Mini-nukes on US agenda

[Odin]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
He's just following a path blazed by Clinton.

I don't like Clinton either. I'm a godless commie, remember, The Dems can go to hell to.

[DinoDoc]

That comment was mainly for elijah.

[Whaleboy]

I ment that I think they are the scum of the Earth, MY OPINION, I wasn't forcing it on anyone else

I know, I assume that, but most people now assume that when you advocate something, that you in turn advocate it being forced on others .

That comment was mainly for elijah

I know, clinton sucked, but then, democrats and republicans really aren't that different. Just because I'm in love with the mans wife doesn't mean I like him! The USA could use a dose of Arthur Scargill!!!

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by elijah


In which case, nukes are the last thing they need! Small very low ton nukes will merely send the stuff up into the air, larger nukes may vapourise it, but thats far from reliable, and collateral damage will be a problem. Chemical explosives are more reliable.

Also, most terrorist munitions of various types will not be stored in one place. The logical solution would be to store them in scattered, small locations, preferably in civilian areas. Obviously, nukes are neither a useful or acceptable solution there. To use that argument is demonstrating a fundamental lack of knowledge about their enemy, and what is Sun Tzao's first rule of war?

The Argument of those who were in Favor of using such Bunkerbusters to clean NBC-Depots was AFAIR, that (if you have a Bunker which is deep enough below the surface) the upper stories of the Bunker would collapse and so seal the Bunker off, so that nothing from inside the Bunker could get to the outside and everything agents within the inside of the bunker would get burned to ashes by the nuclear Fire.
But yes, that it couldn´t be guaranteed that the Bunker really get sealed off and so chemical or biological Agents could get to the outside was the argument used by those people who doubt that the nuclear Bunkerbuster would be useful for such purposes.

And yep, most of Sun Tzu´s Rules of Warfare have their worth, even today.

As for storing Special Weapins in Bunkers:
Obviously even Sadam has learned, that hiding in one of those large Bunkers is like carrying a large "Please shoot me"-Sign

[notyoueither]

At the time of the review, the US Assistant Secretary for International Security Policy, J D Crouch, said: "Today we have a very different situation (from the Cold War). We have a situation where the United States may face multiple potential opponents, but we're not sure who they might be. There are multiple sources or potential sources of conflict."

Multiple sources of conflict are leading to multiple sources of weapons.

I'm not sure where the fixation on terrorists is from. It is pretty bloody obvious you are not going to nuke a city block to get the 10 people out of 1000 that you are looking for.

It is also pretty bloody obvious that it is states that have bunkers with weapons hidden in them. Those states may be linked to terrorists, but then terrorist arsenals could then be targeted, couldn't they?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
As for storing Special Weapins in Bunkers:
Obviously even Sadam has learned, that hiding in one of those large Bunkers is like carrying a large "Please shoot me"-Sign

[Agathon]

Every day I wake up and the reasons for not wanting George Bush and co. to perish in a hail of white hot fire are less in number than they were the previous day.

Right now I'm down to, "Someone will have to clean up the mess."

[Whaleboy]

And yep, most of Sun Tzu´s Rules of Warfare have their worth, even today

Including "Know thy enemy"

I'm not sure where the fixation on terrorists is from

Public pressure/spin. Telling people what they want to hear. Of course, terrorism is a social phenomenon, of little actual tactical threat, and conventional military tactics wont work, but will you ever hear someone who wants to get reelected say that?

Terrorist arsenals are in garages, sheds, homes, private warehouses etc. Like peoples cars, tools, furniture, appliances.

[Whaleboy]

Right now I'm down to, "Someone will have to clean up the mess

Simple solution, make them dig their own graves. They should be used to that by now!

[notyoueither]

I'm talking about the fixation of the shrieking going on in this thread. These weapons are not intended to deal with terrorists. They are intended to deal with nasty weapons hidden in deep places. It probably would not be terrorists who had such weapons, or such locations to protect them in.

[Whaleboy]

I cant see America engaging anyone like that, barring North Korea in the foreseeable future. Iran, possibly, but again, if it has N/B/C weapons, theyll be stored in similar, dispersed, discrete locations.

"Terrorists" are still the obvious target until the American people wake up and smell the cordite.

[Sava]

How come the people denouncing the US aren't talking as tough in reference to North Korea, India, or Pakistan?

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Sava
How come the people denouncing the US aren't talking as tough in reference to North Korea, India, or Pakistan?

Because none of them are superpower.

And I'm one half Indian, so lay off India!

[Sava]

Because none of them are superpower.

This would make those countries more likely to use nukes because they don't have the conventional global capabilities the US does.

And I'm one half Indian, so lay off India!

**** india!11!!!

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by Sava
This would make those countries more likely to use nukes because they don't have the conventional global capabilities the US does.

I disagree. It makes them less likely because theyre open to an invasion from the current superpower

**** india!11!!!