Uncensored2008
Libertarian Radical
How many nations could just one of our nuclear submarines take out?
So, you're saying that our only response capability should be nuclear?
Really?
Or a carrier armed with nukes? How many nations have air forces that could stand up to just one of our carrier groups? How much is enough? How much is too much?
The President was far closer to the correct anology when he spoke of bayonets and horses. This is not 1916 or 1917. Just one of our missile frigates could easily defeat that whole navy without the navy of that time every seeing that ship. The fact that you people have to even think twice before seeing the nonsense of Romney's statement is indictive of how out of touch with reality that you truly are.
So we stopped using bayonets in 1917?
{While the bayonet dates to the 17th century, it has evolved through technological innovations over the years. In 2003, the Marine Corps replaced its standard-issue bayonet with a longer, sharper model, the OKC-3S. The new model, designed by New York's Ontario Knife Co., was also more effective when brandished as a hand knife - not to mention more ergonomically correct. Perhaps more vitally, the blades were also better able to pierce body armor, a concern particular to modern warriors. More than 120,000 bayonets were commissioned to supply one to each Marine, at an estimated price of $36.35 each, or $4,362,000 total. In addition to potential use in hand-to-hand combat, bayonets are said to be useful for keeping prisoners under control and for "poking an enemy to see whether he is dead."
The Marines aren't the only branch of the military to equip its soldiers with bayonets. The Army issues the M9 bayonet knife, which has been in use since the 1980s}
Does the U.S. military still use bayonets? » Latest News » The Tribune Democrat, Johnstown, PA
If you didn't have shit fer brains, you wouldn't be a leftist.