Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 2/23/2007 11:51:16 PM EST
You know, the stuff we're going to use on iran shorty.

last pics of nukes i've seen are MIRVs and fat man and little boy, what do the current tactical nukes look like?

Whats normally on aircraft carriers?
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 11:53:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
You know, the stuff we're going to use on iran shorty.

last pics of nukes i've seen are MIRVs and fat man and little boy, what do the current tactical nukes look like?

Whats normally on aircraft carriers?


Carriers don't carry nukes anymore. They were outlawed for magazine storage during the reagan administration, IIRC.

Don't delude yourself. No way in hell will America nuke Iran, or anyone else for that matter.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 11:54:49 PM EST

Originally Posted By richardh247:

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
You know, the stuff we're going to use on iran shorty.

last pics of nukes i've seen are MIRVs and fat man and little boy, what do the current tactical nukes look like?

Whats normally on aircraft carriers?


Carriers don't carry nukes anymore. They were outlawed for magazine storage during the reagan administration, IIRC.

Don't delude yourself. No way in hell will America nuke Iran, or anyone else for that matter.


They may, but it will be in response to someone else using one first.
Link Posted: 2/23/2007 11:58:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:
They may, but it will be in response to someone else using one first.


That's what I think. I just can't imagine us deploying nuclear forces for first strike, whether tactically or strategically.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:00:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By richardh247:

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
You know, the stuff we're going to use on iran shorty.

last pics of nukes i've seen are MIRVs and fat man and little boy, what do the current tactical nukes look like?

Whats normally on aircraft carriers?


Carriers don't carry nukes anymore. They were outlawed for magazine storage during the reagan administration, IIRC.

Don't delude yourself. No way in hell will America nuke Iran, or anyone else for that matter.



you don't think we might see some nuclear bunker busters here shortly ?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:06:54 AM EST

Originally Posted By jkstexas2001:

Originally Posted By richardh247:

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
You know, the stuff we're going to use on iran shorty.

last pics of nukes i've seen are MIRVs and fat man and little boy, what do the current tactical nukes look like?

Whats normally on aircraft carriers?


Carriers don't carry nukes anymore. They were outlawed for magazine storage during the reagan administration, IIRC.

Don't delude yourself. No way in hell will America nuke Iran, or anyone else for that matter.


They may, but it will be in response to someone else using one first.


Respectfully, I disagree.

Our neutering was complete in WWII, and we've been a nation of victims since then. Our public relations is all about taking the high road, organizing surgical strikes to avoid collateral damage while exacting some sick misinterpretation of revenge. You'll hear every excuse, every liberal methodology to explain away the right to employ nuclear strikes in retaliation; and with our media purposing public opinion against our military's best interests, the American people simply don't have the balls to chance a nuclear war.

In a way, I am disgusted about it, but there is a part of me that respects the checks in place for weilding that type of destructive power. Iran is FAR from a large land mass, and the suffering would be tremendous if we employed nukes.

It's a double-edged sword, though, as we haven't the military assets to launch convential war against them. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. I don't have any answers, which is why no one bothered to put me in charge.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:14:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:

Originally Posted By richardh247:

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
You know, the stuff we're going to use on iran shorty.

last pics of nukes i've seen are MIRVs and fat man and little boy, what do the current tactical nukes look like?

Whats normally on aircraft carriers?


Carriers don't carry nukes anymore. They were outlawed for magazine storage during the reagan administration, IIRC.

Don't delude yourself. No way in hell will America nuke Iran, or anyone else for that matter.



you don't think we might see some nuclear bunker busters here shortly ?


Hadn't thought about it. Very interesting perspective!

Still, the fact is that congress decides these things, and the mere mention of "nuke" sends demorats scurrying to human rights groups and ABC news to outcry the inhumanity.

Look at the controversy of certain types of convential weapons we've employed in Iraq and Afghanistan. People were aghast to find that WP was used, and Americans turned on the news and were brainwashed in their naivity to condemn the military for deploying such ungodly creations of childrens' death and destruction and suffering! The children!

If WP faces this type of opposition in use against the very terrorists that 9/1/01 and a dozen other attacks against Americans were responsible for, I just can't see ANY type of weapon with NUCLEAR on it would ever see action unless we were about to be wiped off the face of the planet and a military coup happened.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:16:06 AM EST
We do have nukes for B-52's. I'm sure that Stealth bombers have nukes up their sleeves also.

But I agree that we probably won't be using them on Iran any time soon......
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:16:12 AM EST
www.liveleak.com/view?i=9b4_1172264348


why is this never on our nightly news?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:20:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
www.liveleak.com/view?i=9b4_1172264348


why is this never on our nightly news?

If it has to be explained to ya..............
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:28:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
www.liveleak.com/view?i=9b4_1172264348


why is this never on our nightly news?


Because reporting the truth is an outdated concept in the world of journalism. It doesn't further the political objectives of the liberal media outlets.

Why is any white on black crime a hate crime, but black on white crime goes virtually unheard?

Why are the horrors of war reported, while the good we've done for the Iraqi people never recieves a single mention?

Why is Hillary Clinton and Anna Nichole Smith on the news every 5 minutes, but a soldier's death is shown only to discuss the evil president killing our babies in his blood lust for oil in a fabricated justification for war?

Why was it OK for a cheating, lying piece of shit Bill Clinton called honorable, while Anne Coulter is the evil of American opinion?

Why are guns evil but the criminals who used them are simply misunderstood and had a bad childhood?



Dude, this ain't the America it was some 50 years ago. The Vietnam era made certain of that, solidifying our pussification into the anals of history so our kids can be selectively taught in public schools.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:32:02 AM EST
I wish we could drop estrogen bombs, or something on ROP countries & turn all the men into fucking Dixie Chick look-alikes.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:32:58 AM EST
Some people dont realize that tacitcal nukes arent the city destryoing mushroom cloud producing monsters of the last generation. Most tactical nukes are what, .2-.3 kiloton at he most? Just the right size for blowing up a bunker or a large bridge etcetc. Thats why thier called TACTICAL nukes. I can very easily see dubya sliping in a few of those on a strike and never saying a peep. Remember, the employment of nuclear weapons carries the strongest security cleanreces on earth. I dont think some dumbass staffer is gonna leak it.

SW
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 12:54:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
You know, the stuff we're going to use on iran shorty.

last pics of nukes i've seen are MIRVs and fat man and little boy, what do the current tactical nukes look like?

Whats normally on aircraft carriers?


First use of nukes over there will be under a US carrier battle group from a junk-box Soviet sub sitting on the bottom, with the crew hollering "Allahu akbar".
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:21:42 AM EST

Originally Posted By Tromatic:

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
You know, the stuff we're going to use on iran shorty.

last pics of nukes i've seen are MIRVs and fat man and little boy, what do the current tactical nukes look like?

Whats normally on aircraft carriers?


First use of nukes over there will be under a US carrier battle group from a junk-box Soviet sub sitting on the bottom, with the crew hollering "Allahu akbar".




Sadly I fear that you're correct.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:35:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 1:36:22 AM EST by Desert_AIP]

Originally Posted By DeltaAir423:

Originally Posted By Tromatic:

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
You know, the stuff we're going to use on iran shorty.

last pics of nukes i've seen are MIRVs and fat man and little boy, what do the current tactical nukes look like?

Whats normally on aircraft carriers?


First use of nukes over there will be under a US carrier battle group from a junk-box Soviet sub sitting on the bottom, with the crew hollering "Allahu akbar".



Sadly I fear that you're correct.



I wouldn't exactly call the Iranians "proficient" submariners...
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:41:32 AM EST

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
You know, the stuff we're going to use on iran shorty.

last pics of nukes i've seen are MIRVs and fat man and little boy, what do the current tactical nukes look like?

Whats normally on aircraft carriers?


Why keep nukes on an aircraft carrier when the USAF will deliver, unnanounced, to any address in Iran in less than 24 hours?

"The B2-When it Absolutely, Positively HAS to be destroyed overnight"
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 1:47:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By richardh247:
It's a double-edged sword, though, as we haven't the military assets to launch convential war against them. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. I don't have any answers, which is why no one bothered to put me in charge.



Don't bullshit yourself bro, We have more capability in the ME right now than you could possibly imagine. All that is needed is to take the gloves off, wind 'em up and point them in the right direction. For cripe's sake, look at what a few Apaches and A-10's did on the highway of death fifteen years ago... I'm not talking about two occupations but if we wanted to destroy every ounce of military capability the Iranians have all, the only thing they owuld be able to do is cry about it. Will they get a lucky hit or two in? Sure, as did the Iraqis, but after the dust settled the Iranis wouldn't be able to defeat a pack of Cub Scouts when we get done with them.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:01:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By richardh247:
It's a double-edged sword, though, as we haven't the military assets to launch convential war against them. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. I don't have any answers, which is why no one bothered to put me in charge.



Don't bullshit yourself bro, We have more capability in the ME right now than you could possibly imagine. All that is needed is to take the gloves off, wind 'em up and point them in the right direction. For cripe's sake, look at what a few Apaches and A-10's did on the highway of death fifteen years ago... I'm not talking about two occupations but if we wanted to destroy every ounce of military capability the Iranians have all, the only thing they owuld be able to do is cry about it. Will they get a lucky hit or two in? Sure, as did the Iraqis, but after the dust settled the Iranis wouldn't be able to defeat a pack of Cub Scouts when we get done with them.


But the part in red is where I'm coming from.

I have absolutely no doubt we have the firepower, even in conventional packages, to take Iran back to mud huts and rocks for kitchen appliances.

The problem is that the military of the United States will never get congressional authorization to take the proverbial gloves off, especially now that our congress consists of a bunch of pacifistic, humanitarian weenies. Don't bullshit yourself, bro: You give congress a little time, and we'll see the same military cutbacks we did when Klinton was calling the shots. Hell, they have ALREADY fought the funding to push us forward in the sandbox and expedite our boys home. Their whole philosophy revolves around "run, Forest! Run!"

No, they'll want to negotiate, make pacts, threaten trade embargoes, talk some more, ask the UN what to do, make polls for opinions, enlist the media, and then talk some more. We have the elite force in the world, and it is sandbagged in bunkers where PMCS and cutbacks are the order of the day, our standards flying in the rear.

Nothing would make me happier than to be alive the day the military tells the government to go fuck itself and takes this country back to the leadership role we once dominated.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:23:07 AM EST


Canned sunshine looks like a metal cone.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:40:54 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 3:00:07 AM EST by LWilde]

Originally Posted By SiliconWolverine:
Some people dont realize that tacitcal nukes arent the city destryoing mushroom cloud producing monsters of the last generation. Most tactical nukes are what, .2-.3 kiloton at he most? Just the right size for blowing up a bunker or a large bridge etcetc. Thats why thier called TACTICAL nukes. I can very easily see dubya sliping in a few of those on a strike and never saying a peep. Remember, the employment of nuclear weapons carries the strongest security cleanreces on earth. I dont think some dumbass staffer is gonna leak it.

SW


Not quite. A tactical nuke is USUALLY smaller that a "strategic" nuke. The term usually refers to the target set, not the size of the weapon. Tactical nukes are used on the battlefield to determine the outcome of a battle. Strategic nukes are used to destroy the enemy's ability to wage a [nuclear] war. Because of the mission of the latter, strategic weapons are generally much larger in yield and employed on delivery systems designed to hit cities, industrial targets, major military bases and to create EMP. A tactical weapon might be on a depth charge or say an AAW missile...or maybe a Tomahawk.

Tactical nukes have been known to exceed 100kt which is in the usual strategic nuke range. Many weapons such as the B61 bomb have "dial-a-yield" capabilities and can be used as either a strategic or tactical weapon. IIRC, certain models of the B61 can deliver between 5 and 345kt...a big delta.

And just for the record, it is impossible for "Dubya" or any other person to simply, "...slip in a couple of those on a strike." There are security systems in place now that prevent such action by a president. He has nuclear release authority...but that does NOT permit him to simply nuke anyone he wishes to. It requires the actions of others.

This is a B57 tactical, multimission nuke. It can even be employed as a depth bomb against subs. It is a single stage, boosted fission bomb.


This is a B61 bomb. It can be used as either a strategic or tactical weapon. It is a dual stage, boosted thermonuclear (Fission-fusion, "H"-bomb) weapon that can by used as a low yield (300tons) tactical bomb simply by disabling the second stage. The physics package is the rounded-nose section to the left front of the bomb. Not very big is it?


This is a B83 thermonuclear strategic weapon.

The phsics package is the large section behind the ogive nose.
The parachute pack is in the back. The power, arming and fusing section is between the warhead and the parachute section.

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:51:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By LWilde:

Originally Posted By SiliconWolverine:
Some people dont realize that tacitcal nukes arent the city destryoing mushroom cloud producing monsters of the last generation. Most tactical nukes are what, .2-.3 kiloton at he most? Just the right size for blowing up a bunker or a large bridge etcetc. Thats why thier called TACTICAL nukes. I can very easily see dubya sliping in a few of those on a strike and never saying a peep. Remember, the employment of nuclear weapons carries the strongest security cleanreces on earth. I dont think some dumbass staffer is gonna leak it.

SW


Not quite. A tactical nuke is USUALLY smaller that a "strategic" nuke. The term usually refers to the target set, not the size of the weapon. Tactical nukes are used on the battlefield to determine the outcome of a battle. Strategic nukes are used to destroy the enemy's ability to wage a [nuclear] war. Because of the mission of the latter, strategic weapons are generally much larger in yield and employed on delivery systems designed to hit cities, industrial targets, major military bases and to create EMP. A tactical weapon might be on a depth charge or say an AAW missile...or maybe a Tomahawk.

Tactical nukes have been known to exceed 100kt which is in the usual strategic nuke range. Many weapons such as the B61 bomb have "dial-a-yield" capabilities and can be used as either a strategic or tactical weapon. IIRC, certain models of the B61 can deliver between 5 and 345kt...a big delta.

And just for the record, it is impossible for "Dubya" or any other person to simply, "...slip in a couple of those on a strike." There are security systems in place now that prevent such action by a president. He has nuclear release authority...but that does NOT permit him to simply nuke anyone he wishes to. It requires the actions of others.


Point taken on yield and usage.

I thought it was ther perogative of the president as to the use and autorization of nuclear weapons, not a group or people. I was my understanding that the president as the commander in chief (and thus all military perssonell are under his direct command) could order the use of nuclear weapons in cases that dictated thier need.

As to the "slip it in" comment, I meant he could order them to laid in with a cover of conventional percision weapons or cruise missles in a wide spread strike and nobody would be any the wiser about it. As to residual radiation, "well i guess he DID have nuclear materials ther afterall". The definition of plausible deniability.

SW
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:02:12 AM EST

Originally Posted By SiliconWolverine:

Originally Posted By LWilde:

Originally Posted By SiliconWolverine:
Some people dont realize that tacitcal nukes arent the city destryoing mushroom cloud producing monsters of the last generation. Most tactical nukes are what, .2-.3 kiloton at he most? Just the right size for blowing up a bunker or a large bridge etcetc. Thats why thier called TACTICAL nukes. I can very easily see dubya sliping in a few of those on a strike and never saying a peep. Remember, the employment of nuclear weapons carries the strongest security cleanreces on earth. I dont think some dumbass staffer is gonna leak it.

SW


Not quite. A tactical nuke is USUALLY smaller that a "strategic" nuke. The term usually refers to the target set, not the size of the weapon. Tactical nukes are used on the battlefield to determine the outcome of a battle. Strategic nukes are used to destroy the enemy's ability to wage a [nuclear] war. Because of the mission of the latter, strategic weapons are generally much larger in yield and employed on delivery systems designed to hit cities, industrial targets, major military bases and to create EMP. A tactical weapon might be on a depth charge or say an AAW missile...or maybe a Tomahawk.

Tactical nukes have been known to exceed 100kt which is in the usual strategic nuke range. Many weapons such as the B61 bomb have "dial-a-yield" capabilities and can be used as either a strategic or tactical weapon. IIRC, certain models of the B61 can deliver between 5 and 345kt...a big delta.

And just for the record, it is impossible for "Dubya" or any other person to simply, "...slip in a couple of those on a strike." There are security systems in place now that prevent such action by a president. He has nuclear release authority...but that does NOT permit him to simply nuke anyone he wishes to. It requires the actions of others.


Point taken on yield and usage.

I thought it was ther perogative of the president as to the use and autorization of nuclear weapons, not a group or people. I was my understanding that the president as the commander in chief (and thus all military perssonell are under his direct command) could order the use of nuclear weapons in cases that dictated thier need.

As to the "slip it in" comment, I meant he could order them to laid in with a cover of conventional percision weapons or cruise missles in a wide spread strike and nobody would be any the wiser about it. As to residual radiation, "well i guess he DID have nuclear materials ther afterall". The definition of plausible deniability.

SW


No...the pres can't go it alone. We have a very good system in place to prevent a crazy at ANY level of command from starting his/her own nuclear war.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:23:05 AM EST

Originally Posted By Desert_AIP:

Originally Posted By DeltaAir423:

Originally Posted By Tromatic:

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
You know, the stuff we're going to use on iran shorty.

last pics of nukes i've seen are MIRVs and fat man and little boy, what do the current tactical nukes look like?

Whats normally on aircraft carriers?


First use of nukes over there will be under a US carrier battle group from a junk-box Soviet sub sitting on the bottom, with the crew hollering "Allahu akbar".



Sadly I fear that you're correct.



I wouldn't exactly call the Iranians "proficient" submariners...



They may not be proficent submariners, but however all they need to do is bottom a small D/E boat with a charge on board in the Hormuz Straight, and have a sub capitan that has the mentality of a suicide bomber and you have a very bad situation on board.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:44:25 AM EST
I'm sure we have Naval capabilities that are beyond your wildest imagination.

My Dad was a Torpedomans Mate when he was on the USS Bennington '58-'62.
He didn't disclose much about what his job was, other than that he worked with the electronics on NUCLEAR torpedos. Those torpedos apparently were programmable and were able to launch, perform special patterns at various depths and detonate if needed. I seem to remember him telling me they would go out some distance and start circling... then they would go up/down at set depths in a corkscrew pattern for Anti-sub operations.
I have a picture he took of the entrance to his room which was guarded 24/7. Only he and a handfull of men were allowed past the armed guard.
The guard was armed with a Thomson subgun BTW.

If we already had that type of capability that long ago... Just imagine what actually lies behind guarded doors nowadays.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 7:23:32 AM EST
Thanks for the pics!!!

What about nuclear bunker busters?



I think that if we don't act (we're obviously gearing up for it or some sort of major conflict out there) Israel WILL. Simply because Israel's existence is dependent on whether or not Iran gets nuclear capability. Maybe all of our military build up out there is to support Israeli military action, and provided defense for any retaliation? I'm certainly not a military expert, so just a thought.

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 8:31:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By richardh247:
Carriers don't carry nukes anymore. They were outlawed for magazine storage during the reagan administration, IIRC.


Outlawed?
Nukes on carriers were not outlawed.
It's been rumored that the nukes were removed from carriers after the fall of the Soviet Union.

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 8:34:04 AM EST

Davy Crockett Nuclear Bazooka
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 8:36:37 AM EST
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 9:42:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By richardh247:

Originally Posted By TheOtherDave:

Originally Posted By richardh247:
It's a double-edged sword, though, as we haven't the military assets to launch convential war against them. Damned if we do, damned if we don't. I don't have any answers, which is why no one bothered to put me in charge.



Don't bullshit yourself bro, We have more capability in the ME right now than you could possibly imagine. All that is needed is to take the gloves off, wind 'em up and point them in the right direction. For cripe's sake, look at what a few Apaches and A-10's did on the highway of death fifteen years ago... I'm not talking about two occupations but if we wanted to destroy every ounce of military capability the Iranians have all, the only thing they owuld be able to do is cry about it. Will they get a lucky hit or two in? Sure, as did the Iraqis, but after the dust settled the Iranis wouldn't be able to defeat a pack of Cub Scouts when we get done with them.


But the part in red is where I'm coming from.

I have absolutely no doubt we have the firepower, even in conventional packages, to take Iran back to mud huts and rocks for kitchen appliances.

The problem is that the military of the United States will never get congressional authorization to take the proverbial gloves off, especially now that our congress consists of a bunch of pacifistic, humanitarian weenies. Don't bullshit yourself, bro: You give congress a little time, and we'll see the same military cutbacks we did when Klinton was calling the shots. Hell, they have ALREADY fought the funding to push us forward in the sandbox and expedite our boys home. Their whole philosophy revolves around "run, Forest! Run!"

No, they'll want to negotiate, make pacts, threaten trade embargoes, talk some more, ask the UN what to do, make polls for opinions, enlist the media, and then talk some more. We have the elite force in the world, and it is sandbagged in bunkers where PMCS and cutbacks are the order of the day, our standards flying in the rear.

Nothing would make me happier than to be alive the day the military tells the government to go fuck itself and takes this country back to the leadership role we once dominated.


Sadly, I would have to agree. The age of "Total War", at least as far as the U.S. is concerned, is over... and our enemies know this. This is why they call us a "paper tiger".

Personally, I have been against the "nation building" aspect of the Iraq war since it started. The U.S. military is just that, a military force. Their mission is to protect this country, by killing the enemy and destroying his ability to fight. What the military ISN'T, is a large group of heavily armed urban planners that can be sent out into the world to fix the problems of pathetically dysfunctional societies in foreign lands.

You don't hammer a nail with a microscope and you don't split an atom with a screwdriver. If you aren't using the right tool for the job, don't be surprised when the job doesn't get done.

Unfortunately, in the present situation, we aren't just wasting time, money and effort. We are wasting the lives of some of the bravest and most honorable among us.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 9:50:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 9:54:45 AM EST by Darkstar117]
Here is some pics from tech school.

Tactical Nukage.



Link Posted: 2/24/2007 9:56:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By richardh247:

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:

Originally Posted By richardh247:

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
You know, the stuff we're going to use on iran shorty.

last pics of nukes i've seen are MIRVs and fat man and little boy, what do the current tactical nukes look like?

Whats normally on aircraft carriers?


Carriers don't carry nukes anymore. They were outlawed for magazine storage during the reagan administration, IIRC.

Don't delude yourself. No way in hell will America nuke Iran, or anyone else for that matter.



you don't think we might see some nuclear bunker busters here shortly ?


Hadn't thought about it. Very interesting perspective!

Still, the fact is that congress decides these things, and the mere mention of "nuke" sends demorats scurrying to human rights groups and ABC news to outcry the inhumanity.

Look at the controversy of certain types of convential weapons we've employed in Iraq and Afghanistan. People were aghast to find that WP was used, and Americans turned on the news and were brainwashed in their naivity to condemn the military for deploying such ungodly creations of childrens' death and destruction and suffering! The children!

If WP faces this type of opposition in use against the very terrorists that 9/1/01 and a dozen other attacks against Americans were responsible for, I just can't see ANY type of weapon with NUCLEAR on it would ever see action unless we were about to be wiped off the face of the planet and a military coup happened.


Excuse my ignorance, but what is WP?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 10:00:09 AM EST
WP = White Phosphorus

Used for "marking targets".
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 10:00:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By shop_rat45:
Excuse my ignorance, but what is WP?

White Phosphorous.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 10:04:25 AM EST
im gonna go out on a limb here and say that the first country to put bombs, bullets, etc, on a U.S. city or territory will get nuked.

this would probably also depend on the President at the time as well.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 10:27:19 AM EST
[Last Edit: 2/25/2007 1:03:19 AM EST by crazyhorse705]
d
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:22:31 PM EST

Originally Posted By DeltaAir423: They may not be proficent submariners, but however all they need to do is bottom a small D/E boat with a charge on board in the Hormuz Straight, and have a sub capitan that has the mentality of a suicide bomber and you have a very bad situation on board.
Actually, if the islamic iranian navy sets off a nuke at the bottom of the Strait of Hormuz, it might deepen the channel thus making it easier to navigate! You guys are too pessimistic, look at the sunny side to everything.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:25:16 PM EST

Originally Posted By 580DBF: WP = White Phosphorus Used for "marking targets".
I thought it was used for "illuminating" the target. Definitely brightens their day!
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:27:11 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 2:29:19 PM EST by theFatAirsoftKid47]

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:

Originally Posted By theFatAirsoftKid47:
im gonna go out on a limb here and say that the first country to put bombs, bullets, etc, on a U.S. city or territory will get nuked.

this would probably also depend on the President at the time as well.



Ok i got 2 cities and a field we still did not do a damn thing. Nuke wise that is.

this is not the 40's anymore wish it wise we could have the BALLS to finish it once and for all.


well if a 757 isn't a bomb then i don't know what is. now times that by 4 and you have 9/11 4 planes,

16 high jacking mother fuckers. and close to 3,000 us civilians KILLED.

we did not nuke any one for that what makes you think we will if iran gets frisky.



thats terror not an act of hostility from another government.

big differnce.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:31:27 PM EST
We won't go nuclear unless a a country's government nukes us first. Our .gov has lost the fortitude to get anything done.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:35:45 PM EST
All those pictures from above ground level...

Link Posted: 2/24/2007 2:51:08 PM EST
We don't need Nukes anymore. We now have a cool little thing called anti-matter. Makes a nuke look like a firecracker.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:17:11 PM EST
Nukes don't bother me as much as Bio-Weapons. We wouldn't even know we had been hit for days, maybe weeks and then how do we tell where it came from?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:18:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By KlubMarcus:
www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/NC/mirv/mirv.gif

Canned sunshine looks like a metal cone.


It's a snow-cone machine
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:27:35 PM EST

Originally Posted By crazyhorse705:

Originally Posted By theFatAirsoftKid47:
im gonna go out on a limb here and say that the first country to put bombs, bullets, etc, on a U.S. city or territory will get nuked.

this would probably also depend on the President at the time as well.



Ok i got 2 cities and a field we still did not do a damn thing. Nuke wise that is.


No country attacked us.
A non-state actor did.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:29:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:
It's a snow-cone machine


No, its an expresso maker.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:34:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By stoner63a:

Originally Posted By Zakk_Wylde_470:
It's a snow-cone machine
No, its an expresso maker.
Is it a water heater?
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 3:35:36 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 3:36:50 PM EST by Andras]
This may be of interest, a list with yields of all US nuclear devices.

nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Weapons/Allbombs.html
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 4:53:21 PM EST
[Last Edit: 2/24/2007 4:54:21 PM EST by prk]
/
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:06:59 PM EST

Originally Posted By Desert_AIP:

Originally Posted By DeltaAir423:

Originally Posted By Tromatic:

Originally Posted By HommieDaKlown:
You know, the stuff we're going to use on iran shorty.

last pics of nukes i've seen are MIRVs and fat man and little boy, what do the current tactical nukes look like?

Whats normally on aircraft carriers?


First use of nukes over there will be under a US carrier battle group from a junk-box Soviet sub sitting on the bottom, with the crew hollering "Allahu akbar".



Sadly I fear that you're correct.



I wouldn't exactly call the Iranians "proficient" submariners...


One does not need to be proficient to sink a boat once and blow it up when a carrier goes over.

The Soviets wouldn't be called proficient if you based proficiency on the avoidance of accidents. We lost two boats, they've lost nearly a dozen. We've had zero nuclear accidents, "power excursion" and "uncontrolled startup" are daily use phrases for their crews. All that said, they would have put a serious hurtin' on us had a war broken out.



On topic, we won't use nukes unless it's a MAD scenario.
Link Posted: 2/24/2007 5:10:15 PM EST
i still stand by my statement any country with the balls to "bring it" to us will see how we "bring it".

remember where nukes were first used and why. they end nasty wars quickly.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top