Im still trying to find where I claimed or implied any of this. I think you just might be failing at reading comprehension. Sorry...
So....you agree with me and just want to frame it like you're right and I'm wrong. Lol.The nukes in Russia are still aimed at the US, that is fact, and our nukes are still aimed at them. These facts are undeniable, and nuclear war is still a threat. While tensions are not at all time highs, the threat remains, and our military is our first line of defense. ICBMs can easily hit anywhere in the US, not just Alaska. You don't seem to understand the distance that rockets can travel, and if you think that we can just pop them out of the air, you do not understand the difficulty of hitting a target like that.
Now, personaly, I do not think that we will have a nuclear war in the near future, but the threat remains regardless of what you wish to believe.
So you're saying we face the same threat today from smuggled nuclear warheads, with state of the art detection equipment and methods, as we did 30 years ago?Improvised devices are not what were being referred to. The Russians had him investigate how to smuggle in military grade tactical nuclear warheads into the Shenendoah Valley area. Now, with our current capability of detection, I would suspect it is harder for them to do that now, but it shows that they did do research into it already - and that is a first strike tactic, which is a threat.You wanted to imply that we had not military threats against us.






Reply With Quote
