On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:17:22 -0500, X ` Man wrote:

On 11/23/11 2:01 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:23:49 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

On 11/23/11 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:05:17 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

The mountains are going to give the Israeli air force problems, Cain
apparently thinks.


It will present a problem if the facility they are trying to destroy
is in the middle of one of these mountains. Our penetrators are pretty
good but there is still a limit to what they can punch through.


Most if not all of the Iranian nuke facility locations are known, and
they are not in the mountains. Think Peenemünde and Nordhausen, with the
facilities in underground bunkers.

If that is really true, they are going to lose them. The open question
is how long that really sets back the program and what the blowback
will be.


I think it is worthwhile to try to prevent countries ruled by lunatics
from having or developing nuclear weapons. Bombing, sabotage and other
methods that do not involve massive military effort seem reasonable ways
to accomplish that sort of goal.

The problem, of course, is that nukes-ready-to-go are available from the
weaponry stolen from the former Soviet states and, probably, from
Pakistan. Since we don't really patrol our borders or seaports, it seems
reasonable one can be "snuck" in to create havoc. When it goes off, I
hope it isn't going off in DC.

Adding a few million union jobs to patrol borders and seaports wouldn't stop a small nuke from
entering the country. I could carry a SADM in my little Key West and set it off under the Memorial
Bridge. Wouldn't have to be in a container on a ship. Of course, we wouldn't expect Pelosi, et al,
who want to add millions of 'port inspectors' to understand that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...ition_Munition

On 11/23/11 3:36 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:17:22 -0500, X ` wrote:

On 11/23/11 2:01 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:23:49 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

On 11/23/11 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:05:17 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

The mountains are going to give the Israeli air force problems, Cain
apparently thinks.


It will present a problem if the facility they are trying to destroy
is in the middle of one of these mountains. Our penetrators are pretty
good but there is still a limit to what they can punch through.


Most if not all of the Iranian nuke facility locations are known, and
they are not in the mountains. Think Peenemünde and Nordhausen, with the
facilities in underground bunkers.

If that is really true, they are going to lose them. The open question
is how long that really sets back the program and what the blowback
will be.


I think it is worthwhile to try to prevent countries ruled by lunatics
from having or developing nuclear weapons. Bombing, sabotage and other
methods that do not involve massive military effort seem reasonable ways
to accomplish that sort of goal.

The problem, of course, is that nukes-ready-to-go are available from the
weaponry stolen from the former Soviet states and, probably, from
Pakistan. Since we don't really patrol our borders or seaports, it seems
reasonable one can be "snuck" in to create havoc. When it goes off, I
hope it isn't going off in DC.

Adding a few million union jobs to patrol borders and seaports wouldn't stop a small nuke from
entering the country. I could carry a SADM in my little Key West and set it off under the Memorial
Bridge. Wouldn't have to be in a container on a ship. Of course, we wouldn't expect Pelosi, et al,
who want to add millions of 'port inspectors' to understand that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...ition_Munition


Ahh...the GOP approach: let's not do anything because...someone might
get a job.

--
http://flickr.com/gp/hakr/8272ug

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:39:32 -0500, X ` Man wrote:

On 11/23/11 3:36 PM, John H wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 14:17:22 -0500, X ` wrote:

On 11/23/11 2:01 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:23:49 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

On 11/23/11 11:19 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:05:17 -0500, X ` Man
wrote:

The mountains are going to give the Israeli air force problems, Cain
apparently thinks.


It will present a problem if the facility they are trying to destroy
is in the middle of one of these mountains. Our penetrators are pretty
good but there is still a limit to what they can punch through.


Most if not all of the Iranian nuke facility locations are known, and
they are not in the mountains. Think Peenemünde and Nordhausen, with the
facilities in underground bunkers.

If that is really true, they are going to lose them. The open question
is how long that really sets back the program and what the blowback
will be.


I think it is worthwhile to try to prevent countries ruled by lunatics
from having or developing nuclear weapons. Bombing, sabotage and other
methods that do not involve massive military effort seem reasonable ways
to accomplish that sort of goal.

The problem, of course, is that nukes-ready-to-go are available from the
weaponry stolen from the former Soviet states and, probably, from
Pakistan. Since we don't really patrol our borders or seaports, it seems
reasonable one can be "snuck" in to create havoc. When it goes off, I
hope it isn't going off in DC.

Adding a few million union jobs to patrol borders and seaports wouldn't stop a small nuke from
entering the country. I could carry a SADM in my little Key West and set it off under the Memorial
Bridge. Wouldn't have to be in a container on a ship. Of course, we wouldn't expect Pelosi, et al,
who want to add millions of 'port inspectors' to understand that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special...ition_Munition


Ahh...the GOP approach: let's not do anything because...someone might
get a job.

Stupid reply.

Hiring a million 'inspectors' would be a waste of money to prevent a nuke from entering the USA. I
suppose you would hire them anyway. Why? Just to make the government bigger?