U.S. Envisions Using Nukes on Terrorists - Page 2




 
--
 
September 12th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
Along these lines this is why im also scared of the missle defense program. If it works (which i hope it does) i dont want nukes to become viable tactical options.

"well we need this airfeild closed down"

"well we can just use a nuke"

When generals start haveing conversations like that, god help us all.

Im all for maintaing a good nuclear aresnal (as my signature represents) but only for defensive purposes.
September 14th, 2005  
5.56X45mm
 
 
Forget the Nukes. Lets just open up a big can of removed on these terrorist scum. Let's drop this the USA should be nice look and show these folks what the USA can reeally do. Like WWII D-DAY Invasion, US Marine Corps Iwo Jima, and Frozen Chosen Reservoir. The USA is a great beast that is currently sleeping. The her people do not like to fight. But when push comes to shove. We will kick removed and take names! Forget what the rest of the world thinks. Forget what the left and it's liberals think. removed
Luis (5.56X45MM)

One Pissed Off American and Soldier
September 15th, 2005  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
5.56X45mm

I do not care how mad you are, you must follow the rules on the forum. You have failed to use any type of respect in regards to people you do not agree with and used profanity. There are many better ways to voice your opinion.

Doody

TO THE FORUM: Keep on topic and disregard anything offensive.
--
September 16th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
I cannot think of a single scenario why Nukes should be used on terrorists. You can be sure the elves at Santa's Workshop have been working on all sorts of different toys to deal with terrorists. What you all forget is its not just the blast zone of a Nuke, but its all that radiation afterward. Do you really want the wind to blow that stuff around the globe? It happened once at Chrynobol. Even here in Paris we felt the effects of that accident, could you image a nuclear detotation? Image 100x worse.

Doing so would be far worse than anything al-Qaeda could imagine.

Slightly OT, the French have a ultra secret anti-terrorist force (similar to the Delta Force) called RAID. I like to think of the bug-spray as an appripriate metaphor.
September 16th, 2005  
Duty Honor Country
 
 
I could see someone wanting to use a nuclear bunker busting bomb to take out terrorist stores of NBC (nuclear, bio, chemical) weapons stores.

But if used, most of the evidence would be destroved. Then EVERY peace loving protestor would take to streets in protest.
September 16th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
[quote="Doody"]I could see someone wanting to use a nuclear bunker busting bomb to take out terrorist stores of NBC (nuclear, bio, chemical) weapons stores.

Well it would certainly take care of the chemical and Nuclear weapons but I'm not so sure about biological. Viruses are very resistant (some can even survive in deep space). I'm not sure I'd want bubonic plague or the like in a irratiated enviroment. That would really make the protestors unhappy.
September 16th, 2005  
Rabs
 
 
mmarsh were not talking about city leveling nukes here, there small bunker penttrating nukes that probally wont cause anymore collatreal damage than a conventional bomb and will get the job done.
September 16th, 2005  
Charge 7
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
I cannot think of a single scenario why Nukes should be used on terrorists. You can be sure the elves at Santa's Workshop have been working on all sorts of different toys to deal with terrorists. What you all forget is its not just the blast zone of a Nuke, but its all that radiation afterward. Do you really want the wind to blow that stuff around the globe? It happened once at Chrynobol. Even here in Paris we felt the effects of that accident, could you image a nuclear detotation? Image 100x worse.

Doing so would be far worse than anything al-Qaeda could imagine.

Slightly OT, the French have a ultra secret anti-terrorist force (similar to the Delta Force) called RAID. I like to think of the bug-spray as an appripriate metaphor.
Bunker busting nukes wouldn't go off on the surface. They would penetrate hundreds or more of feet of what covers the bunker before going off. The bunker I mentioned that Tito had made is under a mountain. Subsurface bursts do generate fallout but it is very local and doesn't travel very far. Also a 5 kiloton blast is fairly small. A third the size of what hit Hiroshima in yield. Chernobyl was effectively a greater detonation than 20 kt in terms of damage. You can get more on this here:

http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/effects.htm