Each weapon is not a launch site. Most ICBMs have multiple warheads, so taking out 1 site could mean 20 out of commission. Then you have failure rate probably around 20%, them missile guidance errors of a few percent, if they have SDI it can take out up to 70% most likely. Between all that your 1000 suddenly becomes around 5, and those 5 won't be your top targets and some of those 5 may hit the same target multiple times. So by the time you launched all 1000, a lot of your opponent's targets are still there and the beating you just took means you can't build more. During the cold war 1000 only would be idiotic.

What no one is mentioning though is nuclear subs or stealth bombers. Both are able to deliver to targets in non-ICBM ways that are probably much more reliable. With the stealth bomber and subs, 1000 might just be enough for one large conflict.

The other thing not mentioned, a lot of the older ones were called tactical nukes. Something like the Davy Crocket which was launched from a ground artillery piece from a couple of miles away and was small yield. Meant for a Russian tank column. The A-4 and I think F-111 could both carry small nuclear bombs which we no longer have. We don't use those anymore and things like that probably accounted for half of what we used to have.

Facebook guesses if your are hetrosexual or homosexual 88% of the time? I can beat that.
Whoever is reading this, I'm going to guess for you specifically with 98.3 % accuracy.

You are Straight.

1.7% in the US are gay. So is it just me or is a 88% accuracy when you can just guess one answer every time and be 98% accurate worthless?

Man-Bear-Pig, I'm being totally cereal!

When Bill Clinton was president he sold top secret ICBM technology to the Chinese in return for cash donations to the DNC, specifically his and Gore's election campaigns. This is fact. When asked about it during a debate between Gore and Bush, Gore's response was "No controlling legal authority" meaning that Janet Reno was the only one authorized to prosecute and she was told not to.

I really have a hard time listening to Gore, especially when it comes to campaign contributions. What he and Clinton did was treason, period, and he abused his power to not be prosecuted.

Next best thing

One of the articles shows two differnet replicas being built and flown 1986 and 1998 in USA and Germany.
The only issue I have with it is the engine that would have been needed to get it in the air shouldn't have existed then. It appears the original engines he used no longer exist, so it will remain a mystery. The claims he made on engine weight and HP are quite a bit ridiculous for the time. As for the design of the plane, it could easily fly, but wouldn't be my first choice to try out, maybe if it had a larger rudder because in a slight wind it would probably be impossible to land.

Facts. Guns are used for self defense about 989,000 times a year around the year 2000 in the US. Guns are used for murder about 10,000 times a year. Don't make up statements that the facts clearly show are wrong.

This is EXACTLY my point, hedwards is litterally making stuff up to deamonize law abiding citizens and claiming they should have no right to protect themsleves. This is the reason the NRA is attacking video games and the movie industry, but people are demanding something gets done and the NRA is providing the least resistance and most likely to be held up in court. They can back up their claims about self defense with guns with decades of facts, but the video game industry has no such history or facts.

Video games, or pictures of snakes is not what the debate is about. Its about gun control. Since there are so many people all gung-ho to trample on the rights of others, people like the NRA are doing to you what you do to them. They are blaming what you like to distract from you taking away what they like, the only difference is they have a constitutional amendment protecting them. Since so many are DEMANDING something gets done, ask yourself what is easier for Congress to accomplish: Banning constitutionally protected right to own gus, or trying to destroy video games. You may think video games is a first amendment thing, but we have been adding more and more exceptions to the first amendment lately and I'm not sure you will be able to argue first amendment protections when someone shows it can harm people but still demand the second amendment be trampled on for the reason that it can harm people.

Its kind of like Mutually Assured Destruction, but with rights instead of nukes. I'm aware of many Supreme Court rulings protecting the second amendment, but I don't know of many protecting video games under the first. Until people turn on the government intrusion instead of the NRA, video games will be under constant attack no matter what research or statements people make.

Because the equal protections under the law is in the Constitution under amendment 14. Therefore they can ignore it just like they do the 1st, 2nd, 5th, and 10th amendments, amongst others.

Its for your own good, so stop asking questions.

She recently did a special called "Wishful Drinking", which is about her life, where she complained that someone on the internet say she looked like Elton John. She said it wasn't so much that they said it as much as she understood what they meant.

She is actually pretty funny and it was a pretty good show.

No its not. I've never heard a single progressive politician proposing a law that says that. Perhaps you could let me know.

Progressive laws:
You are too dumb to save for retirement, we will take your money and give it back as we see fit and call it Social Security.
You are too dumb to medical take care of yourself, we will take your money and give it back as we see fit and call it Medicare/Medicaid
You are too fat, we will ban sodas larger than 16 oz.
You are too dumb to protect yourself, you should not be allowed to have a gun.
You are too dumb to give your political opinion on TV, we will prevent you from putting on TV commericals for a candidate 90 days before an election.
You are too dumb to develop your property correctly, we will seize it and give it to a mall developer because then the government will get more in taxes.
You are too useless to get a job, we will take money from others and pay you not to work for 2 years straight.
You are too dumb to get an ID, we will let anyone vote just by saying their name and pretend voter fraud never happens.

Those are the progressive laws I know about and that they brag about day after day.

Perhaps you should read something called the 10th Amendment.

- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Show me where cell phone location without a warrant is granted to the Federal Government in the Constitution and you are correct. I've read it before and there is nothing granting the Federal Government warrantless tracking of citizens. Ergo, State law here would trump Federal Law here.

Why would you think this would happen? After the 200+ people killed in Mexico because of him and he doesn't even have to answer questions about it, why would he even have to be bothered admitting this happened?

Didn't Johnson and Johnson no tears baby shampoo just get banned for causing cancer? I guess shampoo to the eye either makes you cry or get cancer.

The TSA is now allowing the actual types of things used on 9/11, but still banning shampoo and bottled water?

If there is ONE THING the TSA should ban is small knives (not that I agree with that), since they are now allowing those shouldn't they just admit they shouldn't need to exist?