Obama to unilaterally disarm the United States

No, you don't get the point because you know nothing about this and you're pulling ignorant opinions out of your ass.

300 is probably not enough to maintain an effective triad because nobody knows how many would be taken out by a first strike and not all of those remaining would make it to their targets. You also don't understand yields and geographical dispersion so STFU and worry about the defense of your own country.
Quote from Max E. Pad:

You dont seem to get the point, if Russia or China was to attempt the first strike, on our nuclear arsenal, they know damn well that we are going to start firing nukes, so they wouldnt do it unless they mean business, meaning they wouldnt do it if they were not about to use nukes, in which case we are all dead anyways, saying that we need to maintain an arsenal of 1500 nukes to be safe is insane, we could blow the world up 15 times over with that many nukes, having 1500 nukes doesnt make us any safer than having 300 nukes......unless you want to see a bigger firework show as we all get annihilated....
 
LOL, your the one who is making fun of people who support Ron Paul, and posting the Tin foil hat pics, and you are sitting around thinking we need 1500 nukes to survive......

Really? whose the paranoid one here? You probably go to sleep with a gun under your pillow too dont you? :D

You really think that we couldnt spread 300 nukes into enough different locations that they wouldnt be able to take them all out in one strike, and that we wouldnt have enough to launch, and obliterate the world if necessary?

Yeah we really need 1500 nukes, almost 8 nukes for every country on earth, just to make sure we get all the bad guys, we wouldnt want to miss one.....

Quote from Trader666:

No, you don't get the point because you know nothing about this and you're pulling ignorant opinions out of your ass.

300 is probably not enough to maintain an effective triad because nobody knows how many would be taken out by a first strike and not all of those remaining would make it to their targets. You also don't understand yields and geographical dispersion so STFU and worry about the defense of your own country.
 
Quote from Trader666:

No, you don't get the point because you know nothing about this and you're pulling ignorant opinions out of your ass.

300 is probably not enough to maintain an effective triad because nobody knows how many would be taken out by a first strike and not all of those remaining would make it to their targets. You also don't understand yields and geographical dispersion so STFU and worry about the defense of your own country.

Maxi . . . . do you understand yields and geographical dispersion ?
 
Seriously, Max, who the fuck are you as a Canadian who's never even served in the military to tell us what our national defense needs are?

How many of those 300 would be available after a first strike? How many of those would even make it to their targets? How many military targets alone are there in Russia and China that it would be critical for us to destroy to minimize further strikes and how spread out are they?

You have no standing in this and no clue either so don't tell us what we need.
Quote from Max E. Pad:

LOL, your the one who is making fun of people who support Ron Paul, and posting the Tin foil hat pics, and you are sitting around thinking we need 1500 nukes to survive......

Really? whose the paranoid one here? You probably go to sleep with a gun under your pillow too dont you? :D

You really think that we couldnt spread 300 nukes into enough different locations that they wouldnt be able to take them all out in one strike???
 
LOL..... your such a tool

You have spent the last few months ragging on Ron Paul, and saying that everyone who supports him is crazy, and you think that we need more than 300 nukes to protect ourself, it must be very sad living in your constant state of paranoia.....

You got your tinfoil hat on there chief?

Quote from Trader666:

Seriously, Max, who the fuck are you as a Canadian who's never even served in the military to tell us what our national defense needs are?

How many of those 300 would be available after a first strike? How many of those would even make it to their targets? How many military targets are there in Russia and China that it would be critical for us to destroy to minimize further strikes and how spread out are they?

You have no standing in this and no clue either so don't tell us what we need.
 
The one thing i do understand is that Trader666 is full of shit.... :D

Quote from Spiker:

Maxi . . . . do you understand yields and geographical dispersion ?
 
Really? You're a Canadian with ZERO military experience or knowledge trying to tell us how many nuclear weapons we need. So if you want to see who the real tool is just look in the mirror, jackass.
Quote from Max E. Pad:

LOL..... your such a tool

You have spent the last few months ragging on Ron Paul, and saying that everyone who supports him is crazy, and you think that we need more than 300 nukes to protect ourself, it must be very sad living in your constant state of paranoia.....

You got your tinfoil hat on there chief?
Then you know nothing because you're the one with his head up his ass.
Quote from Max E. Pad:

The one thing i do understand is that Trader666 is full of shit.... :D
 
LOL, so a part of your military training was learning about U.S. nuclear secrets?? Did they give you the launch codes at boot camp?

Quote from Trader666:

Really? You're a Canadian with ZERO military experience or knowledge trying to tell us how many nuclear weapons we need. So if you want to see who the real tool is just look in the mirror, jackass.
 
OK, since you're on a roll with talking out of your ass, what exactly is my experience?
Quote from Max E. Pad:

LOL, so a part of your military training was learning about U.S. nuclear secrets?? Did they give you the launch codes at boot camp?
 
Back
Top