Lowest bidder!
1
You are going against the trend, my friend.
True, but wouldn’t it be a kicker if we really did only fire one missile?
By “genitals,” I assume you mean “stupidity,” yes?
The columnist Pepe Escobar has suggested launching Ferraris at them instead, 200 grand for a Ferrari, 1.2 million for a cruise missile, and having a Ferrari might actually change somebody’s behavior.
323 including satellite guided smart bombs.
Looks like the British parliament has voted against any military action whatsoever. That might cause a delay while the US tweaks its plans.
You say that as if it’s a consideration. I’d be surprise if the Pentagon was placing a lot of reliance on UK participation. Not to denigrate the importance of the moral support but I can’t see the US military making int’l participation a go/no-go criterion.
68 and at least 40 of then will hit some camel in the ass.
There’s some wisdom in that… If you hit the right target, you only have to fire 1.
It may not be a big consideration, but I think we were counting on British participation. The vote seemed to have taken Cameron completely by surprise. There will probably have to be some plan adjustments made, but I doubt that will take long.
And the Chinese embassy…again… 
Just as long as Bob the new guy doesn’t accidently swap in a nuclear warhead its all good, boy wouldn’t that be embarrassing…
As for numbers, no idea, but I guess 64 in the first wave.
- It’s a sacred number.
Numbers already taken:
1
36
50
64
68
70
75
100
115
125
150
154
219
200
221
42
Sorry, I need a number, not a range
This is cruise missiles only, bub. Maybe somebody else has started a smart bomb pool.
I sry. 
177
But, like, not in a Nazi way or anything.
- Was going to go with 69, but that would’ve been lame.