User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 3:20:59 PM EDT
[#1]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 3:27:29 PM EDT
[#2]
Can't see using the trump card right off the bat.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 3:27:40 PM EDT
[#3]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 3:35:49 PM EDT
[#4]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 3:40:55 PM EDT
[#5]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 3:53:00 PM EDT
[#6]
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! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 3:54:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Why wait? I can think of a few reasons:
We only have a finite number of tactical nukes. There would be danger of contamination to our troops who WILL have to be on the ground at some point. Ambiguity of targeting info may mitigate against the use of a nuke as opposed to conv. munitions. The THREAT of using our nukes MAY deter the opposition from using nukes/chem/bio should they have them. Sort of a nuclear "Fleet In Being" concept. Sometimes the threat is perceived to be worse than the reality actually is. Finally, use of nukes unprovoked by the use of chem/nuke/bio agents on the other side may cause a wavering of support among some of our "Allies". We cannot fight the entire world at once. We need the willing cooperation of quite a few nations to pull this off smartly. Of course, given chem/nuke/bio attack by the other side, we go nuke. Instantly and massively. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 4:25:57 PM EDT
[#8]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 4:44:29 PM EDT
[#9]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 4:49:13 PM EDT
[#10]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 4:52:18 PM EDT
[#11]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 4:57:59 PM EDT
[#12]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 5:23:02 PM EDT
[#13]
I would use some of our Tactical Nukes right away and turn the desert where his Terrorist training camps are into a big glowing nightmare... then we can slam the hell out of the Taliban and leave the memory of annihilation fresh on the minds of Terrorists...
[edsr-1] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 5:40:33 PM EDT
[#14]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 5:42:44 PM EDT
[#15]
They will call it
"the Wasteland formerly known as Afganistan. Del [heavy] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 5:48:52 PM EDT
[#16]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 7:29:30 PM EDT
[#17]
Dumb idea!
Waterdog |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 7:53:51 PM EDT
[#18]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 8:18:16 PM EDT
[#19]
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.....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 11:41:27 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: 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..... 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2001 11:52:34 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: especially the afghans, since we will no doubt pay for the re-hab after we anialate thier landscape to our satisfaction......[grenade] 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 1:56:15 AM EDT
[#22]
There are classrooms of children in the city of Kabul whose blood you demand in repayment. Therefore you are Pagan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 2:17:52 AM EDT
[#23]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 2:33:41 AM EDT
[#24]
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). |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 2:39:27 AM EDT
[#25]
PAGAN- People Against Goodness And Normalcy?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 2:45:46 AM EDT
[#26]
Hielo, please show me how this disaster is in any way equivalent to the detonation of a tac nuke.
Even a small nuke would unleash far more energy than what has happened. Then, of course, there's the radiation and fallout. Think NYC would be populated in the aftermath of a tac nuke strike? Hell, NO. The city would be evacuated within hours. I don't minimize for a second the enormity of the disaster that happened at the WTC, but a nuke, even a small tac nuke would be ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE more destructive and disruptive. The PHYSICS of the two events don't begin to compare. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 2:55:02 AM EDT
[#27]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 3:01:06 AM EDT
[#28]
As I said, no real comparison.
The permanently blinded and the fatally flash-burned ALONE in a nuke strike would likely FAR outnumber the rescue workers killed so far. No comparison. BTW, a 1KT tac nuke is probably the SMALLEST in inventory. Most are considerably larger in Yield. No comparison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 3:08:18 AM EDT
[#29]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 3:15:10 AM EDT
[#30]
Watch your words, Hielo. I don't care for the implications of that "blind eye" comment.
I agree that retaliation is required. Don't impugn me because I'm refuting your equivalence argument. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 4:08:17 AM EDT
[#31]
Then refute it with something other than "feelings". A kiloton of explosives is a kiloton. No other way around it.
If not now, when? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 4:19:04 AM EDT
[#32]
Show me the collateral damage caused by radiation and flashburns in the WTC disaster.
Show me the evacuation caused by fallout. Show me the calculations equating the effects of the fuel and plane being the equivalent to the effects of the average yield tac nuke. As I said, no REAL comparison. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 4:36:00 AM EDT
[#33]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 5:06:13 AM EDT
[#34]
Whether apples to oranges or not, You, Hielo, made the original comparison/equivalence statement. I'm just illustrating that you are wrong.
No, my argument is that the current disaster is far less than a tac nuke would leave behind. To use your analogy, it's like saying what we have now, say 20,000 dead, is less than 1,000,000 dead and countless others injured from radiation. As to GEN Swartzkopf, he's a fine general and leader, but no physicist. I challenge YOU, since you made the original comparison, to provide the numbers to back up your claim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 5:15:35 AM EDT
[#35]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 5:16:12 AM EDT
[#36]
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 5:21:19 AM EDT
[#37]
The use of nukes would solve nothing. It would just be TEOTWAWKI.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 6:11:00 AM EDT
[#38]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 7:19:32 AM EDT
[#39]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 7:50:23 AM EDT
[#40]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 8:05:52 AM EDT
[#41]
How many people died in the fire bombing of Dresden?
How many people died in Hiroshima? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 8:12:43 AM EDT
[#42]
In a related vein, ask the question: How many bombs used at Dresden versus how many used at Hiroshima? That ought to illustrate the qualitative difference between nukes and conv. explosives. Thanks for the idea, Hielo.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 8:18:14 AM EDT
[#43]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 2:48:43 PM EDT
[#44]
Your welcome Raf.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 3:31:37 PM EDT
[#45]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 3:46:15 PM EDT
[#46]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 3:54:59 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: 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. [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] |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 4:02:38 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: 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'. 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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 4:05:31 PM EDT
[#49]
the russains nuclear arsenal is over estimated. they have not been maintained for at least 20 years
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2001 4:08:50 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Quoted: 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'. 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 Yup. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
