US considering use of Nuclear Weapons

[rmblam]

<< fine... just nuke canada and I will shut up >>



:disgust:

We have way too many big mouth children spouting nonsense here lately. You kiddies would be crapping your pants if you ever had to go to war. How many of you idiots would say "I'm moving to canada" if I get drafted. In that case you actually "like" canada.

Your probably 10 so it doesn't matter. Just so long as you get to watch WWF and play games.... Nevermind the world..

I am overwhelmed by all the ignorance.

 

[Moonbeam]

What goes around comes around.

 

[Zwingle]

Fvck it! We are all going to die....make peace now with yourself and those around you while there is still time left to do so.*






* This is my opinion and my opinion only, your opinion may vary.

 

[juiio]

The government isn't necessarily considering them. That is just one of the "options" that a group of "Experts" (who have NO place in the government) decided upon.

The top of the article says this:
"Military and national security experts say that range will likely include the following options, any combination of which could be employed against one or more nations: "

If you saw Colin Powell get asked about the possibility of nuclear weapons, his reaction was one that showed that 1) they haven't even considered it 2) the reporter was an idiot for asking about them.

 

[HombrePequeno]

<< But it shouldn't be radioactive, no reason to be... >>



Oh I know it isn't radioactive. Flyfish was replying to zwingle's comment aboot him not having heard of a radiation free nuke and you replied to flyfish. I assumed you were talking aboot anti-matter being radiation free. Just a little misunderstanding.

 

[DDad]

I may be wrong on this, but refusing not to take nukes "off the table" is NOT the same as considering the use of them

 

[Aihyah]

guess its time to post it again.



taken from another threadAffectionately termed the "Daisy Cutter", the BLU-82 (or Big Blue) is a 15,000lb aluminum slurry bomb (similar concept to Fuel-Air Explosives) the size of a Voltswagen Beetle. It can only be dropped from a cargo plane, by pushing it out the rear cargo door. When Big Blue detonates, it looks like a small nuclear blast complete with a huge mushroom cloud and sweeping blast wave. It is reported that when the U.S. dropped the first Daisy Cutter during the Gulf War, A British SAS commando team on a reconnaissance mission radioed to command: "Sir, the blokes have just nuked Kuwait!" The U.S. dropped eleven of these bombs during the Gulf War, convincing masses of Iraqi soldiers to surrender.

The Daisy Cutter will disintegrate anything within several hundred yards, but the blast wave continues for a few miles. When hit by the over-pressure wave, it will quite literally cause a momentary loss of bowel and bladder control. The U.S. would drop leaflets on Iraqi positions warning 'You are about to be hit with the largest conventional bomb of the war'. As promised, the U.S. would drop the Daisy Cutter, followed by more leaflets promising 'You have just been hit with the largest conventional bomb of the war. If you do not surrender, we will drop more directly on your position.'

Tens of thousands of Iraqi solders were reported to have surrendured after the first two Daisy Cutters were dropped.
drop lots of these

 

[StormRider]

<< I may be wrong on this, but refusing not to take nukes "off the table" is NOT the same as considering the use of them >>



I agree. It could be the US's way of saying to the terrorists, "If you use biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons on us, we'll use nuclear weapons on you".

 

[Stark]

Last week, I was fully in favor of nuking any country found linked to the terrorists, most notably afghanistan and pakistan. After a week of thinking, learning, and cooling off, I don't think they would be wise, at least not yet.

Islamic fundamentalists in Afghanistan and throughout the world think that America is a cowardly country who fights with missles fired from hundreds of miles away. They see he gritty, battle tested fighters from Afghanistan are brave men who fight like brave men. They have defeated all who have invaded their boarders.

Nukes would further ingrain a sense that the American military and leadership are cowardly and unfitting of any respect or fear.

If we end up engaging in a land war in Afghanistan and we take large amounts of casualties, we should consider all options, including napalm and nukes. We cannont afford to lose this war and give all terrorists a psychological boost, but above all,we must be careful not to move the world towards a war between the muslim world and the western world. That's what Bin Laden and his group ultimately want and we must not give it to them.

 

[Kanalua]

I think we could retaliate with nukes if we get hit with a weapon of mass destruction, or if the war ages so long/devastating, that using nukes would aliviate the situation...

 

[Bitek]

<< when matter and anti-matter meet they annihilate each other and create pure radiation >>





<< Yes, but so does a match... Radiation is not the same as radioactive...

You have radiation coming out of your body right now, does that make you deadly?

What it really does it make pure energy, and if done right, heat and blast...

But it shouldn't be radioactive, no reason to be... >>



What?! What does this mean? When you strike a match, you are NOT annihilating matter. The energy released from a match comes from the rearrangement of chemical bonds, but the matter still exists. An anti matter rxn converts the mass into energy, and ceases to exist.

The energy created in a nuclear detonation is released in all forms of energy, from heat to light, in all wavelengths along the spectrum (from radio waves to ultra-high energy (and radioactive) gamma rays.) We have no way of controlling this conversion (at least that i know of ) and I doubt ever will, as it is a chaoic and uncontrolled release. This would presumably be the same for an anti-matter/matter rxn, but the anti-matter aprticles themselves aren't radioactive.

There are many froms of radiation (like IR coming off your body) and some are radioactive (like gamma rays) but even lower energy radiation can still be deadly (like uv or x-rays, that can mutate your DNA) and not all radioactive particles are EM radiation (alpha particles are high E protons ) Im not even sure if this proper use ot the terminology, any nuclear physists here?

Edit: Ok, read a later post, maybe this is not what you meant, but if it is, you have no idea what you're talking about

 

[drewshin]

i dont know if anyone has said this before, but using a nuke would be very impractical, esp for the kind of war we will be fighting.
just as bush said, something about not wasting a $2mil missile to hit a camel in the butt, we would not use an expensive nuclear device, just to have a chance of killing the people we're after. they're probably going to use a lot more precise weapons and pinpoint operations.

seems like the people who want to use nukes are little kids that think they're like toys or something.

 

[Wallydraigle]

CyrixMII333, the advent of atomic technology actually cut WWII short and saved perhaps a million or more lives in the long run. It also spawned the Cold War, and the Space Race between ourselves and the then Soviet Union. Like it or not much technology that we use everyday came about because of nuclear technology. Perhaps even the internet? Also about gunpowder, if it had never been invented the present would be vastly different than it is now. Much of the world might still be hunter/gatherer societies. Even if we got past that and managed to build a complex society things would be very different and probably not better. If I could change the past I wouldn't do it because things never turn out how you imagine. Just be glad things came out as well as they did.

 

[Bitek]

<< just as bush said, something about not wasting a $2mil missile to hit a camel in the butt >>



Did he really say this? If so when and where? Its pretty damn funny regardless!

 

[Aihyah]

Also about gunpowder, if it had never been invented the present would be vastly different than it is now. Much of the world might still be hunter/gatherer societies.


yup, just remember medieval times where strength ruled not so much fun at all.

 

[Ultima]

<<

<<
It's called an Fuel Air Bomb or a Vacuum Bomb. It's a bad mutha with out all that unwanted radiation!How FAEs Work

In addition, he stated that "fuel-air explosives are capable?of completely destroying in a given area vegetation and agricultural crops that have been planted." "In its destructive capability, it is comparable to low-yield nuclear munitions."(3) >>



Sure, but FAE's don't scale...

You can make a 5 ton nuclear bomb yield 10 kilotons, or 10 megatons... Nothing you do to a 5 ton FAE will make that large of a blast...

Shame, because it would be really, really cool...

Actually, that isn't true... An Anti-matter bomb would do it, but we yet don't have the ability to make a containment device small enough to be airlifted... And only about 2000 atoms of anti-matter a day are being produced at CERN, the only place on Earth known to be making anti-matter. You would need trillions of atoms to make a useful weapon...



Jason >>



An anti-matter bomb would create even more radiation than a hydrogen bomb...

 

[Pyroclazm]

not sure on this one, but i remember hearing that sound weapons were being worked on.... a hz so low you cannont hear it..... it either shuts off your heart or jellifies (sp) your organs...... anyone else know what i am talking about or is it a bunch of b.s.??

 

[jehh]

<<

<< when matter and anti-matter meet they annihilate each other and create pure radiation >>





<< Yes, but so does a match... Radiation is not the same as radioactive...
>>



What?! What does this mean? When you strike a match, you are NOT annihilating matter. The energy released from a match comes from the rearrangement of chemical bonds, but the matter still exists. An anti matter rxn converts the mass into energy, and ceases to exist.
>>



A match gives off heat, light, and energy, all are forms of radiation... It isn't radioactive however...

Jason

 

[jehh]

<< The government isn't necessarily considering them. That is just one of the "options" that a group of "Experts" (who have NO place in the government) decided upon.

The top of the article says this:
"Military and national security experts say that range will likely include the following options, any combination of which could be employed against one or more nations: "

If you saw Colin Powell get asked about the possibility of nuclear weapons, his reaction was one that showed that 1) they haven't even considered it 2) the reporter was an idiot for asking about them. >>



I saw that, and made the post on here about it...

Yea, Powell and the other leaders really have NOT considered this, and yes the reporter was an idiot for asking...

Jason

 

[jehh]

<<

<< But it shouldn't be radioactive, no reason to be... >>



Oh I know it isn't radioactive. Flyfish was replying to zwingle's comment aboot him not having heard of a radiation free nuke and you replied to flyfish. I assumed you were talking aboot anti-matter being radiation free. Just a little misunderstanding. >>



Oh, ok...

BTW, if you could figure out how to make a Fusion device that didn't need a Fission device to detonate it, wouldn't that also be radiation free? I never saw anything about that, but it makes sense to me.

Perhaps the anti-matter can replace the Fission device and make it a clean bomb...

Jason

 

[StageLeft]

Of course they are always an option but the US will never fire first.

 

[jehh]

<< guess its time to post it again.

taken from another threadAffectionately termed the "Daisy Cutter", the BLU-82 (or Big Blue) is a 15,000lb aluminum slurry bomb (similar concept to Fuel-Air Explosives) the size of a Voltswagen Beetle. It can only be dropped from a cargo plane, by pushing it out the rear cargo door. When Big Blue detonates, it looks like a small nuclear blast complete with a huge mushroom cloud and sweeping blast wave. It is reported that when the U.S. dropped the first Daisy Cutter during the Gulf War, A British SAS commando team on a reconnaissance mission radioed to command: "Sir, the blokes have just nuked Kuwait!" The U.S. dropped eleven of these bombs during the Gulf War, convincing masses of Iraqi soldiers to surrender.

The Daisy Cutter will disintegrate anything within several hundred yards, but the blast wave continues for a few miles. When hit by the over-pressure wave, it will quite literally cause a momentary loss of bowel and bladder control. The U.S. would drop leaflets on Iraqi positions warning 'You are about to be hit with the largest conventional bomb of the war'. As promised, the U.S. would drop the Daisy Cutter, followed by more leaflets promising 'You have just been hit with the largest conventional bomb of the war. If you do not surrender, we will drop more directly on your position.'

Tens of thousands of Iraqi solders were reported to have surrendured after the first two Daisy Cutters were dropped.
drop lots of these >>



Bingo... Those were used in Nam to make chopper landing fields...

They are impressive, if you've ever seen the video of the blast from Nam, it really does look like a mini-nuke...

And yes, it would work very well near those caves...

But what is so damm stupid is a 10 kiloton nuke does about 10 times more damage, and is far easier to deliver since even F-16s can launch them... Oh well...

Jason

 

[StageLeft]

Someone grab a vid of that daisy cutter plz!

 

[jehh]

<<
An anti-matter bomb would create even more radiation than a hydrogen bomb... >>



Sure, but is isn't radioactive radiation, thus wouldn't be a problem...

A hydrogen bomb isn't radioactive either... It is the Fission device that is used as the detonator that is the radioactive part...

A pure anti-matter device would do almost no damage to the enviroment beyond the blast zone, and even that would not be harmed after the blast... (other than the blast and heat damage of course...)

Jason

 

[Fiddy]

" Low Yield Nuclear Bomb"

What the hell is that, Atom Bomb LITE?