 debbyski says: "So where would the military use a stealth bomber armed with a 30,000-pound bomb like this? Defense analysts say the most likely target for this bomb would be Iran's flagship nuclear facility in Natanz, which is both heavily fortified and deeply buried." You know...just in case. No point in wasting ground troops there. If Bush-it wants the money, then let him and Dick pay for it, out of there own pocket. I think that's what they think they're doing. Ya know deb, I love your clips. You rock! A 30k bunker buster. The sad thing about george and dick payin for it out of pocket is they probably could, in fact it may go through faster if they dispose of all the red tape like the "people" and their piddling taxes. At least no gay people would be hurt as there are none in Iran! I'm anxious to see some of your clips Dirish  Let's not forget that those so-called 'Bunker Busters" are nuclear. @zasel: not this one, according to the clip -- it's a 30-kiloton conventional bomb. No it is not...no aircraft could lift a 30-kiloton warhead, each kiloton is a thousand tons, each ton about 2,000 pounds. It is a big bomb, but not 30kt, that would exceed the yield of the Nagasaki bomb, by about 6-12 kt. Enbar, thanx for the clarification. I guess that makes me feel a little better. Nah, not really. Although I am glad it is not a question of nukes, it still scares the crap out of me. Deb, I don't even know how to clip something- I should say a "30-kiloton conventional warhead". Such a thing does not exist. Everything exist on some level. Err ... did I say 30 ktons... ? Oops. I meant 30k pounds ... |
View the Top Clips from October 25, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
|||
|
|
||||
|
New from the makers of Clipmarks: Amplify.com - Don't just share the news...Amplify it!
|
||||
