Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama...No Start Treaty!  
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2690 times:

While North Korea, Iran, China are escalating the threat of future nuclear tensions, I certainly don't think now is the time for the US to dilute its arsenal while our alleged partner in this treaty, Russia may or may not be doing the same. Conversely Russia and the US should partner as global deterrents to rogue countries should they feel the need for aggression by maintaining strong nuclear arsenals as the next cold war is already here. To do less would be a rote demonstration of reckless abandon by both global leaders. We are headed once again into troubled waters either way. By the way...regarding the "Nuclear Clock"...what time is it?  Wow!      

69 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinewindy95 From United States of America, joined Dec 2008, 2713 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2685 times:

Need to keep missile defense as an option also. Just say No..


OMG-Obama Must Go
User currently offlineCadet985 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 1551 posts, RR: 4
Reply 2, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2671 times:

There is no need for START. I have never trusted the Russians, and now with the North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians and whoever else wants to blow us off the face of the earth, we need to start reversing the damage that Clinton did to the military in the 1990's. This not only includes missiles, but should include looking some of the newer ships and aircraft sitting around in the boneyard and mothball fleets respectively.

Marc


User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11217 posts, RR: 52
Reply 3, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2665 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
While North Korea, Iran, China are escalating the threat of future nuclear tensions, I certainly don't think now is the time for the US to dilute its arsenal while our alleged partner in this treaty, Russia may or may not be doing the same.

That's the exact reason for the treaty. It means we get to get our inspectors in to make sure Russia is on the up and up, and not letting loose nukes get to North Korea, Iran, China, etc.
I swear, I have never seen so much partisanship in my life -- Republicans are now cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

[Edited 2010-12-15 16:57:56]


Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8852 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2657 times:

Funny thing, every living "Republican" Secretary of State endorses the new version of the Start Treaty. Ah! what do they know, DeMint knows better. Hey! he can even read.


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinehka098 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2653 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
By the way...regarding the "Nuclear Clock"...what time is it?

6 minutes to midnight http://www.thebulletin.org/


User currently onlineeinsteinboricua From Puerto Rico, joined Apr 2010, 3004 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2648 times:

Of course, the "because they have one means that I should too" excuse. The US and Russia should have gotten rid of nukes LONG ago. Russia and the US are no longer enemies like during the Cold War (in fact, were they even enemies?). Even if Iran and North Korea obtain nukes, just how many will they have in their arsenal? Two? three bombs? As soon as one is used against the US, they can be sure that there will be no mercy. And you don't need to have nukes to let them know that.

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
By the way...regarding the "Nuclear Clock"...what time is it?

The Doomsday Clock is set at 6 minutes to midnight...but apparently, people want it to be midnight already....strike that. They want it to be morning already..



"You haven't seen a tree until you've seen its shadow from the sky."
User currently offlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8191 posts, RR: 8
Reply 7, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2646 times:

Neither the US nor Russia will become nuclear impotent with a new treaty, or reductions in warheads.

The money saved could actually be used in upgrading existing delivery platforms (including ships &planes) as well as increased training.

I'm of the opinion that delivery platforms and increased training are more important than the actual number of warheads. This is especially true when you use a platform like a Navy ship that should only allocate a small percentage of the warhead capacity to special warheads, with the majority of the weapons capacity focused on conventional war fighting.


User currently offline2707200X From United States of America, joined Mar 2009, 8471 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2624 times:

Obviously the Republicans in congress care more about the obstruction of the president that keeping up a treaty that has been supported by the GOP in earlier times and has the support of five secretaries of state at this time. American elected conservatives are putting the safety of the American people at risk in the name of politics.

[Edited 2010-12-15 17:21:32]


"And all I ask is a tall ship and a star to steer her by." John Masefield Sea-Fever
User currently offlineStabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 695 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2612 times:

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 6):
As soon as one is used against the US

One nuke going off in the US is FAR too many. I'm not sure why we would want things to get that far. Nukes in the possession of countries like North Korea and Iran is a bad thing for the world.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 6):
And you don't need to have nukes to let them know that.

But it's the easiest way.



So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 10, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 2607 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
Conversely Russia and the US should partner as global deterrents to rogue countries should they feel the need for aggression by maintaining strong nuclear arsenals as the next cold war is already here.

We'll still have strong nuclear arsenals with the new START treaty. We'll only be able to destroy the world three times over instead of ten. Add in that ratifying the treaty could go a ways toward repairing relations with Russia and convincing them to put some pressure on Iran and North Korea to cut the crap (in addition to the inspection benefits that DLX mentioned), and this one is a no-brainer. The GOP holding it up is partisan grandstanding of the worst sort.

Quoting Cadet985 (Reply 2):
. I have never trusted the Russians, and now with the North Koreans, Chinese, Iranians and whoever else wants to blow us off the face of the earth

Why the hell would China want to blow us off the face of the earth when we are the biggest contributor to their economy? And Iran and North Korea can't blow us off the face of the earth - they don't have the firepower to. North Korea can't even get their delivery system to work. And they know that if they flip a nuclear weapon at us, we will flip many more than that back at them. The people who run those countries may not be reasonable, but they're not stupid either.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 11, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2582 times:

Quoting soon7x7 (Thread starter):
, I certainly don't think now is the time for the US to dilute its arsenal while our alleged partner in this treaty

I don't think that there is ever a time to dilute the capability. That isn't the same thing as diluting the arsenal though.

Quoting D L X (Reply 3):
and not letting loose nukes get to North Korea, Iran, China, etc.

They can get them themselves. There are no secrets in physics.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 6):
Russia and the US are no longer enemies like during the Cold War (in fact, were they even enemies?).

If you bury the hatchet, you'd better damn well remember where you put it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 12, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2551 times:

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 11):

They can get them themselves. There are no secrets in physics.

Knowing how to build a nuclear weapons is a whole lot different from being able to do it. You've got to have very advanced manufacturing processes, very tight quality control, you have to be able to obtain the material, etc. And that's beyond the reach of some countries. Look at North Korea's rocketry problems - knowing how to build a rocket is not the issue for them, but building it so that it's reliable is. Same deal.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineUH60FtRucker From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2532 times:

At what point do you drop below the number of deliverable warheads that makes a nuclear war "winnable".

And that's a serious question. So please none of these lame responses of "any nuclear weapon used is a loss for all mankind" blah blah blah.

I'm talking true strategic planning. This is one of those truly complicated military issues that so many people have no idea what the heck they're talking about.

...Look, there is number out there, where it actually becomes possible to "win". At this number, during a first strike attack either side can reasonably expect to eliminate the enemy's hardened silos. The missiles inside those silos will almost all be rendered inoperable. And any missiles, with their warheads, that survived would not be in sufficient number to conduct a serious second strike counter-attack.

Therefore the victim nation must rely on SLBMs. However, due to the fact that these warheads are of a lower kiloton range, and possess less accuracy than their land based brethren, they are more useful for counter-value strikes, than the purview of ICBMs: counter-force strikes.

So that means that the second strike counter-attack would be against enemy soft targets: cities, ports, bases, etc. ...However since you have lost your own land based platforms, you lack the ability to destroy the enemy's remaining hardened silos. So even if you counter-attack and destroy enemy cities, they possess those land based silos that can in turn, destroy your own cities.

Basically.... when you lower the number of your first strike arsenal, you actually make it more likely that a war could be conceivably won against you. It virtually puts you into the impossible position of having to chose just how bad you want to be bloodied.

[Edited 2010-12-15 18:40:38]

User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8852 posts, RR: 10
Reply 14, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2504 times:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_russia_nuclear


It looks like some movement on the start treaty. Maybe some bi-partisan co-operation. I wonder why. I think the Republicans blinked.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinerottenray From United States of America, joined Jun 2010, 273 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2503 times:

Quoting 2707200X (Reply 8):
Obviously the Republicans in congress care more about the obstruction of the president that keeping up a treaty that has been supported by the GOP in earlier times and has the support of five secretaries of state at this time. American elected conservatives are putting the safety of the American people at risk in the name of politics.


Thank you. Welcome to my RU list.


This is a magical time to be alive - the so-called conservatives and the Grand Old Party are simply tearing themselves apart trying to recapture the prestige they have lost by not being conservative or grand - merely old.


Cheers!


User currently offlinehka098 From United States of America, joined Oct 2010, 556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2479 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
At what point do you drop below the number of deliverable warheads that makes a nuclear war "winnable".

And that's a serious question. So please none of these lame responses of "any nuclear weapon used is a loss for all mankind" blah blah blah.

I'm talking true strategic planning. This is one of those truly complicated military issues that so many people have no idea what the heck they're talking about.

You do? Despite you not wanting to hear any lame responses, some are going to be aired. Elevating a conflict with nuclear weapons is a serious problem for everyone. The math behind what is needed to make a nuclear war "winnable" is a very complex question. A first strike victor will decide the outcome of an exchange. Like fisticuffs, if you can't win within thirty seconds, you won't. Many experts have argued over the years that a nuclear war would result in a loss for both sides. Maybe the correct question to ask what amount of loss is a nation willing to accept to "win" a nuclear war. Both sides will sustain significant losses immediately, and for years after, the denial of land and resources. Many folks, not directly involved in the fight, will suffer and lose their way of life. What end is worth that?


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5367 posts, RR: 14
Reply 17, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2456 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 3):
I swear, I have never seen so much partisanship in my life -- Republicans are now cutting off their noses to spite their faces.

Why does this have to be voted on now? Why not wait until the 112th takes over? If it's such an awesome treaty, Obama shouldn't be afraid of a reduced majority in The Senate...should he?



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8852 posts, RR: 10
Reply 18, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2451 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 17):
Why does this have to be voted on now? Why not wait until the 112th takes over? If it's such an awesome treaty, Obama shouldn't be afraid of a reduced majority in The Senate...should he?

One has to ask, why block it? It appears to be another case of plain old obstruction. See reply 14, there is now debate, which there should be.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlinesoon7x7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2448 times:

Quoting D L X (Reply 3):
and not letting loose nukes get to North Korea, Iran, China, etc.


They are already working on their own...they don't need the Russian hardware, they just need the technology. Do you really think our inspectors are treated to the real dirt...me thinks not...or rather...Niet!

Quoting hka098 (Reply 5):


Figured it was about that time...  Wow!  Wow!  Wow! !

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 6):
The US and Russia should have gotten rid of nukes LONG ago.


I agree...we both started it and we should have both finished it now we have the beginnings of a big mess. What happens after Iran, China, and the N. Koreans finally get their sparklers...next, the open market...Taliban, Al Qaeda?...that's the problem with this beast. Once that extreme is realized we,...the world community,...will have wished leading nations had ended this earlier while control was in the hands of a few, I'm afraid.

Quoting Mir (Reply 12):


We too traveled the same road once, didn't we? The fact is, had America not captured German technology regarding nuclear bombs and rockets during WWll...Bombing Japan might not of happened. The Japanese in concert with the Germans were looking to nuke the US...we got lucky.
While we do and probably always will still have the advantage, I for one would rather not see that extent tested if we can help it.

Quoting rottenray (Reply 15):
This is a magical time to be alive - the so-called conservatives and the Grand Old Party are simply tearing themselves apart trying to recapture the prestige they have lost by not being conservative or grand - merely old.


Almost like they are an uncontained engine failure!


User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5367 posts, RR: 14
Reply 20, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2422 times:

Quoting WarRI1 (Reply 18):
One has to ask, why block it? It appears to be another case of plain old obstruction. See reply 14, there is now debate, which there should be.

No, I believe it should be debated by the new Congress. There will not be enough time to properly vet this treaty. If it's a treaty that enhances our national security, then it can wait a few months. Why rush it? Because, they know that it will not stand up to scrutiny.

Reid trying to slam it through because he knows he will have a hard time next year.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlinecws818 From United States of America, joined Aug 2008, 1176 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2400 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 20):
If it's a treaty that enhances our national security, then it can wait a few months. Why rush it?

If the treaty enhances our national security, then why wait?



volgende halte...Station Hollands Spoor
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21530 posts, RR: 55
Reply 22, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 13):
Basically.... when you lower the number of your first strike arsenal, you actually make it more likely that a war could be conceivably won against you. It virtually puts you into the impossible position of having to chose just how bad you want to be bloodied.

In the scenario you describe, it seems like the question of a victory is a mere academic one. If the US were to strike first, the opponent would lose their land-based missile capability but would retain their sea-launched arsenal, which would then be directed against cities, infrastructure, etc. The US would then return fire to take out the opponents' cities. Either way, while one side gets to keep some of their arsenal, both sides lose their cities, which would seem to be a high enough price to pay to deter anyone from launching a first strike, which is the whole point of nuclear weapons in the first place.

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 19):
The fact is, had America not captured German technology regarding nuclear bombs and rockets during WWll...Bombing Japan might not of happened.

All the more reason to take steps to avoid such things happening again with different countries.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 20):
There will not be enough time to properly vet this treaty.

It was signed in April. They've had plenty of time to look over it.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently onlinefr8mech From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 5367 posts, RR: 14
Reply 23, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2399 times:

Quoting cws818 (Reply 22):
If the treaty enhances our national security, then why wait?


Because until the treaty is properly investigated and vetted we don't know that it enhances security, now, do we?

Is 10, or whatever amount of days left in the session, really enough to go through the treaty, understand it and make a determination...with all the other stuff Reid is trying to get down?

I don't think so. He's trying to overwhelm the process and push all the junk legislation through and sneak a treaty in also.

The GOP needs to stand up and stop him.

If this treaty is good for the country, it can wait and pass on its own merits when it can be deliberated at whatever passes for leisure in The Senate.



When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
User currently offlineD L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 11217 posts, RR: 52
Reply 24, posted (3 years 7 months 2 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 2437 times:

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 24):
Because until the treaty is properly investigated and vetted we don't know that it enhances security, now, do we?

It has been vetted, particularly it has been vetted by people who know how to vet arms treaties. People such as military leaders and former (republican) secretaries of state.

The only people who haven't "vetted" it yet are Senators, and if you ask me, I don't really give a flying flip what untrained Senators have to say about arms reduction.

Plain and simple, Kyl is using this as a political football. Nothing else.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 17):
Why does this have to be voted on now? Why not wait until the 112th takes over? If it's such an awesome treaty, Obama shouldn't be afraid of a reduced majority in The Senate...should he?

Because a deal with another country is like stoppage time in soccer. You don't know how long. How do you think it looks to the Russians right now that they've ponied up this deal, and the Americans are playing freakin' politics with it?



Send me a PM at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/sendmessage.main?from_username=NULL
25 BMI727 : First, it seems as though a lot of people's ideas of nuclear weapons is still in the late 1950s or 1960s when a nuclear war meant the end of the worl
26 KiwiRob : If you don't want Iran to have them you better take them away from Israel.
27 Post contains images Ken777 : In all probability the only leisure time the Senate will have is between now and the end of the session. Starting January the Republicans will be wor
28 DocLightning : You think that there's a chance that only having ~1,000 nuclear warheads and the world's most advanced conventional weaponry isn't enough for a war w
29 AustrianZRH : That depends on multiple factors: 1. Who's your opponent? Imagine an all-out nuclear war between the US and Russia, both sides being able to deploy 1
30 hka098 : Rose-Colored glasses aside, the truth is about money. Can we out spend our enemies into losing a possible conflict? That strategy worked well for the
31 fr8mech : Did I miss Reid bringing it up for debate or hearings? Or was he wasting our time with other crap? I have no idea if he brought it to the table at al
32 Mir : Are you suggesting that it can only be read once he brings it up? Like I said, this thing was signed in April, and if a senator wanted to do his job
33 Dreadnought : You cannot "undiscover" physics. Once the science has been figured out and everyone knows that it is possible, others will follow. I tend to agree. R
34 fr8mech : They can read it all they want. Until Reid brings it to the table they couldn't call witnesses and 'experts'. They couldn't ask detailed questions an
35 dxing : Part of the problem with the treaty is that it limits not only warheads but delivery platforms and doesn't differ between platforms that can deliver
36 hka098 : Exactly! It is as if the Russians are opposed to us having them because it takes any kind of advantage out of their hands.
37 Post contains links Mir : Perhaps not in formal session, but there's nothing to say that they couldn't have been asking plenty of questions to the experts for the past eight m
38 fr8mech : It's not bogus. The treaty has not been sufficiently vetted, plain and simple. Being able to use it as a bargaining chip, assuming it's palatable, is
39 Post contains images fxramper : Just spit-balling here, but nukes have to be maintained by someone highly trained and they do have a 5-10 year shelf life. All those warheads that Rus
40 hka098 : True, but the parts that go boom, can be re-purposed into another device. No?
41 Mir : If the GOP hasn't sufficiently vetted the treaty, that's too bad for them, since they've had months to do it. Numerous foreign policy experts, includ
42 D L X : Scrutiny for political sake is not scrutiny. A thoughtful senator would do exactly what has already been done. Kyl's just upset that it has Obama's n
43 Post contains links dxing : Not on an ICBM but but 3 Ohio class SSBN's do. http://www.military-today.com/navy/ohio_class.htm Since there is no distinction between the two, espec
44 windy95 : Oh my..People still seem to be sore over this last election. And of course a good Democrat would never obstruct. Stop bringing this lame argument to
45 Post contains images UH60FtRucker : I would agree with that. At the end of the day, isn't all strategic planning and war gaming a academic exercise? Problem is, I think some people get
46 flanker : Anyone who thinks that the Ruskies will follow any sort of rules is delusional. They care about their wellbeing and nothing else.
47 Acheron : Biggest waste of money ever. Gee, you just decribed every major country out there, including the US. Welcome to the real world.
48 hka098 : Aren't there still folks stilling in NORAD, watching? Also, aren't the missile silos manned 24/7? I am not sure how they will get the word to a subma
49 AustrianZRH : I think with 14 Ohios with 24 Tridents each with 8 475 kt warheads per missile, in total up to 2688 warheads, the only people seeing the possible cou
50 L410Turbolet : 10 interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Rep. would have no impact on Russia's first strike or retaliatory capacity to nuke the Earth back to
51 flanker : Yep. Very sad.
52 D L X : And Eagleburger? They played him too?
53 Mortyman : Just like the USA and every other country and people...
54 BMI727 : Certainly a first strike could not be made solely with subs, but the weapons are suitable for such a strike. They also have the advantage of being ab
55 RussianJet : Excellent. Well, just so long as your arguments are based on sound logic.......
56 Post contains images einsteinboricua : You just LOVE Obama...deep down, I know you do. Only true admiration can make you enter ANY thread and bash Obama, and not only that, but make him lo
57 dxing : Once the door is opened, it is hard to close. The Russians know this all too well. Any missile defense of any size in any former eastern block countr
58 BMI727 : Considering the state of the economy, I think it might be a nice idea. Might be more productive if we make North Korea and Iran the boogeymen this ti
59 dxing : That, at this time, makes no difference. Once they are there, if a major technological improvement comes along it would be very hard for them to stop
60 DocLightning : Nobody has answered me this: What can you do with 1,500+ warheads that you can't do with 1,000?
61 D L X : Do you want to know how I know Kyl is full of it? He's been clamoring about how this thing needs to be vetted for TWO WEEKS, yet in that time, he has
62 BMI727 : Survive a larger attack and still fight back. And since you can do that you can much more effectively deter the first strike in the first place. The
63 dxing : Well pick a number and stick with it. Earlier on it was 2000.
64 fr8mech : This is tricky because as you lower allowable warheads, some people begin to think that a nuclear war is winnable. Let's assume that when you have 15
65 Post contains images einsteinboricua : The Cold War was not without a slump in the economy. Besides, the only true potential adversary there is Iran. Iran holds black gold and though they
66 DocLightning : 1,000 warheads are enough to pretty much bring about the End Of The World. An extra 500-1000 isn't going to make anyone any deader.
67 BMI727 : But it might make you more likely to not have a war in the first place. You need to have enough warheads to be at the point where any attempt to atta
68 windy95 : You also have to figure in losses to a first strike. Your retaliation could be wekened quite a bit if you absorb the first blow and maybe making your
69 Severnaya : You really think the Russian army is going to attack the US? Can you give me any solid reason why they would do that? Russia and the US have far more
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...
Vatican Says No To UN Rights Of Disabled Treaty posted Sun Dec 17 2006 10:22:26 by AerospaceFan
Air France To Start No Frills Airline... posted Mon Mar 1 2004 13:05:59 by Richardw
World Cup 2022: No Gay Sex Or Alcohol. posted Tue Dec 14 2010 09:28:09 by fxramper
No Christmas Spirit This Year. posted Sat Nov 27 2010 09:42:26 by dxing
Japanese Tits Used To Be Great; No Longer posted Mon Apr 26 2010 03:22:05 by Rara
No Job? How About Being Forced Into Mining? posted Tue Apr 20 2010 23:47:14 by cpd
No More Tax Help For Pimps: Acorn Disbands posted Mon Mar 22 2010 15:13:52 by Airstud
Ambulance Flashing Lights Going Fast But No Siren posted Thu Mar 11 2010 18:52:27 by 2707200X
Uh, No, You Got The Wrong Number. This Is 9-1…2. posted Tue Mar 9 2010 21:32:01 by StarAC17
Elgar £20 Note Will No Longer Be Legal Tender posted Tue Mar 9 2010 02:52:36 by Aer Lingus