I honestly don't know what to make of this.Follow

"Where are we going today, Mr. Peabody?"

"Well, Sherman, we're going to take the Way-Back Machine to 2002 A.D. when people made Flash animations claiming there was a conspiracy behind the plane crash into the American Pentagon."

"Oh boy!"

Wow....even I'm not dumb enough to believe that crap.....

I loved that show.

HOOORAY were going to 2002!!! Can we stop at the Enron scandel and the Daniel Pearl murder on the way?

/butthurt

What's really the difference? I don't care if it was a plane or a misssle, the point is is that some big metal thing hit the pentagon and killed a few folk.

Who cares if it was a fu[/b]cking missle, practically [b]every country in existance has a good lot of missles to its name. The amount of missles a country has is basically a determinant of how big it's military ***** is.

"Teh teroristz hav teh misslez?! OMGWTF!!!!"

I wouldn't be suprised, they have AK-47's, rocket launchers, mortars and ammunition and such, if another country is selling them those, it ain't a far cry for that country to be selling them missles as well.

"So why haven't they been wailing us with missles?"

1) Missles are expensive
2) Any self-respecting country would follow U.N. regulations an AVOID selling missles to a terrorist occupied country, especially a country that might target the sellers.
3) The terrorists lack the means to make their own weapons, especially weapons of that advanced level.
4) The U.S. has an expansive aand very advanced missle-defence system, if any missles started heading towards us, most, if not all of them would be destroyed.

"So who would supply them with missles"

My bet is Iran.





Did I answer enough questions?



Disclaimer: I do not know the definite answers to all these questions, but I can make a pretty mean educated guess. Don't go lighting your torches based on anything I say, I'm just a stupid kid.

I'll play devil's advocate here..



There's actually a rather huge difference. Hijacking and ramming a plane into a building is bad, but managing to somehow smuggle a missile into firing range, and have it actually hit something, is enormous.

You don't understand how large this imaginary missile is...it's not some piece of crap you fire from your shoulder..cruise missiles (at least the one I'm thinking of) is about 25 feet long, takes a crapload of knowledge to deploy and actually target something (all done via computers), and take a team of technicians to maintain. They're basically programmable aircraft.



Having a missile actually manage to hit a US target, from within the US, implicates huge security flaws. If they can get a weapon of that caliber into the US and successfully deploy it, what next? The only countries that probably even have an iota of our cruise missile stockpile (and complexity) would be maybe Israel, the Russia (though ours are much better maintained), and maybe china.



True, the cheap ones are about 1+ million each, conventional payload.



They could have had this missile for years. And besides, how many times has the U.S. "helped" people of another nation by providing / selling weapons, only to have those weapons used against us?

And here's a lesson: Money talks. You have someone offer you enough money to buy a missile from you, humans find enough greed inside to sell it.



Yes, but if they bought and deployed one once, they can do it again. This is a bad thing. Much different than ramming an airplane into a building.



oh yeah, I must have missed the patriot anti missile systems posted around my city block.

Here's a hint: The U.S.'s missile defense system was designed to stop space-born threats....that's how the HUGE land-based missiles (ICBMs) deliver their payloads...they fly into probably near-space, a nosecone opens to reveal 1+ warheads, and they basically re-enter the atmosphere to strike their targets. The US worked on systems to destory the warheads (or missiles) as they're in orbit/space, before they strike.


Cruise missiles, though, are launched from a variety of platforms (land, air, sea). They can be extremely manueverable, low-flying weapons with semi-stealth+ capability, and they *can* have a rather long range.


We'd see an ICBM fired off the moment it left a silo, whereas a cruise missile would be MUCH harder to detect.

A hospital? What is it??

One of the reasons why we watch rocket launches worldwide so carefully is that one of the biggest dangers is for some country to launch an attack by ICBM. If they can succesfully get their munitions into orbit or near-orbit without detection and reaction then we've lost most of our chance to stop the attack.

I'm not too keen on our chances even with early detection, but common sense tells one that the more time you have to try to shoot those buggers down, the better chance you have to make it happen.

Flea, our attempts at a derail were unsuccessful.

Don't trust the goverment.

everthing else is fluff