future Presidental elections!! Plus this would give them a serious edge in the Senate with 6 senators locked up for a long time. The Democrat Party would be crippled for a long time!! The Republican Party would be a juggernaut with no one able to stop them!! Dont get me wrong I’m a registared Republican and i do lean to the right but in no way I would ever want to live in a country controlled by a single party. Even if that party was my own. Also noticed I did say LEAN to the right. I still find plenty of problems with the Republican Party its just that I find more with Democrat Party right now. No one will ever be able to convince me that the death of millions of democrat voters will not change the balance of power!!! Please respond. Please excuse my spelling!!

The terrorists and “aXis of Evil” aren’t stupid. They’d never nuke the US. They saw how the US reacted to losing 5000 by topllingthe Taliban. For at least 200,000, all the Arab countries and the communist countries woudl be wiped out and brutally crushed. They know that and wont risk it.

Yeah, no country is stupid enough to attack US, unless they’re asking for a deathwish. However, all you need to fire is nuclear weapon is some drunk foreign leader, down on his luck, and feels like “pushing buttons.”

first things first we dont have a right to do anything! no country or person does. in life nobody has any real rights. just more garentted privleges. so we dont let Iraq build Nukes they can build them if they want to, well just stop them :) personally althugh Nukes are monumental achievment they ruined the old classic wars. were never gonna have those old wars were sides are balanced and theres a good fight anymore. but also the Nuke saved countless lives aswell. look at it this way. if The US and USSR didnt have Nukes. they would have slugged it out in Europe i can garuentee that. also India probably would have gone right onto pakistan had it not bin for nukes. there would have bin allot more wars were there would have bin full scale fighting. so many lives would have bin lost. and thats why we have such a population problem now :) honestly i think we should let the africans die out. less humans helps control the population and less competition for us when we go for the resources. thats all i have to say right now :)

“honestly i think we should let the africans die out. less humans helps control the population and less competition for us when we go for the resources.”

I find this quite offensive as it was slavery and the European (and to a lesser extent American) exploitation that helped ruin Africa in the first place. Plus, US Imperialism still has a tight grip over the Africans. Maybe we should just let them die out, so we can steal their gold and diamonds (as if we’re not already), huh? :o

“first things first we dont have a right to do anything! no country or person does. in life nobody has any real rights. just more garentted privleges. so we dont let Iraq build Nukes they can build them if they want to, well just stop them personally althugh Nukes are monumental achievment they ruined the old classic wars. were never gonna have those old wars were sides are balanced and theres a good fight anymore. but also the Nuke saved countless lives aswell. look at it this way. if The US and USSR didnt have Nukes. they would have slugged it out in Europe i can garuentee that. also India probably would have gone right onto pakistan had it not bin for nukes. there would have bin allot more wars were there would have bin full scale fighting. so many lives would have bin lost.”

Plenty of major wars have been fought following World War Two without the expense of atomic arms. We have no clear assurances that the next major war will be a nuclear one.

“We are in the era of the thermonuclear bomb that can obliterate cities and can be delivered across continents. With such weapons, war has become, not just tragic, but preposterous.” - Dwight D Eisenhower

yes that is true. major wars were fought that did not involve Nukes but if ther were no Nukes there would have bin many more major wars. the cold war would have bin WW3 instead of the Cold war. (i think)