ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Thu Mar 28, 2024 2:29 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Weapon debate part 3:The return of flametrowers and Napalm?
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:44 pm 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 198
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada. Unfortunately.
Hello once again.
Ollie suggested a new weapon debate on the OICW topic, so I felt I should bring up something interesting: Napalm and flamethrowers.
Now, supposedly, the US military stopped using Napalm in the 1980s. It was deemed to be "cruel and inhumane" by the UN, and thus, was taken out of service. Apparently, they thought we wouldn't be chasing bad guys out of caves any more...

Now that stalemate wars are the main issue, the military has considered bringing back the flamethrowers and napalm. Indeed, a stream of burning napalm jelly would be very helpful in flushing out those bastards hiding in caves/holes/what-have-you.

To start this topic off, I have two articles I found:The first one gives a brief history of Napalm and its uses, what it's made of, and when it was banned.
The second article is a little piece of a passage written by Scott Shuger, which favors the return of these weapons.

--Article one--
Napalm is a flammable substance used in warfare. It is based on gasoline, but gasoline burns itself too quickly to be useful as an incendiary weapon in bombs or flamethrowers. The chemical reaction is moderated by a powder of naphthene and palmitate (thus napalm), forming a soap-like substance. The relative amount of powder changes the burning properties, and is varied for flamethrowers and bombs. Napalm-B is an improved variant of napalm, made from benzene and polystyrene. It was known for the particular smell it made while burning.

The mixture was invented at Harvard University in 1942. It was used during World War II by the Allied Forces against cities in Japan, and later by the United States during the Vietnam War.

The use of Napalm and other incendiaries against civilian populations was banned by a United Nations convention in 1980. The United States didn't sign the agreement but claimed to have destroyed its arsenal in 2001.

The United States has reportedly been using Napalm in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. In August 03 the Pentagon stopped denying the charge, admitting it did use "Mark 77 firebombs"


"We napalmed both those [bridge] approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there ... you could see them in the [cockpit] video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."
These bombs contain a substance "remarkably similar" to Napalm. This substance is made with kerosene and polystyrene.




--Article Two--
Here's an article I found that talks about the pyschological effect of Napalm and flamethrowers:
From an article by Scott Shuger in Slate, who favors the use of napalm flamethrowers in Afghanistan: "Although in Vietnam napalm was used irresponsibly on civilians, it is not inherently dangerous to them." Shuger adds, "Flamethrowers might even save some terrorists' lives because they would rather give up than be burned alive."
----------------

So there you have it. Should these weapons be brought back into use, or should they stay retired?
Are they effective and proper military weapons, or inhumane and cruel? You decide.

Much love to Ollie.
And Rupert.

_________________
"History admires the wise, but it elevates the brave"-Edmund Morris

Moodflow.com - the greatest pictures ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 4:47 pm 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Napalm sticks to children...

...And pretty much everything else for that matter.

I've played around with some homemade napalm, and I can see how it would be extremely effective. I don't see why we shouldn't use it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:45 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
In ancient greece, there were rules of warfare - thigns that one would do, things that one would not do. This evolved to where battles were set piece matches and often there were more fatalities in the losing army due to the retreat than caused by the actual army. Net result: Greek cities were willing to go to war for any old reason.

Int he pre-Napoleonic era, there were once again de facto rules. Muskets of the time were hideously ineffective, and there was very strong social pressure not to alter tactics or weapons in any significant way. And as with the Greek world, European nations tended to go to war frequently.

My point? When you make rules for war, you are in essence making war a more acceptable, tolerable option. Make it nasty. Make it ugly, horrible. Make the weak-stomached and thin-skinned twitch at the sights from CNN. Make it fast and brutal, and maybe, just maybe, we'll stop thinking of war as a video game or a made-for-TV special.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 5:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
like you said, napalm's 1940s tech, lets have some new gear here please

M202A1 FLASH, a 4 round, reloadable 66mm incendiary rocket launcher, has about a 750m range bursting TPA (Thickened Pyrophoric Agent, in this case Triethylaluminium) that ignites on contact with air over an approx 20 meter radius with a burn time of about 8 to 9 seconds at 1000'C. The Russian developed weapons akin to this in RPG/recoiless rifle layout, all combat tested in Afganistan, Chechina etc

the above are used like any incendary, ie WP (White Phosporus) now that we're not alowed to directly burn the bad guys, we throw WP 'smoke' grenades at them, their fault if they stand too near and get burnt to death, neither WP (available in large caliber shells, grenades and RPG rounds) are considered legally to be anti personel, but are always unofficially used as such in the field

now, try this one: think of the word 'thermobaric' you know what that means? while it might not sound like 'burning men to death' like the term FAE (Fuel Air Explosive) both are actually bombs far more efficent than napalm ever was, by almost atomising the fuel they contain in a controlled explusion/explosion then ignighting it, the entire section of air/land soaked by this fuel vapour literally ignites and the blast wave is huge

if you are in an area where the very air sets aflame at 3,000degrees, you're double screwed, the only place to hide is underwater, not good out in the field/desert, then there's the overpressure blast at about 30 times atmospheric pressure moving at around 10,000 feet per second, nowhere to hide...

again, technically theyr'e an anti material/fortification tool, as burning men is a no-no, but if they're in the area when it's dropped, well, sucks to be them

napalm and flame throwers are out dated, you can get WP and thermobaric rounds for even your classic RPG7, it fires further than any flame thrower ever will, equally FAE is far more efficent and lighter to transport via plane, so more effective on target, the thermobaric burn and suck/blast wave is creates is devestating, a mini-nuke in effect

so, napalm might not be allowed, but FAE, thermobaric and WP/smoke rounds are, give it a nice name and techincal description and you're there, remind ppl of burning children in 'Nam and your'e not..

edit - link. seems i remembered my stuff from the various sources i picked it up from - when they say 'flamethrower' about th RPO-A they mean incendiary rocket launcher

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 7:29 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1349
Lets just set one thing. Napalm as in a weapons system used by air delivery and man-portable flame (napalm end product) units were phased out by nato/un/US.
The use of jellied fuels in improvised explosive devices was not. Combat Engineer, Sapper, and 'Special' unit training included very specific methods to construct feild expedient explosive fuel munitions. These were to be used against vehicle convoys, large troop movements (was supposed to be only when you were outnumbered around 50 to 1), and for location destruction (buildings, camps, depots, airfields).
The FM5-34 was specific on how to construct, deploy and detonate the napalm barrels. Several other FMs also had detailed info on the use of naplam (called improvised fuel bombs or munitions).

It was the wost scenario to encounter in the field working EOD. Unstable and usually all you could do was get back and blow it in place after the Fire Detachemant arrived.
Anyway, just wanted to place that distinction on naplam, Banned uses are the airborne delivered, and flame thrower types of napalm. Using it as a ground bomb/boobytrap is still in use.

Pardon the typos, my glasses are broken, can't find the other pair, and my old BCGs are in my pack in a cabin. I can see, just a bit blurry. Yae I know life's a bitch.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 16, 2004 8:23 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
LONG LIVE THE MOTHER OF ALL BOMBS!



The MOAB baby yeah!

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 12:25 pm 
Offline
Addict

Joined: Mon May 13, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1294
Location: Middle of goddamn nowhere, Georgia
Quite honestly, I don't know too much from a technical standpoint on this sort of weaponry, but if it makes my job easier, I don't see why we shouldn't use it.

Oh, and by "making my job easier" I don't mean "strap a flamethrower to my back and watch me burn alive when the shooting starts, like it does to all the flamethrower guys in the movies."

_________________
"My relationship with my SAW[M249 Squad Automatic Weapon] has lasted longer than my marriage did." -One of the guys in my platoon.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:10 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
ethically, why not? I don't like flamethrowers because they are too dangerous for the users, Ollie's contributions make alot of sense.

I don't see why not when you are dealing with places like afghanistan. No reason to go into a cave when you can burn 'em out.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:55 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
Though incinderary weaponry has a tactical use like Clay said, I don't think it is used for such very often. Typically it is used just to cause damage, not strategic, just plain destruction. Also it is psychologically a powerful weapon. Frankly using something so brutal doesn't put us much of a stone's throw away from terrorists.

I also have a severe dislike for cluster bombs. They seem like crude throwbacks compared to some of the precision bombs used today.

EDIT: It's spelled tactical not tactile...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 10:12 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
revolutio wrote:
I also have a severe dislike for cluster bombs. They seem like crude throwbacks compared to some of the precision bombs used today.


well, they're legacy weapons really, the cluster idea is designed to hit a large concentration of troops, tanks or equipment etc such as were fielded by the Soviet Union at the time, the idea that one big bomb will split up and hit a number of targets seemed like the perfect antidote to such massed atatcks as the Soviets were assumed to be planning

also they are used to destroy airfields, drop a few over a big target like an airfield and they'll crater the runways, hit aircraft out in th open and generally screw up any equipment or supplies also out in the open

there are a number of types of bombs and missiles working on the cluster strategy, some designed to hit armour, others concrete, some general purpose/mixed payload, many designed to specificly not explode on contact with the ground, essentially setting up an above ground minefield

the big problem with these is that they often malfunction and act as mines even if theyr'e not designed to, this is the big (and controvercial) problem with them, otherwose theyr'e just as dangerous when they're dropped/go off as a conventional 'iron' HE type bomb, one big or lots of little = same explosive power

so, the only real problem is the large number of (intentionally or not) munitions that fail to explode on landing, otherwise theyr'e just another piece of kit to make use of if the situation needs it, like many legacy weapons it's not really in a world it was designed for, but it's still able to be shoehorned into use

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Feb 18, 2004 2:53 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
Umm wouldn't the types that intentionally don't explode on impact go against the US and UN campaigns to ban landmines?

I agree that cluster type bombs are no worse assuming they are completely effecient and functional, but we both know that isn't the case.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:34 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
revolutio wrote:
Umm wouldn't the types that intentionally don't explode on impact go against the US and UN campaigns to ban landmines?


there's an offical US move to ban landmines? can't say i've seen that in action...

revolutio wrote:
I agree that cluster type bombs are no worse assuming they are completely effecient and functional, but we both know that isn't the case.


if you have crappy quality control/costcutting then you are correct, however, if you have actual functional fusing and manufacturing processes then ther eis no problem whatsoever, i forget the exact curent specification for 'acceptable failures' of detonation but i think it's in the 5% area, think of one US/UK MLRS (Multi Launch Rocket System, big boxed missile launchers you see in the Gulf) firing off a FFE (Fire For Effect) strike (all 12 rockets at one target) you get a 500m x 500m map grid saturated by 644 bomblets, the British system has a better than required failure rate in the low single % range, this is safeguarded by an impact fuse that if found to fail is backed up by a timed fuse that will go off a few seconds after it lands anyway

think of a battery of 9 MLRS all firing at a single grid ref, that's 5796 bomblets falling down onto a single target area, back in the first Gulf War the Iraqis called it "The Black Rain" as it just fell like water and wiped out anything under it, say it has a 5% failure rate and in that 500 x 500 grid you'll have about 290 unexploded munitions sitting around (it would actually be less that this with current and future ammo), might sound a lot, but any battlefield has unexploded this and that littering the ground, especially if you've just wiped out a brigade of artillery or armour, all of the shells/ammo that you havent' blown up that they ere carrying is going to be sat ther ewith far more explosive power than any MLRS bomblet

basicly, STAY YHE HELL OFF THE BATTLEFIELD and if the battlefield's a city/populated area, then the commander on the ground can decide what weapons to use, all will have colateral damage possablities, just to varing degrees or immediate/long lasting danger, international law gets a little bit annoying if you can't act properly as a commander, in cases like this the benifits are outweighed by the problems, more so than battlefield WMDs for instance

on the minefield side, the MLRS can fire out a scattermine round firing out 336 mines per FFE are far more high tech, the mines can be set to last for a set number of days or months or be detonated on command by the HQ, see the stats above (halved) for saturation of an area then image blowing the whole lot up in order to use the area to move troops or because the war's over, again there will be some that fail to detonate, but that's a hell of a lot better than old style mines

on a side note, the German Army requested a land mine that would be tamper-proof once set up, it was so well designed that they decided not to field it as even they, knowing exactilly how it was constructed, would be able to disarm it once it had been primed, the lesson is that while you're trying your best to hurt the bad guys, you still have to think both longa nd short term about what your weapons wll do to you and your allies

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:19 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 6:38 pm
Posts: 3148
Location: Gay bar at the end of the universe
ollie wrote:
there's an offical US move to ban landmines? can't say i've seen that in action...
I found this on the subject. Not sure if it explicityly forbids use of them by the US but they denounce them so strongly that it seems unlikely they would use anything of the sort. But this is politics, hypocrisy is a given.

Thanks for the info though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:37 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
revolutio wrote:
Thanks for the info though.


don't take my % numbers for fact, they're just there as ballpark figures, untill i go through a few manuals/articles i can't give exact numbers, but the 'law' or at least treaty agreement around at the moment gives an aceptable % failure rate that signed up nations (like the UK) abide by, while still cluster munitions (not bombs as many are rocket launched or mines etc) they are very much new and improved over the first versions thatcame out

still, to at least take some look at the topic, to a person in the street all 'cluster bombs' are the same, just like all 'napalm bombs' ar ethe same, this is a rather blind way to look at things, are mental institues today the same as they were 200 years ago? no, prehaps they're not perfect, but since they were started to the present day they have had large improvments and are generally regarded as far better in every way, while it would be nice not to ever have to use them, they are needed, thus are used.

[edit] - the big on on this is The Ottawa Treaty which bans the use of Anti-Personnel landmines only. Not the use of cluster bombs, anti-tank mines, anti-handling devices, Improvised Explosive Devices, mixed purpose mines etc, the UK is signed up, the US isn't, the MLRS munitions i was talking about above are duel puropse anti-armour and anti-personel, thus perfectly allowed

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 1:57 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 07, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 1349
The US policy is not going against land mines altogether, rather the indiscriminate use/leaving of mines.
Using some areas such as the Balkan region and sections of Africa as an example, the US wants to get away from the practice of just scattering mines through an area and leaving them.
The US wants to have any mine that is used, be it anti-personell or anti-vehicular, to be mapped out as to their locations and types, and to never be deployed near vilages/cities/populated areas where there is a risk of non-combatant encountering and triggering said mine.
It is sort of a rules of engagement for mines. I guess the rules would apply to disengagement as well as the doctrine does not allow for any mine to left in place. They are to be recovered or disposed of (detonationg in place is considered disposal).
We actually began this practice back in the 1980s, well before the Media had pix of Di in Africa working to disarm mines (as I understood it she actually assisted in detection and disposal of said mines, Bully to Di, may she RIP).
In recent years it has become a political issue, getting placed in front of various senate commities and agencies, mainly trying to decide who has the authority to develop the factual documents of the operational doctrine. (read: political juggling)
The UN has had the issue brought to them through several nations over the years and by some of the various UN sub-organizations (unicef, etc.)
Getting lesser (third world) countries to join in the adoption of the official doctrines has been a real roller coaster ride over the years, as the lesser nations are the ones (in many cases) using mines in vast numbers during the many civil/tribal conflicts that have beset them.
It is dificult at best to get the nations that are likely to violate the mine control accords to to comply with them, let alone police them. The UN has enough difficulty at this time providing staff/troops to assist in major conflit areas, let alone each and every civil disturbance that occurs. The Current situation in Haiti is a prime example. If the 'rebels' decide to place mines about, who will stop them or make them clean it up when the fighting is over? The UN is not invlved, and may not ever be, except to observe possible elections. The mines would still be there, waiting for a victim. The actractivness of the mines is thaey are relatively cheap, dont need to eat or sleep, and provide a wanted effect; instilling fear in the local populace. Power and control for a few dollars.
This is what the US and UN mine use accords are about, but what the hell can anyone do? We (more developed countries with major armed forces) can agree and comply, and just try to set an example. Some of the biggest abusers of the mines will still continue to do the same.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:36 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 02, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3142
Location: Detroit
The US uses Landmines almost exclusively for base defence these days... We used to use them for troop movement interuption but thats not a viable stratagey anymore... We still use them extensively, like in Cuba, but not in an offensive roll like in vietnam

_________________
Why are you not wearing my pants?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 19, 2004 10:49 pm 
Offline
Expatriate

Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 139
My apologies, Lifyre, because I know what you meant and I'm quitly of far worse mistake....

buuuut.... "Offensive roll"

So, we've got the tactical incendiary roll, the meatloaf with built-in grenade launcher, the semtex mashed potaotes, the flechette green beans, and reactive-armor cheesecake. What else is on today's military menu?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 12:51 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 04, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 198
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada. Unfortunately.
Actually, I was referring to all incendiary weapons as one broad topic, aka Napalm.
Why?
Because more people are familiar with the term "Napalm" than they are with Mk77 Incendiary.

Sorry to lump it together.

Anyway, I see nothing wrong with incendiaries/cluster bombs/flame throwers. War is a dirty business, and you do whatever you need to win.

The modern cluster bombs are actually far better than the old one everyone is familiar with. The latest version of the cluster bomb is dubbed the "sensor-fused cluster munition". The bomblets themselves, though smaller in number, are smarter. Each bomblet has a thermal detector and small rocket motor. When the sensor fuse cluster bomb opens up, the bomblets find a hot source, like the engine block of a tank, then activates the small motor and flies just above the target. The round detonates, sending a shaped charge projectile down on the target.
Of course, the old "shrapnel the hell out of everything in the area" cluster bombs are still useful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 20, 2004 9:28 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
General Gir wrote:
Actually, I was referring to all incendiary weapons as one broad topic, aka Napalm.
Why?
Because more people are familiar with the term "Napalm" than they are with Mk77 Incendiary.

Sorry to lump it together.


i kinda guessed that was what you meant, what i was saying was that most ppl think they really are all the same thing, just because theyr'e relativly low speed fire based explosions rather than high explosive conventional bombs does make them all of a simlar sort, but in use and effect they're far from the same, WP compared to TB for instance, but the general public see them as all as good/bad as each other in their attempt to sterilise war

General Gir wrote:
The modern cluster bombs are actually far better than the old one everyone is familiar with. The latest version of the cluster bomb is dubbed the "sensor-fused cluster munition". The bomblets themselves, though smaller in number, are smarter. Each bomblet has a thermal detector and small rocket motor. When the sensor fuse cluster bomb opens up, the bomblets find a hot source, like the engine block of a tank, then activates the small motor and flies just above the target. The round detonates, sending a shaped charge projectile down on the target.
Of course, the old "shrapnel the hell out of everything in the area" cluster bombs are still useful.


mostly 155mm atry with some moves to MLRS use the submunitions you mention above, SADARM (Sense And Destroy ARMour) have been in development for teh last 20+ years, only now with high tech microcomputing are they really effective, the pictures of them working are very odd, they float down over the battlefield looking for targets, find one and explode above it, sending a penetrator bolt directly downwards through the weak top armour, basicly you see a few parachutes floating around, then they explode and a streak of metal is ejected straight down, if that hits any fuel or ammo it's goodbye tank, even if it doesnt' it'll probably kill/wound everyone in the crew compartment on penetration

tanks really need to think about getting heavy top armour, its' way past time this should have been adopted by everyone, heat/ECM will be more of a feature soon too if this is used a lot more, it's still so high tech and costly that only the big 1st world guys really have practicle access to it tho..

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:14 am 
Offline
Local
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:18 pm
Posts: 308
Location: http://the-expatriates.com
FAEs eh? I actually need to make some of those with acetylene and hydrogen..
yummy! That or nitroglycerin/nitrocelloluse mixtures, which works well in homemade AA guns.

I like flamethrowers in areas with lots of cover, such as forests and cities. If I had a flamethrower however I would add some heavy armor to the fuel tank, and wear a suit designed to keep me from catching fire when discharging it at people 15 feet away.
And you can't deny the coolness of flamethrowers. Theres just something about torching groups of people....[/psychopath]
I don't like cluster bombs, they should just use daisy cutters (the biggest nonnuclear bomb in use), or, better yet, nuetron bombs!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 23 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 25 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group