You're wrong, again.

Post #80,941 by Brandioch 2/11/03 12:38:27 PM Reply	You're wrong, again. lots of non nuke bio/chem stuff will be as nasty as fallout and less likely to destroy mosques. Well, if you consider only the irradiated dust particles, then you'd be correct. But what about the explosion? The initial radiation burst that turns people into shadows? depends on the payload doesnt it? But that wasn't your original statement. The SCUD is the "delivery vehicle". Yes, he has SCUD's. No, he does not have nukes (or, there has been no evidence found that he has nukes despite the best efforts of the USofA).
Post #80,959 by boxley 2/11/03 2:29:42 PM 2/11/03 2:31:20 PM Reply	wanna tell me who had more casualties? Hiroshima or Dresden? edit shitty memory, didnt look it up first. sorry mr atom doesnt always win. Check yer field manual. thanx, bill will work for cash and other incentives [link\|http://home.tampabay.rr.com/boxley/resume/Resume.html\|skill set] questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org] Edited by boxley Feb. 11, 2003, 02:31:20 PM EST Expand All History
Post #80,981 by Brandioch 2/11/03 4:59:53 PM Reply	That's why we measure in "kilo-tons" and "mega-tons". wanna tell me who had more casualties? Hiroshima or Dresden? Stop. Okay. Now, type in that you believe that Saddam will put an equivalent tonnage of conventional explosives on Israel as we put on Dresden. Go ahead. You're slipping from a discussion of Iraq's capability -to- A theoretical discussion on conventional vs nuclear weapons. Don't do that. Do you think that Saddam will put an equivalent tonnage of conventional explosives on Israel as we put on Dresden? And, as far as I know, the death count was HIGHER for Hiroshima than for Dresden (calculate in radiation induced cancer and such).

Welcome to IWETHEY!