Flame » in reply to No

The whole thread (24 posts)

• The odds of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon if they want it are 100 to 1. - Bowser - 3/4/2009 8:51:00 AM
  • Not really; Iran lacks the technical capability - S - 3/5/2009 7:48:00 PM
    • Required 80% - Iran 3.5% - S - 3/5/2009 7:52:56 PM
      • If we did it back in the 1940s, they can do it today. - Lee - 3/7/2009 5:06:39 PM
        • No - S - 3/10/2009 6:46:33 PM
          • It would be. - Lee - 3/12/2009 3:00:30 AM
      • That's true. Entirely true. - Bowser - 3/6/2009 6:18:27 AM
        • More and Better - S - 3/11/2009 7:21:05 PM
        • It's not quite that simple - S - 3/10/2009 6:43:35 PM
  • Progression - TB - 3/4/2009 4:24:12 PM
    • Remember Reagan? The LGM-118A? - Bowser - 3/4/2009 8:21:46 PM
      • I guess not. Well, it was called the "Peacemaker". Had 10 nuke warheads. - Bowser - 3/5/2009 2:48:38 AM
        • "Peacemaker" was the Colt .45, "Peacekeeper" was the missile (n/t) - Lee - 3/11/2009 4:31:38 PM
        • Multiple warhead missiles are a first-strike weapon. - ER - 3/5/2009 2:00:34 PM
          • None of which is true. - Lee - 3/6/2009 1:07:27 PM
            • All of it is true. - ER - 3/6/2009 2:42:29 PM
              • Typical, for a Soviet response. - Lee - 3/7/2009 1:42:27 AM
                • If you were capable of learning there would be quite another - - - - Bowser - 3/7/2009 3:45:28 AM
                  • I know how bad you hate the demise of the USSR, Bowser. - Lee - 3/7/2009 5:03:38 PM
                • Your're a teeny bopper obsessed with gadgets. - ER - 3/7/2009 3:31:17 AM
                  • It worked. - Lee - 3/7/2009 5:01:15 PM
                    • I'm not complaining. - ER - 3/7/2009 5:34:00 PM
          • And the beat goes on. - Bowser - 3/5/2009 5:46:32 PM
          • re: Multiple warhead missiles are a first-strike weapon. - Laurie Street - 3/5/2009 3:28:20 PM