!
Dunno who gave you that idea, Trick; we have bloody loads. We even have our own nuclear-armed submarine capacity.
The US motives for entering WWII are spectacularly irrelevant if trying to prove its nefarious nature; it entered to defend itself, but that is the same as ALL the major participants on the Allied side.
Originally posted by Trickster
Where does Britain keep it's nukes, then?^Me, interested. Always thought we never had any.
where does America hide it's nukes?
It's not our job as citizens to know that kind of information. The location of nuclear weapons would be deemed CLASSIFIED. By just about every country with exception to N. Korea.
I only say that because Pyongyang is their only known Nuke plant capable of enriching weapons grade plutonium.
Of course...i'm sure they wouldn't keep the weapons on the premises.
Well, let me step in and say that does the amount really matter? And do you guys really believe that the UK and the US would be very specific about quantities of nukes? I seriously doubt it. Most of that is classified, the best bet is to say both nations have a fair amount of nukes to blow a whole continent.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
We have about 200 such warheads which is enough for anyone to consider as lots, and our air-based systems were only dismantled in '98 and we have the capacity (as a potneital plutonium producer) to restore that capacity extremely quickly.
Coughbacktrackcough.
Its right up there in B&W Ush - "We even have our own..etc"
You didnt know, you've googled it since and picked up on our '98 dismantling of land and air based, you're fooling nobody. Snore.
Pfft- pathetic. I stand by what I said- having a submarine delivery puts you in a different class from just having nukes, which is a pretty basic principle. And we still have air-based warheads in storage. And if you are goign to reduce the argument on to what loads means, then that is pretty darnn pointless.
And now you are just demonstrating your immaturity.
But if you insist...
The answer is simple; you make allies or enemies at appropriate times. Saddam was a useful ally for America at that point. Note ally, not friend. Now he's not. That's life; it's happened a million times in history. The evils of a leader are not considered justifcation by the world for any form of direct action, of course, but as soon as Saddam messed with the world's oil supply- and that's not just money, that existence for the West- then everything he had done wrong became grounds for justifying action.
Originally posted by Beyonder
not going to bite your head off but what money were they refering to? How would the U.S. get money from WWII? And what book is it?
The book was called 'The Line Between Truth and Death-The Holocaust Account'. As for the money, it had to do with taxes, and the depression.