The Colt .38 revolver with a 3 inch barrel
Vet-USAF 44MMS
2007-07-29 11:44:55
·
answer #1
·
answered by ฉันรักเบ้า 7
·
1⤊
1⤋
Defense is a little under 1/5 of our total budget, given our current debt and the expected growth of entitlement programs over the next 10 years even cutting the entire military wouldn't give us a surplus. Just for some perspective the first corporate bailout cost more than the entire Iraq war. As to whether we'd just start smashing countries and taking what we want... probably not. We can get more of what we want out of them financially by just threatening to go bankrupt. Without U.S. markets the world economy cannot function, we go they all go. I suppose we could bully countries into forgiving our debt, but the problem is that only about 1/3 of the debt is owned by foreign countries, the other 2/3 is domestic. Heck, there's more intergovernmental debt than there is Chinese debt! Can we invade ourselves to get the money?
2016-04-01 08:38:13
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
My definition of "worst" is "least effective". Following this logic, the nukes we dropped on Japan were the best weapons we ever used. Two weapons prevented what would have been the bloodiest amphibious assault in history. The crews of those bombers should have received the Nobel Prize for Peace for preventing more bloodshed then any other group of people in history.
The worst weapons we ever actually used in my opinion would have to be unguided or "dumb" bombs that were widely employed over Vietnam. These sucked because it took huge numbers of sorties to destroy targets of questionable value, leading to the death or capture of countless aircrew.
The worst weapons we NEVER used were also nukes. They are the worst because of their sheer overkill and the danger they would have posed to friendly troops and populations. They are the tactical class of nuclear weapons, and they include nuclear artillery shells (range of 30 miles or less), nuclear landmines, and the crown jewel, the Genie. What, you ask, was the Genie? It was a nuclear-tipped air-to-air missile. Without a guidance system. In effect, a nuclear-tipped bottle rocket. To plagarize a Guiness advert, "Brilliant!"
2007-07-30 05:43:11
·
answer #3
·
answered by Gretch 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
Mle. 1915 Chauchat Mitralluese, aka Sho-Sho Automatic Rifle
Absolute worthless piece of shite foisted on the American Fighting Man by the French
2007-07-29 11:50:47
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Diplomacy. It rarely gets the job done. Dropping nuclear weapons on Japan in WWII actually REDUCED the total casualties in the war be FAR more than the number of people killed by the bombs. Diplomacy delays resolving the problems and results in MORE deaths.
2007-07-29 12:22:31
·
answer #5
·
answered by STEVEN F 7
·
2⤊
1⤋
Naval gun shells in attempts to shoot down aircraft before invention of the timed proximity fuse. Some of those returned to the firing ship and damaged it. Second was the electronic release mechanism for bombs mounted on aircraft. We lost patrol bombers in the Battle of midway because the devices released the bombs well ahead of target.
2007-07-29 14:55:34
·
answer #6
·
answered by desertviking_00 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
The French sho sho machinegun during WWI
2007-07-29 11:46:43
·
answer #7
·
answered by Army Retired Guy 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
the M-16 all variations of it ,, and the Beretta hell it's only 9mm it takes more rounds to knock some one on there A S S than the old .45 one shot and they fall down.
2007-07-30 02:23:57
·
answer #8
·
answered by redneckmp28 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
Um, that would be the nukes that ended WWII. If you ask what World War II was I'll give you a wedgie.
2007-07-29 11:53:54
·
answer #9
·
answered by skullklipz 3
·
2⤊
3⤋
M3 sub-machine gun for first place - early model M-16's for second.
2007-07-29 11:47:42
·
answer #10
·
answered by oldhippypaul 6
·
1⤊
1⤋