Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Should The US Shoot Down NK Missile?  
User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12178 posts, RR: 51
Posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3361 times:

The North Koreans reportedly have ready and fueled a Taepodong II missile, an ICBM, for test firing. It appears all they need is good weather in the launch area.

In response, the US has declared their missle defense shied bases in Alaska and California as "operational". Additionally, the USN aegis cruiser USS Lake Erie, CG-70, part of the defense shield and equipped with SM-3 missiles, is also declared "operational".

If NK test fires their ICBM, should the US attempt to shoot it down? If the US does shoot it down, how will the NK know it was shot down and not a missile failure?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060620/us_nm/arms_usa_missile_dc_2

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060620-123010-4554r.htm

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0a0f2300-006e-11db-8078-0000779e2340.html

84 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLt-AWACS From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 3353 times:

I don't mean to sound like a d!ck here with this, but is the other option to let it hit the USA?... or are you getting at the fact we should "lt it fail" if we somehow know that is going to happen. I could see the argument for that in some of the links you post, but I would aim to shoot it down ASAP and not hope for failure. Of course it is early here and the soccer riots kept me up  Sad so I am groggy and cholo-esq at the moment.

Ciao, and Hook 'em Horns,
Capt-AWACS, Mind the gap


User currently offlineGreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3329 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
If NK test fires their ICBM, should the US attempt to shoot it down? If the US does shoot it down, how will the NK know it was shot down and not a missile failure?

You can't hide such a launch from anyone. Besides, we'll need to lob more than just 1 of them, since our chances are 50%, they will know if we launch, but will they know if the missiles hit their ICBM?
Pentagon has already stated it wont shoot anything down unless it's a direct threat to the US, but the decision on whether it would be a threat will be most certainly determined within the first minutes of flight.



Now you're really flying
User currently offlinePbottenb From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 3327 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
If NK test fires their ICBM, should the US attempt to shoot it down? If the US does shoot it down, how will the NK know it was shot down and not a missile failure?

I'm not an expert on this, so please humor me....but, wont we consider a launch over Japan a threat to an ally? If we want them to help pay for it in the long run shouldnt we pull the trigger just to see if we can do it?

If we hit it then its a big victory, if we miss, it shows our resolve and gives us valuable data...who gives a rats ass what anyone else thinks. As far as showing our hand to the russkies and chinese...they probably have all the data they need anyway.....

Am I wrong on this?


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3308 times:

I dunno, unless it's comming at the US, we have too many options, and Inaction would likely be best.

Now if it is comming at us we have a tough choice. A) pray the payload is innocuous and watch what happens B) Risk looking like the fools we are for spending trillions on SDI that doesn't work. Either way, the US targeted scenario is not good at all. I'd rather see an Ageis just outside N Korea launch a few missles at it on it's way up. If that works (which I hope it should as aiming at one missle is easier then filtering out the warheads from possible debris) NK has a LOT of egg on it's face.


User currently offlineL-188 From United States of America, joined Jul 1999, 29832 posts, RR: 58
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3304 times:

We probably shouldn't despite how much fun it would be. The Diplomatic issues probably woudn't be it.

But you can be that everybody manning the NMDS is going to be trying to track that shot.



OBAMA-WORST PRESIDENT EVER....Even SKOORB would be better.
User currently offlineBjornstrom From Australia, joined Jun 2005, 329 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3290 times:

If North Korea is using the same trajectory as last time (overflying Japan) surely this must be considered a target for the JSDF.

Would a Patriot to the trick?

Firing a ICBM towards USA is suicide and even North Korea wouldn't try that since it would trigger a strike against all remaining ICBM's almost immediately (probably conventional though).



Eurobonus Gold | BMI Gold | http://my.flightmemory.com/bjornstrom/
User currently offlineAislepathLight From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 3270 times:

Quoting Bjornstrom (Reply 6):

Would a Patriot to the trick?

Please tell me that you are joking. A patriot couldn't shoot down anything, no matter how crappy or North Korean it is.

I say let it go, and see what happens. If you attempt to shoot it down, you either miss and look like a fool, or you hit the missile and really piss the North Koreans off, not that they aren't pissed enough already.



"We have slain a large dragon, but we now live in a jungle filled with a bewildering variety of poisonous snakes."
User currently offlineTancrede From Finland, joined May 2006, 245 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3247 times:

At least, we could see the true of your anti-missile system, and see really were all your taxpayers money went. And of course, good-bye the myth, welcome to the reality of the ballistic missile’s world.

User currently offlineGreyhound From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1026 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3191 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
If NK test fires their ICBM, should the US attempt to shoot it down?

Yes.

signed,
Alaska and the Pacific Northwest.

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
If the US does shoot it down, how will the NK know it was shot down and not a missile failure?

I would assume they at least have some sort of radar that could track a shot.... I honestly don't think even THEY are stupid enough to press a button and take bets on where the sucker will land.



29th, Let's Go!
User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3184 times:

Quoting Tancrede (Reply 8):
At least, we could see the true of your anti-missile system, and see really were all your taxpayers money went. And of course, good-bye the myth, welcome to the reality of the ballistic missile’s world.

Mais oui ! It would give your intelligence service something to do-assuming Africa is not keeping them too busy.



gene
User currently offlineMt99 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 6674 posts, RR: 6
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3184 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
If the US does shoot it down,



Quoting Tancrede (Reply 8):
At least, we could see the true of your anti-missile system, and see really were all your taxpayers money went. And of course, good-bye the myth, welcome to the reality of the ballistic missile’s world.

What if the US tries to shoot it down - and it fails..

Hasnt this system failed before in tests?



Step into my office, baby
User currently offlineLeezyjet From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2001, 4042 posts, RR: 53
Reply 12, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3182 times:

What would China's response be towards NK if they launched an attack on the US for real ?. Would they back them or leave them to face the consequences ?.

Probably would matter anyway though as it would all be over in a matter of minutes !!!.

 Smile



"She Rolls, 45 knots, 90, 135, nose comes up to 20 degrees, she's airborne - She flies, Concorde Flies"
User currently offlineWardialer From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1183 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3174 times:

At what ALTITUDE and SPEED does the Taepodong II missile cruise at? Does anyone know here? If not, is there a website that has all those specifications such as speed, range, and cruising altitude?

User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 14, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3170 times:

Quoting KC135TopBoom (Thread starter):
If NK test fires their ICBM, should the US attempt to shoot it down? If the US does shoot it down, how will the NK know it was shot down and not a missile failure?

We have the right to shoot down any missile aimed and fired at the U.S. anywhere along its path whether lethal or not.

Period.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

Quoting AeroWesty (Reply 14):
We have the right to shoot down any missile aimed and fired at the U.S. anywhere along its path whether lethal or not.

Canada has already disagreed with you on that one.


User currently offlineDougloid From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3151 times:

Here's what I wrote about it the other day on my blog.

It is being widely reported today that the North Koreans-you know, those wonderful folks from north of the 38th parallel who brought you the Korean War, abductions of Japanese women off the street, mass starvation, refried Scud missiles for all able to pay for them, counterfeit money, factory made methamphetamine, brainwashing, and the Pueblo hijacking-where was I?

Oh yes. I remember now. The folks from Pyongyang, taking time from paying eternal homage to Big Daddy Kim Jong-il and Papa Kim Il-sung are getting ready to test launch the latest iteration of their attempt at an I.C.B.M. if you are old enough to shiver a bit at the term.

This one is the Taepodong-2, and it features a modified Scud-C sitting on top of a No-dong 1. It is alleged to have a range of 5,000 km and is capable of launching-well, anything you'd like, really.

Rumor has it the Iranians and the Pakistanis are interested in acquiring more Dong technology. It is also suggested that it's merely an attempt by these folks to acquire some independent satellite launching capabilities. If this is the case, one might say there is a shortage of Dong in those countries.

Time will tell. At this point it is said fueling is going on, and if that is true, it is a dicey proposition to defuel the at that point extremely hazardous missile. One might also suppose that the missile cannot sit there forever with its load of fuel and oxidizers on board.

So if the missile has been fueled, it will most likely be fired unless they're filling it up with tap water and making a big show of things for the spy satellites that are parked overhead. It's also reported that the weather in the region is somewhat overcast but a peek at the weather map shows a bit of clearing toward the end of the week. Chances are, the best time for a shot should be on Thursday. On the other hand, the I.C.B.M. people do not get to choose the time of launching if the fat's in the fire so it could come anytime.

I dunno. "This Dong's for you! This Dong's for you! And this Dong's for you and you!" is starting to sound like that Jackie Mason schtick on the Ed Sullivan show a few years ago, but it is one that people are getting upset over. What's even more puzzling is how much power can be controlled by two of the ugliest people who ever lorded it over their fellows. The interesting thing about Kim Jong-il is how chubby he is-in a country where square meals are as scarce as prairie chickens.

The best result for everyone would be if the damned thing blows up on the launch pad.


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3146 times:

This might interest some people here, its a tourists tour of North Korea with photos.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=82755


User currently offlineMD80fanatic From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 2661 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3134 times:

Quoting Wardialer (Reply 13):
At what ALTITUDE and SPEED does the Taepodong II missile cruise at? Does anyone know here? If not, is there a website that has all those specifications such as speed, range, and cruising altitude?

Wasn't the last NK test warhead found in Alaska?

http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nati...n/200303/kt2003030417272311970.htm


I am not sure of this, but I think that a missile expected to travel that far must do so via "space". I don't think there is near enough fuel aboard to thrust continuously through the atmosphere. My guess is that they will boost to some level of "orbit" and then use small thrusters to ultimately manuever to a re-entry point. The missile speed must be escape velocity or greater (~25000 miles per hour).


User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3124 times:

Quoting MD80fanatic (Reply 18):

I am not sure of this, but I think that a missile expected to travel that far must do so via "space". I don't think there is near enough fuel aboard to thrust continuously through the atmosphere. My guess is that they will boost to some level of "orbit" and then use small thrusters to ultimately manuever to a re-entry point. The missile speed must be escape velocity or greater (~25000 miles per hour).

Ever wondered what the BM in ICBM stands for? Ballistic Missile.

An ICBM typically has a maximum 7 or 8 minute boost phase, getting it to something like maximum 7KM/second velocity, at a height of about 2000meters.

Then it starts the elipse phase under pure momentum, taking it to around 12000KM altitude, before earths gravity causes it to start the descent phase, during which it releases the warheads. No manouevering thrusters, just a pure simple ballistic trajectory because it doesnt achieve orbital speed.


User currently offlineMrmeangenes From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 566 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 15):
Canada has already disagreed with you on that one.

Explain to me why the US-if it feels it is going to be impacted by a NK missile- should give a crap about Canada's position in this matter. Is Canada going to send one of its RCMP Constables over to North Korea to say : "Here now,lads.You really shouldn't have fired that thing." ??

 Confused  Confused



gene
User currently offlineTbar220 From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7013 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3108 times:

Quoting Lt-AWACS (Reply 1):
I don't mean to sound like a d!ck here with this

Well you are talking about the Taepodong missile here. Its not that hard to sound like one...



NO URLS in signature
User currently offlineRichardPrice From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3097 times:

Quoting Mrmeangenes (Reply 20):
Explain to me why the US-if it feels it is going to be impacted by a NK missile- should give a crap about Canada's position in this matter.

And thats the reason Canada pulled out - the vast majority of potential intercepts would be done over Canadian territory of missiles coming over the north pole, leaving massive amounts of nuclear material spread over Canada.

So would you also agree that Canada has a right to intercept US interception missiles, theorectically of course?  Smile


User currently offlineAeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20822 posts, RR: 62
Reply 23, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3097 times:

Quoting RichardPrice (Reply 22):
So would you also agree that Canada has a right to intercept US interception missiles, theorectically of course?

Canada has the right to shoot down any missile they believe to be a threat to Canada, regardless of source.



International Homo of Mystery
User currently offlineGreyhound From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 1026 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (8 years 6 months 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

Quoting Tbar220 (Reply 21):
Quoting Lt-AWACS (Reply 1):
I don't mean to sound like a d!ck here with this

Well you are talking about the Taepodong missile here. Its not that hard to sound like one...

Taepo-what?  duck 



29th, Let's Go!
25 MD80fanatic : Understand Richard. The ICBM designation is now somewhat "generic" when referring to armaments that span the globe in effective range. Not all warhead
26 ANCFlyer : Once said missile leaves NK Air Space it then becomes a target of opportunity, and should be taken out forthwith. I don't care if it's what the trajec
27 Mir : If we miss, it makes us look like idiots. That's why we should let it go, unless it's coming at us. Not a tough choice at all as far as I'm concerned
28 RichardPrice : Actually even with MIRV capability, the warheads are still delivered ballistically to the targets - they are released at slightly different points on
29 Post contains images JGPH1A : I should hope they would try to shoot it down at least. However, given the test results from the Missile Defence System in the past, they may end up t
30 Kaitak : I think it would be a huge risk for Kim to take. If the missile is launched and the Americans take it down, what then? If the Americans fail, they can
31 Post contains images LSPA : yes they should would be some nice target practice and I would love to see th NK getting agitated about it You have to set limits. And NK and WMD is a
32 Mrmeangenes : I suppose another alternative is to just let it fly-wherever-and land-wherever. If it lands on Canada, we can shrug and say-very politely-"Well, we di
33 KC135TopBoom : Well, then let's get all the pictures we need, track it with Aegis Cruisers and Cobra Ball, then shoot it down. Kim will be POd. Maybe enough to comb
34 KingAir200 : It would be interesting to see what NK's response to that would be. Would it deter them, or just make them attempt to launch another at a later date?
35 DfwRevolution : Canada would recieve more contanimation from windborn fall-out from any blast south of their border than a hundred kilograms of Pu being obliterated
36 LTBEWR : Any test where the unnarmed missle is over 'international' waters should mean we get to try out our anti-missle technology. Busting up that missile wo
37 Soyuzavia : I've got a question. Should North Korean shoot down US spyplanes? Go back only a couple of weeks, and there have been several instances of RC-135s vio
38 JCS17 : So SoyuzAvia, you think its a good idea for North Korea to be able to "test" missles unannounced and without prior knowledge? I'm sure most Japanese,
39 Darrenthe747 : this is what i don't understand... the US was all up in arms over the threat Iraq posed to us when a lot of us knew it wasn't. we are all caught up in
40 HAWK21M : I think if the US knocks the Missile out.It would be a very strong signal to the NK Administration. regdsMEL
41 Darrenthe747 : not to launch missiles in our direction.
42 Itsjustme : I'm just going from memory but didn't the patriot play a significant role in our defense against scud missiles the first time we paid a visit to Iraq
43 AAden : those missiles are 50% hit or miss on targets so they're not useless. we just shoot 5 at one missile.
44 Scbriml : I believe one did manage to down an RAF Tornado. The only significant role it played was in keeping Israel out of the war. I think post war analysis
45 Itsjustme : You are correct. Here is an excerpt from one of a few articles I've found: The tally of Scuds claimed was, in fact, fictitious. An initial kill rate
46 Post contains links Centrair : I'd reccomend people to watch this video. I watched it last night after reading all sorts of articles. Discovery Channel: North Korea Nuclear Document
47 Post contains images Slider : Yup- take it out. Peace through strength. Great read, and thank you for posting all of that. Very insightful. Given the state of NK's economy as it i
48 Centrair : You hear this a lot. I would say that the regime is not close to collapse. Kim Jong Il is so confident in maintaining his brainwash over the people t
49 AerospaceFan : I am of the belief that unless the missile seems headed toward populated areas, we should not use our BMD system. I happened to be a few miles south o
50 AerospaceFan : LOL! I like the way you put that!
51 Slider : Thanks Centrair! More great stuff--really appreciate the insight on North Korea. I remember seeing a blog that someone had posted last year about a sc
52 Max999 : The question is not whether "Should the US Shoot Down a North Korean Missile," but "CAN the US Shoot Down a North Korean Missile?" Billions and billio
53 Scbriml : MAD only works when you have a conventional enemy who is as bothered about being vapourised as you are. Say A-Q lets off a dirty nuke in the US, just
54 Max999 : I'm going to quote myself to answer your question. My original post wasn't clear; what I should have also said was...the suggestion of the M.A.D. pol
55 Centrair : I think that the chances are good when the enemy has a good trajectory and targeting system. But North Korea's missiles have the accuracy of a 3 year
56 Mir : And how exactly would a missile defense system protect against a dirty bomb being set off in the US? -Mir
57 NeilYYZ : Quite a shame, I'd much rather ally with the States than have one hit Toronto on purpose or by mistake. Yes we could shoot down a US missile overflyi
58 Post contains links Max999 : On the contrary, it is much easier to track and destroy accurate missiles especially when you know the launch site and target. Inaccurate missiles wh
59 Centrair : I guess you don't remember when you were 3 years old. Little boys will try hard to hit the toilet but instead hit the wall, floor and everything but
60 Max999 : That comment was uncalled for, but I understand what you mean now. That the North Korean missile can go extremely off course. If that were the case,
61 Post contains links Pbottenb : There was a test today off of hawaii with Japanese ships observing...: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/22/060623001445.r0o3j49z.html "The missil
62 Post contains images KC135TopBoom : USAF RC-135s do not enter NK airspace, ever. They do fly into areas that most countries recognise as international airspace, including airspace that
63 Max999 : Even if one missile loaded with a nuclear, biological, or chemical payload passed through the shield and hit the US, it would be a disaster. Because
64 KC135TopBoom : I do have a little experience nuclear weapons. Yes, they are devistating, but not to the extent political hacks make the out to be. Today, there are
65 Mrmeangenes : This just in: Walter "Give Peace a Chance" Mondale is demanding the US blow up N Korean missiles on the ground; that we attack N. Korea without delay,
66 Post contains images AerospaceFan : So does this mean we get to change his middle name to "Give War a Chance"? A number of people from previous administrations are advising the same cou
67 Centrair : Yes and the Bush Administration is doing something right. Taking it to the 6 party and UN. Though NK doesn't really care what anyone says...Thankyou
68 Post contains links AerospaceFan : The President's stock has gone up in my book since about a month ago, when I severely criticized him here for being incompetent. (A Poor Leader; A Poo
69 AirframeAS : How do we even know for sure if this dongo thingie missile that NK wants to 'bottle-rocket' (if you know what I mean...think 4th of July lol...) reall
70 AerospaceFan : We supposedly don't, despite all our spy sats, recon aircraft, and other "national technical means" around North Korea. Although, I think that if it
71 Post contains links AAFLT1871 : The below quote makes me feel good where my tax $$$'s are going "But in March, the Government Accountability Office said the missiles at Vandenberg a
72 KC135TopBoom : " target=_blank>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/13510066/ MSNBC is also the same news organization that claimed that USAF RC-135s penetrate into North Korean
73 AirframeAS : Thanks for the input, AerospaceFan. I was hoping there would be a way to actually detect what's on top of that damn missile.
74 KC135TopBoom : I'll bet there is some test and telemitry equipment there. I doubt very much if it is armed with any weapons.
75 Centrair : CNN I can understand they are commercial, but the BBC? The BBC can be quite credible. I trust it more than many U.S. media outlets. I wonder then...w
76 KC135TopBoom : I usually watch Fox News and CNN, then try to interput between both. All news outlets put their own political spin on the news. The BBC is so bad tha
77 FRAspotter : I was reading in the newspaper that in the test fires of the missile defence system, they were successful 7 out of 8 times. Pretty good results consi
78 Soyuzavia : HAHAH. Wonder why that is. Because they report the FACTS?!?!? They don't stoop so low as to become just another propaganda puppet of the central gove
79 FRAspotter : I always thought that the honor would go to FOX News. Although I haven't watched much MSNBC lately... IMO, I think CNN can claim to be the "most cred
80 KC135TopBoom : Well, we can debate the quality of FNC, CNN, BBC and others. I think we all seem to agree there is a difference in the news media, though we don't agr
81 RichardPrice : I will take the BBC over any other news organisation in the world.
82 KC135TopBoom : Even over al Jarzera? Forgive me as I'm not familure with the correct spelling. LOL.
83 Slider : For some reason, I don't think Kim Jong-Crackpot would care much.
84 Max999 : I believe that yield and target are irrelevant to M.A.D. That’s because the policy assumes all nuclear weapons are weapons of near-total destructio
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Should The US Follow Mexico's Lead? posted Thu Apr 13 2006 16:29:42 by Slider
Should The US Moniter Visitors From The Mid. East? posted Mon Sep 13 2004 03:35:05 by TriJetFan1
Why Should The US Pay Terrorists? posted Thu Mar 13 2003 13:12:51 by Virgin744
Should The US Go To Value Added Tax (VAT)? posted Sat Oct 12 2002 20:31:40 by Mls515
Should The US Pull Out Of The Middle East? posted Thu Aug 30 2001 10:19:21 by Airic
Should The US Adopt Socialism? posted Sun Jun 18 2000 00:24:36 by Whippy
Should I Join The US Army? posted Tue May 24 2005 08:00:26 by USAir330
Tourism To The US Down Over 30% In Last 2 Years posted Thu Apr 22 2004 01:24:56 by Derico
Should We Use The Euro In The US? posted Thu Apr 1 2004 22:31:29 by North County
Going To The US - Should I Shave? posted Sat Mar 13 2004 16:05:23 by 707CMF