Mini-nukes on US agenda

[Whaleboy]

According to the leaked agenda, the "Future Arsenal" panel will examine "requirements for low-yield weapons, EPW's, enhanced radiation weapons, [and] agent defeat weapons."

Leaked. Someone in the admin agrees with me!!!

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by iamlod


Because, if they carry out plans to create 'mini nukes', it'll be that much easier for our enemies (or terrosists) to steal them and use them against others.

Can you imagine a nuclear suitcase bomb?

It's also just a waste of money... I can see the use of earth penetrating bombs, but I think mini-nukes are pretty useless. Why not use the money to make modern nuclear weapons produce less fallout? Or maybe cure a few deseases? It's been a while since we cured anything (I think polio was the last one, but I'm not sure).

No one has stolen any nuclear weapons form the US yet. ANd I assume that the same security they use for regular nukes would be used for these. But these nukes would be so small that I dont think it is as bad as you say. They only be one kiloton of power in them. A truck bomb could or an airplane filled with jet fuel would be just as powerfull and easier to get.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Dissident
the bunkers reside in the cities. because they know our weaknesses.

and I support dope bombs.

but they would blow up under the ground though. Besides I think they would use them rarely if at all.

[Dom Pedro II]

First of all, a 1 kiloton bomb is 1/20th of the strength of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. And that was the first one remember... well, second I suppose if you could the test at Trinity...

Anyway, nevertheless, I think using them in combat is a dangerous precedent to set. If that is what they're planning I think its a huge mistake... but just because they're giving out scenarios doesn't mean anything. They had plans for how they were going to use tactical nukes when the Russians invaded Germany.

[Whaleboy]

Most of these mini nukes would be used for etheir taking out underground bunkers or bio or chem weapons. This sounds like a good idea to me. Its not like they are going to start using them on cities or something.

Overkill really, looking at the yield of these weapons. In my town, there is a concentrated town centre about 1 sq km, which even a 1kton blast would destroy.

[Whaleboy]

But these nukes would be so small that I dont think it is as bad as you say. They only be one kiloton of power in them. A truck bomb could or an airplane filled with jet fuel would be just as powerfull and easier to get

No, an exploding Saturn V would be just about as powerful.

but they would blow up under the ground though. Besides I think they would use them rarely if at all

Unless dug to a significant depth, presumably penetration into the ground from air or space would destroy the missile, and if successful, not penetrate far, certainly not far enough to negate explosive, let alone radioactive damage.

Besides, way to piss people off!

First of all, a 1 kiloton bomb is 1/20th of the strength

Hiroshima was 15 kilotons IIRC, but hey close enough!

[Dom Pedro II]

15... 20... still too many, right?


EDIT: Ok, Britannica says 15. So I'll go with that, but I know I read or saw 20 somewhere....

[Whaleboy]

Damn straight!

[Imran Siddiqui]

They had plans for how they were going to use tactical nukes when the Russians invaded Germany.

Very true. They have plans to invade Canada... I doubt we are going to do that.

[Whaleboy]

Very true. They have plans to invade Canada... I doubt we are going to do that

This is Bush we're talking about here!

[Dom Pedro II]

The Germans weren't very happy when they learned that the plan was to allow the Russians to take all of Germany and overrun part of France before nuking the hell out of the forces in the occupied lands and then pushing back full force and driving them back into the USSR.

[Whaleboy]

Oh great!! They wanted to ionise Europe!!! Makes sense in light of recent events I suppose.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by elijah


No, an exploding Saturn V would be just about as powerful.



Unless dug to a significant depth, presumably penetration into the ground from air or space would destroy the missile, and if successful, not penetrate far, certainly not far enough to negate explosive, let alone radioactive damage.

Besides, way to piss people off!



Hiroshima was 15 kilotons IIRC, but hey close enough!

Well I bet a airplane crashing into a high rise building full of people could kill more people than one of their mini nukes. If I were a terrorist I would look for things I could get easly that could cause mass destruction. If the World Trade center was full of people and they hit the building latter in the day more people would have died, some say around 20,000.

Nukes I think already piss people off, but I think its better to have mini nukes instead of 500 kiloton warheads armed on ICBMs aimed at all major cities.

Sorry you are right about the 1 kiloton thing, my bad.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by elijah


This is Bush we're talking about here!

Oh please give me a break. YOu guys give to much power to our president. Congress has to one etheir declare war or aprove of any millitary action that is taken. They can also cut the funding for troops in the feild. And Bush is not as horrible as you think, and with 150,000 troops in Iraq it makes it really hard to invade anther country when you have so much man power tied up in one country.

[Whaleboy]

Well I bet a airplane crashing into a high rise building full of people could kill more people than one of their mini nukes

It could, but like for like, a small nuclear device in the middle of Wall Street would have killed far more people than 9/11 given a couple more hours.

In terms of what provides a more powerful explosive, its nukes every time.

I think its better to have mini nukes instead of 500 kiloton warheads armed on ICBMs aimed at all major cities

A fair statement, however I will be contravercial and say that I would prefer having megaton warheads aimed at major cities like in the cold war, than one or all sides having mini nukes. The reason is that because of fear of MAD, no-one will use them, yet in this latter scenario, they are more inclined to use smaller devices for more localised uses.

Less people die in the first scenario, it does threaten the survival of the human race if it cocks up unlike the second, but that threat was enough of a kick in the ass to keep us alive in the cold war. Again with Dr Strangelove. In a sense, game theory shows that we were destined to survive the cold war given only massive nukes.

Also consider that one would have small nukes and large nukes. In a superpower conflict (USA, Britain, Russia, China), use of small nukes could escalate into use of larger lumps. That would, quite categorically; suck.