QuickTopic (SM) free message boards QuickTopic (SM) free message boards
Skip to Messages
  Sign In to access your topic list  |New Topic |My Topics|Profile
Upgrade to Pro   Customize, show pictures, add an intro, and more:   QuickTopic Pro...and check out QuickThreadSM
Topic: ww3
Views: 1118, Unique: 679 
Subscribers: 2
What's
this?
Printer-Friendly Page
Subscribe to get & post, or stop messages by email Subscribe
All messages    << 13-20  12-12 of 20  1-11 >>
About these ads
Who | When
Messagessort recent-top   
Post a new message
 
David Bell  12
12-12-2002 02:30 PM ET (US)
A lot of this depends on just how big the Indian and Pakistani nuclear weapons really are. It would be optimistic to assume they were the monsters dropped on Japan (which is the assumption the aircraft designers of a half-century ago had to make, but I could imagine them being awkwardly large for sticking onto an IRBM or for external carriage on a fighter.

So a bomber able to carry a lot of conventional bombs internally, or a tanker aircraft, might be a bigger strategic worry than it seems. Though, in the fifties, Chuck Yeager was commanding USAF fighter-bombers, with a nuclear commitment, which couldn't carry enough fuel to get back from their targets.
RSS link What's this?
All messages    << 13-20  12-12 of 20  1-11 >>
QuickTopicSM message boards
Over 200,000 topics served
Learn more Frequently asked questions  Acknowledgements
What they're saying about QuickTopic
 Questions, comments, or suggestions? Contact Us
Read our use policy before beginning. We value your privacy; please read our privacy statement.
Copyright ©1999-2008 Internicity Inc. All rights reserved.