Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Is Syria next?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="soberups" data-source="post: 1112439" data-attributes="member: 14668"><p>I'm not worried about the Syrians.</p><p></p><p>I'm worried about who might acquire their arsenal of SCUDS and chemical weapons if the Assad regime is overthrown.</p><p></p><p>Do some research before you state with any confidence that the Syrian regime lacks the ability to launch SCUDS with chemical warheads beyond its own borders. Even the earliest model SCUDS from the 1960's had a range of 300+miles and were designed to carry a wide variety of warheads icluding nuclear and chemical ones. Syria is one of only 8 nations that is not signatory to the UN convention on chemical weapons, and they have aknowledged having a chemical arsenal.</p><p></p><p>SCUD missiles are designed to be mobile. They are towed to the launch point and fired from off of the back of an oversized truck. It would actually be quite simple to load one onto a freighter, hundreds of which are in the Atlantic ocean at any given time, and then fire it once a major city on our Eastern seaboard was within range. Pinpoint accuracy is not important when you are releasing chemical weapons over a major city. Chemical weapons have been loaded into artillery shells and missiles since World War One, the technology for doing so is nothing new or remarkable.</p><p></p><p>I'm not beating a war drum. We have no business invading Syria, we have no business becoming directly involved in its civil war, and we have no business doing anything other than providing humanitarian assistance to its refugees. We also, however, have every right to take measures to prevent the worlds largest arsenal of chemical weapons from falling into the wrong hands.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="soberups, post: 1112439, member: 14668"] I'm not worried about the Syrians. I'm worried about who might acquire their arsenal of SCUDS and chemical weapons if the Assad regime is overthrown. Do some research before you state with any confidence that the Syrian regime lacks the ability to launch SCUDS with chemical warheads beyond its own borders. Even the earliest model SCUDS from the 1960's had a range of 300+miles and were designed to carry a wide variety of warheads icluding nuclear and chemical ones. Syria is one of only 8 nations that is not signatory to the UN convention on chemical weapons, and they have aknowledged having a chemical arsenal. SCUD missiles are designed to be mobile. They are towed to the launch point and fired from off of the back of an oversized truck. It would actually be quite simple to load one onto a freighter, hundreds of which are in the Atlantic ocean at any given time, and then fire it once a major city on our Eastern seaboard was within range. Pinpoint accuracy is not important when you are releasing chemical weapons over a major city. Chemical weapons have been loaded into artillery shells and missiles since World War One, the technology for doing so is nothing new or remarkable. I'm not beating a war drum. We have no business invading Syria, we have no business becoming directly involved in its civil war, and we have no business doing anything other than providing humanitarian assistance to its refugees. We also, however, have every right to take measures to prevent the worlds largest arsenal of chemical weapons from falling into the wrong hands. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Is Syria next?
Top