9/18 http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002431528,00.html
The interesting part is not the threat to nuke Bagdad, but the part
where Blair says "We can largely protect against that, do not press
me on how, we can protect against that" in reference to Saddam nuking
the oil fields or a nearby capital city.
\_ space-based beam weapons?
\_ Most likely the new improved Patriot missle defense. Much better
than the one in the Gulf War that just managed to miss Scuds or
break them up thus spreading shrapnel over a larger area. Really.
Or maybe the beta version US laser anti-missle platform which
Israel bought nearly sight unseen.
\_ gee, I'm sure Sadaam would never think of delivering a nuke
by some method other than a missile. -tom
\_ are you for or against US military action in Iraq?
\_ Ohmigod! Does the Prime Minister know about that? This
could change EVERYTHING!
\_ Yeah there are multiple ways to fuck shit up so let's not
bother having a defense against any of them. Good call!
\_ the statement was "we can largely protect against that",
which is absurd. -tom
\_ interestingly enough, Patriots didn't work well against Scuds
because Scud guidance was so crappy, it was difficult to
derive their trajectory from present speed and bearing.
\_ by the time the scud got back to earth from its
short journey into the atmosphere, it had lost enough
mass that it was basically just a flying garbage can,
hardly any danger at all.
\_ Bullshit. Can you say desperate spin after the patriots
totally failed after so much hype?
\_ Pretty much. The Scuds are ballistic. Nice predictable
trajectories. The GW Patriots were anti-aircraft
shoved into an anti-missle mission. Failure ensues.
\_ Maybe we should give the Iraqis better guidance systems
via the Chinese or NKoreans so we'll have a better chance
of shooting them down. ;-) |
http://csua.com/feed/