Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 9/15/2001 3:09:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2001 3:08:43 PM EDT by hielo]
[url]http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010914-87723680.htm[/url] Whoa!
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 3:20:59 PM EDT
A few wisely targeted tactical nukes could produce a very desirable effect, without exposing the civies to excessive radiation. For instance, if you know the guy is hiding in a fairly remote area, one could bombard the area with nukes, and be pretty sure that the guy will suffer radiation poisoning. But the job of locating the camps afterwards would be a little dangerous. I would much prefer nukes be used as a last resort, for instance, to destroy underground bunkers that you cannot get at with conventional munitions.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 3:27:29 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 3:27:40 PM EDT
Vietnam vets I know say that you really haven't lived until you've seen an Arc Light (B-52) strike from about 20 miles away at sunset; reportedly an absolutely unbelievable sight. Nuclear weapons may do the job, but conventional payloads are so much more satisfying.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 3:35:49 PM EDT
Damn I don't know what to say. I thought it may come to this but raf is right not right off of the bat
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 3:40:55 PM EDT
Why wait, other than using up lots of convetional ordance, which would help our economy, there is no plausible reason not to go nuclear right off the bat. We have been attacked, 20,000 of our citizens may be dead. Are we all such pansies that we can no longer retaliate with everythign we have?
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 3:53:00 PM EDT
hielo, Take comfort in the fact that although these cowardly bastards started this, it will be us that finishes it, and I believe that we will not stop until all traces of them are purged from the face of the earth!
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 3:54:50 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 4:25:57 PM EDT
Once Bin Laden has been located within a given 5 mile area they will be saving one of three tactical nukes to take him out.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 4:44:29 PM EDT
I can think of a few GOOD reasons not to use nuclear weapons: China and Pakistan. Both these countries have nuclear weapons and both could easily and willingly ally themselves with Afganistan. I know that Pakistan has agreed to close the boarder but if we set off a nuclear detonation so close to their country their people may rise up in disgust and sway the gov't to the other side. Besides the US has pledged that we will only use our nukes as a defensive last resort.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 4:49:13 PM EDT
If these terrorist had nuclear weapons at their disposal, they would not have hesitated to nuke New York City. Detonating a tactical nuke in the desert would send a very strong message, that much is certain. Does anybody know what kind of power and/or capabilities tactical nukes have?
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 4:52:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Sitting Bull: Vietnam vets I know say that you really haven't lived until you've seen an Arc Light (B-52) strike from about 20 miles away at sunset; reportedly an absolutely unbelievable sight. Nuclear weapons may do the job, but conventional payloads are so much more satisfying.
View Quote
And, if we use nukes, the world that is in our corner right now, will turn against for sure.....conventional will help EVERYBODY`S economy, especially the afghans, since we will no doubt pay for the re-hab after we anialate thier landscape to our satisfaction......[grenade]
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 4:57:59 PM EDT
Personally, I would nuke the place on the way out. Kind of like a massive "take a dump on the ashes" approach. NEXT? ALSO, I am of the oppinion that we should already be at war with China. If this is what it takes so be it. Planerench out.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 5:23:02 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 5:40:33 PM EDT
Not meant as a flame, but who cares if we have a "finite" ammount of nukes... we can make them faster, better, and far more destructive than anyone else on the planet. We should turn all of that sand into glass! Tyler
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 5:42:44 PM EDT
They will call it "the Wasteland formerly known as Afganistan. Del [heavy]
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 5:48:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/15/2001 5:48:40 PM EDT by Ulysse_Nardin_1846]
Can the satellites capture the images from space when it happens? That would make a good wallpaper bmp. Hell, I never wanted to visit Afghanistan anyways.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 7:29:30 PM EDT
Dumb idea! Waterdog
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 7:53:51 PM EDT
Pakistan is only capable of putting a nuke on a boat and shipping it here, China has reported 20 delivery devices capable of reaching the USA. Even so to discuss this idea certifies that your anger is larger than your religion. There are classrooms of children in the city of Kabul whose blood you demand in repayment. Therefore you are Pagan. I think it would be unwise to awaken the sleeping bear to the north as Hitler did, to his regret. Its not thirty kids with slingshots to the north, its the Russians. They fought Hitler alone until June 1944 and were closing in on Europe when we thought it might be wise to join the fight and guard our own interests. They've had the bomb since 1948 and have detonated the largest thermonuclear warhead ever(56 megatons)in the history of the world.They have claimed to possess 12,000 nuclear warheads. If we detonate over Afghanistan and the breeze changes, then we will surely anger them. Don't underestimate this threat. The Russians want peace, and are in the midst of very prosperous times, but the only way they have ever been able to communicate to the USA that our foreign policy of Manifest Destiny in Asia is not welcome is to demand peace in front of a competent nuclear threat. A tactical nuke would upset the balance that we now have.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 8:18:16 PM EDT
Yeah!! Let's drop a few nuclear weapons on them to show everyone you don't fuck with the U.S. And where does that lead? Well, there are a whole bunch of people in that corner of the world who are not really stable anyhow. Some we know have the bomb, as in Pakistan, India, neither of which has any business with one, possibly Iran, another wild bunch. Israel has them for sure but won't admit it. We nuke Afghanistan, someone carries a backpack into Tel Aviv and New York, Israel retaliates, we retaliate, China gets nervous and throws in their couple dozen for good measure, and the world as we know it is no more. Noone here wants this. Look at old film footage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those bombs were not even close in the yields that we have now. I have read or heard that even the backpack weapons they have now have got the punch to take out a good 10 square blocks or more of a major city. I realize everyone here is pissed, but we can't just start something like this. A bio/chemical attack would give me good cause to use them, but once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle.....
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 11:41:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By rigger: Yeah!! Let's drop a few nuclear weapons on them to show everyone you don't fuck with the U.S. And where does that lead? Well, there are a whole bunch of people in that corner of the world who are not really stable anyhow. Some we know have the bomb, as in Pakistan, India, neither of which has any business with one, possibly Iran, another wild bunch. Israel has them for sure but won't admit it. We nuke Afghanistan, someone carries a backpack into Tel Aviv and New York, Israel retaliates, we retaliate, China gets nervous and throws in their couple dozen for good measure, and the world as we know it is no more. Noone here wants this. Look at old film footage of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those bombs were not even close in the yields that we have now. I have read or heard that even the backpack weapons they have now have got the punch to take out a good 10 square blocks or more of a major city. I realize everyone here is pissed, but we can't just start something like this. A bio/chemical attack would give me good cause to use them, but once the nuclear genie is out of the bottle.....
View Quote
Ya, I guess the terrorists won't ever dream of using a briefcase nuke here unless they get nuked first. They don't hate the US that much.
Link Posted: 9/15/2001 11:52:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By black-gun: especially the afghans, since we will no doubt pay for the re-hab after we anialate thier landscape to our satisfaction......[grenade]
View Quote
Not a flame dude, but...the Russians already anialated their landscape and destroyed their economy, schools, farms, etc. I think if the Afgans themselves had any resources, they would try to rebel against the Taliban who oppress them. C6
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 1:56:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 9/16/2001 1:57:13 AM EDT by MelonPopper-M1A]
There are classrooms of children in the city of Kabul whose blood you demand in repayment. Therefore you are Pagan.
View Quote
There were, and are, children in NYC, too. Not to mention the fact that in WW2, we bombed the piss out of German and Japanese cities. Our reason? They were the ones who made civilian populations targets. I would say that once Afghanistan is proven to have aided in this attack, either before or after the fact, they will have fullfilled this requirement. edited to ask: Since when is Russia in the midst of "very prosperous times?"
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 2:17:52 AM EDT
First we make damn sure we know who and where. Then we ask politely for them to surrender. If they don't we park a couple of SSBN's in the nearest ocean, call CNN to tape it, and launch a couple Trident SLBM's. Wipe them from the face of the earth. Leave nothing standing. Let only history remember their names. Not one more American death. It's called war. You don't fuck around. They attacked us first. We have the weapons to end it. Let us teach them the meaning of terror. When the shooting is over I don't want the USA to spend one thin dime to help rebuild the country that gets it. No aid, no Marshall plan, nothing but a few posts and some yellow HAZMAT signs to warn people off.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 2:33:41 AM EDT
People, the terrorists already escalated this to nuclear, by using a 1 kiloton device on our citizens. Yup, using the planelaod of women and children was equivalent to dropping a 1 kiloton nuclear device, low yield? Sure, but do you think they would have tried for more if they could have? Nope, the 20,000 Americans dead cry out for a swift and final revenge, Nuclear is the best option. I am reminded of BIl Clinton, biting his upper lip and gettting all teary eyed looking into the camera and telling us, the American people that there will be swift and sure punishment of anyone who uses Chem/Bio/Nuc weapons against us, and that returibution being a single crusie missle. No thanks. Hit them hard, hit them with every single thing we have, then pick over their bones tosee if there is a need to do it to them a second or third time. (as to my being a pagan, MYOB, their kids are worth squat compared to mine and ours).
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 2:39:27 AM EDT
PAGAN- People Against Goodness And Normalcy?
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 2:45:46 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 2:55:02 AM EDT
The exploding of the plane was the equivalent of a 1 kiloton nuclear device. Look up the stats yourself. So it was a clean device, it only killed the origianl 20,000 people and no fallout (other than the ones who will die in the search and rescue ops). 1 Kiloton. Nuke them until they glow. Nuke anyone who gets in our way.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 3:01:06 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 3:08:18 AM EDT
Of course it has comparison, 1 kiloton of explosives is 1 kiloton of explosives. That the secondary effects are different are not withstanding. You may want to turn a blind eye to this for some reason, but we have been attacked by a weapon of mass destruction, and it cries out for retaliation in kind.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 3:15:10 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 4:08:17 AM EDT
Then refute it with something other than "feelings". A kiloton of explosives is a kiloton. No other way around it. If not now, when?
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 4:19:04 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 4:36:00 AM EDT
Apples to oranges, a device of mass destruction(the plane) was used to kill 20,000 Americans, it matters not ifit was chemical, biological or nuclear. Your argument is like saying, he was stabbed to death, which isn't as bad as being shot, as there is no poweder burns, mess on the wall or massive tissue trauma from the round. As to where the equivalencies, I listened to General Swartzkopf give them, you will ahve to dig them out yourself.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 5:06:13 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 5:15:35 AM EDT
No Nukes! We have the world on our side, nukes would turn world opinion. Plus we have enough capacity in conventional weapons that we should just use them to get the job done. BTW, did you see Usama Bin Laden is now denying the attack? What a wuss. At least the Palestinians and IRA takes credit.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 5:16:12 AM EDT
I think the military will hold their nuclear weapons in reserve in case the conflict escalates into the use of biological / chemical weapons by the opposing forces. During Desert Storm we threathened to go nuclear if Iraq started using these types of weapons. I don't think we are going to open the war with nuclear but I do think we may use them if they are needed, after all thats what they are there for...
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 5:21:19 AM EDT
The use of nukes would solve nothing. It would just be TEOTWAWKI.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 6:11:00 AM EDT
Not knowing when to leave well enough alone, I'll wade in here and take my licks as well. I'd be in favor of a low yield nuc in the event that the Bin Laden could be pinpointed in a specific area, or hiding in a certain cave, but as a last resort. I started a folder a while back based on the common cry I'd heard to turn Afghanistan into a parking lot. It was something of dark humor, but there is a grain of reality to it. Carpet bombing a country with nukes is not going to win us friends and influence people around the world, but a limited nuclear strike against a specific target that threatens the world is a storm we could likely weather. Look further at the likelihood that this conflict will not end with Bin Laden. Will we use nukes in more populated and developed areas to rid the world of Hezbollah? Not so easily, I predict. Nonetheless, we need to cut the head off the serpent - or at least this head off the hydra. shooter
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 7:19:32 AM EDT
Let's do some math: Each airliner was carrying about 20 tons of fuel. There were four airliners hijacked. 4 planes @ 20 tons each = 80 tons of jet fuel. The kinetic energy of the planes at impact should also be considered. Assuming that each ton of fuel had the energy content of a ton of TNT and that each plane's impact had the destructive force of 10 tons of TNT, the total force used in the attack was roughly equivalent to 120 tons of TNT. That's about one eighth of the force of a 1 kiloton nuke. Of course, the attack on the WTC was massively destructive. The energy was expended [b]inside[/b] the structures (not in the sky, as a nuclear airburst would be) and once the collapse began, the potential energy of thousands of tons of concrete and steel suspended high above the earth was released as well.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 7:50:23 AM EDT
For one, jet fuel in a full tank as a liquid doesn't explode. It burns. That's why in FAE the fuel is dispersed into a vapor and then ignited - the vapor DOES explode. The same things happen to grain silos as well. There was an explosion as the planes hit - but not the explosion of 20 tons of jet fuel - it couldn't have had the chance to vaporize completely. The real damage was caused by the remaining jet fuel burning and weakening the structural support of the WTC. Comparing the capacity of the fuel tanks in a partial explosion as being equivalent to a 1kt nuke blast isn't correct. One burns, one goes boom. Besides, and equivalent amount of FAE as a starter would be more apropos.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 8:05:52 AM EDT
How many people died in the fire bombing of Dresden? How many people died in Hiroshima?
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 8:12:43 AM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 8:18:14 AM EDT
What we have here is a failure to communicate... or a bunch of Curtis LeMay wannabes. But, what the world really needs is the second coming and for the MAN to push the reset button once again.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 2:48:43 PM EDT
Your welcome Raf.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 3:31:37 PM EDT
The question is: "What does it take to make the terrorists think twice before they crash airplanes into our country and what does it take to motivate countries to turn terrorists into pariahs?" Conventional warfare in the Gulf doesn't appear to have made a believer of Saddam. He incurred terrible losses of men and equipment, not to mention the standard of living in Iraq. He keeps on truckin'. Maybe it takes total destruction of regimes with the hope that an anti-terrorism group comes to power. What's the best way to destroy a regime? It's interesting to note that since the atomic bombs were dropped in Japan in 1945 there has been very little interest on the part of the Japanese people to support any kind of militarism. Fifty-six years and counting...a formerly fanatical people with their own suicide bombers has no stomach for any kind of warfare. Maybe the Middle Eastern states that harbor terrorist need the same kind of society-changing event experienced by Japan. The downside, IMHO, to going nuclear in an offensive mode is other members of the nuclear club may see our action as an invitation to use their own weapons in local conflicts. I think we need a new Manhattan Project that is geared to developing a weapon of mass destruction that doesn't have the radioactivity associated with it.
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 3:46:15 PM EDT
Commissioner, well said. more nuke info (posted elsewhere/ EchoFiveMike): Most of the real serious long duration fallout comes from the U238 jacket in triple stage fusion weapons with very high yields(the US doesn't field things like this anymore, B53 is being withdrawn in favor of B61-Mod11) So with that in mind, why should we care about a small(50kt-100kt) clean fusion weapon on a terr camp in the backwoods of Afganistan?
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 3:54:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By USNJoe: First we make damn sure we know who and where. Then we ask politely for them to surrender. If they don't we park a couple of SSBN's in the nearest ocean, call CNN to tape it, and launch a couple Trident SLBM's. Wipe them from the face of the earth. Leave nothing standing. Let only history remember their names. Not one more American death. It's called war. You don't fuck around. They attacked us first. We have the weapons to end it. Let us teach them the meaning of terror. When the shooting is over I don't want the USA to spend one thin dime to help rebuild the country that gets it. No aid, no Marshall plan, nothing but a few posts and some yellow HAZMAT signs to warn people off.
View Quote
[b]Right On! Right On! Right On! This is the best post in this whole thread. Terrorism won't stop until the mentality and what breeds it are gone![/b]
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 4:02:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By TheCommissioner: Conventional warfare in the Gulf doesn't appear to have made a believer of Saddam. He incurred terrible losses of men and equipment, not to mention the standard of living in Iraq. He keeps on truckin'.
View Quote
Well, we blew it by not going downtown. That would have made a change. The deserts we moved through were not population centers. Guaranteed: M1A2s in Bagdad would have changed the whole outcome Zaz
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 4:05:31 PM EDT
Link Posted: 9/16/2001 4:08:50 PM EDT
Originally Posted By zazou:
Originally Posted By TheCommissioner: Conventional warfare in the Gulf doesn't appear to have made a believer of Saddam. He incurred terrible losses of men and equipment, not to mention the standard of living in Iraq. He keeps on truckin'.
View Quote
Well, we blew it by not going downtown. That would have made a change. The deserts we moved through were not population centers. Guaranteed: M1A2s in Bagdad would have changed the whole outcome Zaz
View Quote
Yup.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top