Edit, 2000warrior: You know, this post is EXACTLY WHY I've had to delete so many others.
<span style='font-size:15pt;line-height:100%'>READ THE FIRST FRIGGIN POST BEFORE POSTING</span>.
I support this war.
Times have changed. Now it only takes 1 missile to start and end a war. We have bombs 100 times more powerful that the A-Bomb. Other countries could get access to that, and that could be a disaster.
However, Iraq has chemical weapons but no evidence of Weapons of Mass destruction. Now if North Korea is more advance in creating weapons of Mass destruction, why didn't we go after them first?
I don't believe anyone in here is pro-war in general. I mean who loves war? Sometimes war is necessary and I see that in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Quote:
CNN WEAPONSFirst B-83 deployed: 1984
Dimensions: 12 feet long, 11 inches diameter, 35 inches in tail span
Weight: 2,399 pounds
Number stockpiled: approximately 650
Yield: One to two megatons (one megaton is equivalent to a million tons of TNT) Delivery method: B-2 Spirit, B-52H Stratofortress, or B-1B Lancer bombers
This weapon has a variable-yield feature, as does the B-61, which means the explosive power or yield can be adjusted. When used for strategic purposes, the B-83 has a high-yield with a low-level "laydown" capability, meaning it has a delayed blast of up to 120 seconds so the aircraft dropping it can do so from a low altitude and still have time to escape the blast. It was designed specifically for use against hardened targets. At high-yield, the B-83 is said to be 100 times more powerful than the "Little Boy," the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The B-83 is in the process of being replaced by B61-11.
Edited By 2000warrior on Mar. 28 2003 at 06:15