115
Nuclear missiles : Swingers Discussion 2218211011
Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMSGeneral DiscussionsPoliticsNuclear missiles
TOPIC: Nuclear missiles
GoTo Page: 1 2
Start   11 to 11 of 11 
User Details are only visible to members.
So we have three primary nuclear attack modes.

1) land based ICBMs 2) bombers 3) sub launched

A few years ago, the air force dropped the ball and sent an aircraft to another base loaded with a single nuke. In the 80s, this could have started WWIII, thankfully the KGB and most of their spies are gone.

Now I hear that 17 officers incharge of the ICBMs are side lined for having poor attitudes and vein lax in their respect to authority. The primary complaint is that the nuclear launch field is collapsing and they are now without upward mobility.

ht tp://w ww.sfchronicle.co m/news/politics/article/AP-Exclusive-Air-Force-sidelines-17-ICBM-officers-4497486.php

Yet people laugh when I tell them that there is a major problem within the military... That it's braking and or already is broken.

I can bluntly state that it is broken in other areas, and the problem is more complex than people want to admit.

The second point I'll make is that the land based ICBMs ought be the last nuclear strike arm to be dismantled. You can lay hard communication lines and have a secured off the net means of launching missiles... While bombers come in a close second, sub's require wireless communication that can be intercepted and or faked.

Land based ICBMs should be by all accounts cheaper than either a half billion dollar bomber or multi billion dollar sub. It is a hole in the ground, a hole with concret and a nuke or more.

Just my thoughts.

Hazle Township PA
Username hidden
(7616 posts)
GoTo Page: 1 2
Start   11 to 11 of 11 
TOPIC: Nuclear missiles