To: amorphous; blam; dennisw; TigerLikesRooster
I agree 100% with the thrust of this essay.
My only question is whether WW3 can be contained to conventional weapons.
2 posted on
11/25/2015 8:30:21 AM PST by
Travis McGee
(www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
To: Travis McGee
I think it goes nuclear Travis. I believe somewhere in the land of Shinar there is a nuclear capable missile targeted at Israel and we all know nuclear weapons are targeting the US.
I'm just not real sure who gets hit first, the US or Israel.
7 posted on
11/25/2015 8:47:36 AM PST by
amorphous
To: Travis McGee
My only question is whether WW3 can be contained to conventional weapons. Once it heats up I don't see any way to avoid tactical nukes. Whether that will lead to strategic nukes...
I think, however, that once that starts, weapons that are not yet admitted as existing, like space-based scalar technology, will be used to rein things in - hard.
11 posted on
11/25/2015 9:27:49 AM PST by
Talisker
(One who commands, must obey.)
To: Travis McGee; amorphous; Jet Jaguar
12 posted on
11/25/2015 9:33:08 AM PST by
blam
(Jeff Sessions For President)
To: Travis McGee
My only question is whether WW3 can be contained to conventional weapons.
Putin said that if it comes down to a war with NATO, he’ll have no choice but to use nukes. We should all sign up for Russian and Chinese language classes.
You might know something I don’t understand. Why does Obama and Nato want Assad out so badly that they would aid and abet Isis to do it? Maybe even begin WWIII... This makes no sense to me.
To: Travis McGee
If a weapon exists it will be used.
L
20 posted on
11/25/2015 1:43:02 PM PST by
Lurker
(Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson