Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/28/2004 1:39:54 PM EST
qualify as a weapon of mass destruction?

Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:40:58 PM EST
It would qualify as a micro nuke. The kind John Kerry opposes developing to take out deep bunkers and WMD production facilities.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:41:08 PM EST
Yes that stuff would…

A logical(illogical) paradox ain’t it.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:44:04 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:47:54 PM EST
Considering that some of the missing explosives are the type used in detonation a nuke, I would say yes.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 1:57:53 PM EST
I saw a Dem talkinghead on FOX yesterday call that amount of explosives a WMD. I could have swore that the Dems had said that there were no WsMD in Iraq?
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:00:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By Pangea:
I saw a Dem talkinghead on FOX yesterday call that amount of explosives a WMD. I could have swore that the Dems had said that there were no WsMD in Iraq?



Considering all the other small WMD's we found, and they fact that the 380 tons was just a drop in the bucket to what else we've found, I have to wonder.........

well, you know.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:01:35 PM EST
lol but it isnt in iraq, its in syria!
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:03:25 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 2:06:44 PM EST by Greenhorn]

Originally Posted By Gunslinger808:
Considering that some of the missing explosives are the type used in detonation a nuke, I would say yes.



They use that "nuke detonation" for the shock factor. I'm sure it could be used for nukes. So could other explosives. As far as I know, which is pretty far, trinitroglycerol, or nitroglycerin, is the most brisant explosive there is. Dynamite has the same power, so if it is indeed the most powerful explosive, it's more powerful than the stuff in the building.

The stuff stolen is just a military explosive. It's not special. It's not like it's some kind of super-explosive.

Besides, saying that the explosive is dangerous because you can use it for nukes is like saying that you can make life because scientists have created amino acids.

EDITED TO SAY: I'm NOT saying that IF the explosives have been taken for use by the enemy, it isn't a big deal. I'm just saying that the media is acting like this specific explosive is much worse than some other kind.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:05:04 PM EST
760,000 pounds of mostly HMX, RDX, and PETN would be formidable.
Link Posted: 10/28/2004 2:15:34 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/28/2004 2:16:15 PM EST by Torf]

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:

Originally Posted By Gunslinger808:
Considering that some of the missing explosives are the type used in detonation a nuke, I would say yes.



They use that "nuke detonation" for the shock factor. I'm sure it could be used for nukes. So could other explosives. As far as I know, which is pretty far, trinitroglycerol, or nitroglycerin, is the most brisant explosive there is. Dynamite has the same power, so if it is indeed the most powerful explosive, it's more powerful than the stuff in the building.



Actually Dynamite doesn't have the same power as nitroglycerine. It is considerably weaker and far more useful. Nitroglycerine is a highly unstable high explosive. It is dangerous to handle. It is mixed with sawdust or diatomaceous earth to make dynamite.

The kinds of high explosives we are talking about are far more stable and powerful. They are in the same class of explosives as PBX and TNT, and are quite a bit more powerful than dynamite.

If 377 tons represents 1/100 the weapons cache, then that 37,770 Kilotons is roughly equal to a pretty good sized city nuke.
Top Top