Results 11 to 20 of 42
-
June 6th, 2007 09:12 AM #11
Well, they'll be deploying it in European (NATO) not Russian soil.
Plus, a missile defense is also good for rogue missiles fired inadvertently by a computer malfunction or a crazy field commander.
If the shield is for US, they could've just deployed it in secrecy in Alaska, Hawaii or Canada.
-
June 6th, 2007 10:10 AM #12
teka, malabo nga yata that you put a missile defense system in the Czech Republic to counter a threat from Iran :hihihi:
kailan ba mabubuo ang ion cannon? :devil:
-
-
June 6th, 2007 09:13 PM #14
The big difference between the two is that the missiles the Russians put in Cuba are intermediate-range ICBM's designed to destroy cities in the US. They were offensive missiles with nuclear warheads. One of those Russian missiles with 2 or 3 warheads can erase an entire city.
The kind of missile the US will use in the missile shield is designed to destroy another missile. It should be relatively short-ranged and the warhead is most likely a fragmentation type, like a grenade. The whole inventory can be fired on one city and they'll barely make a dent assuming they have the range in the first place.
I'm with Putin, though. If there's an agreement between the US and Russia not to install a missile defense shield in Europe, then the US should abide by that agreement.
-
-
June 7th, 2007 02:13 AM #16
-
June 7th, 2007 02:36 AM #17
Di siguro magreklamo si Putin kung yung shield gawa ni Invisible Girl... :inlove:
-
-
June 7th, 2007 03:03 AM #19
ang sabi ng mga adults dati, noon daw panahon na may Clark at Subic US base dito, nag-point daw ng isang warhead sa'tin ang USSR. ano kaya naka-point pa kaya ngaun?
-
Tsikoteer
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Posts
- 4,459
June 7th, 2007 03:15 AM #20
Did some independent research and decided to go with the white pearl crystal.... para maiba naman. ...
Toyota Innova Owners & Discussions [continued...