Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trumpcard
You've shown repeatedly that you don't have any basis for your opinions so most of us just discount what you say as moronic anyways...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by haecz
i did not know that the UN gave Bush the 'right' to
bomb Iraq to ruins,.. and THEN look for Saddam,
but if that was the case.... dang.. thats just stoopid :P
|
I saw a video of a reporter ..reporting.. in iraq, and the building that was right next to him got hit with a cruise missile. It took, in world war two, almost 100 bombs to level ONE building. Why? because they sucked. You had to carpet bomb stuff to get it done. In this, we use one missle. If we were going to bomb iraq to ruins, we would have used something a tad bit bigger than a 200 or 500 pound smart bomb, or a cruise missle with a small payload.. they *do* have small payloads.. the missiles arent even that big (ive seen one, yay for air and space in DC).. its just the fact that we can hit something without breaking stuff around it.
Heres some charts for you:
Smart bomb (Ranging size): we used 200, 500, and (rarely) 1000 and (more rarely) 2000 pounders. 1 and 2k pounds are huge, and would leave a nasty crater.
Cruise Missile: These things look like they can have a TOTAL payload of 500 pounds. Someone correct me if im wrong.
TOW Missile: Saddams kids ate one of these. They range from 200 to 1000 pound payloads, and are designed to hit moving vechiles.
Compared to what we have:
MOAB: 17 tons of pure hell. Just.. Hell.
Daisy Cutter: 2 ton bombs which were used in vietnam to clear helecopter landing zones. The shockwave on one of these is so large that they register on the richter scale. My father was in vietnam, and he was in the rescue of a captured marine vessel. He said that one of them was dropped a quarter mile away, and he was blown over from the shockwave.
Any nuclear, atomic, or hydrogen bomb which are measured in millions of tons of TNT, whereas the ones above are wimpy millions.
Bell, will add more in a few minutes.
Threaded Mode
