New Draft For War On Terror

[bigred]

okay, I'm going out on a limb here. here fishy fishy fishy... I know you're out there watching.

[NCC10281982B]

okay, I'm going out on a limb here.  here fishy fishy fishy...  I know you're out there watching.

548940[/snapback]

Care to PM me with what you really just said?

[hockeyrcks9901]

LOL...what a insecure person...I mean, I didn't see anyone directly insult him, or even indirectly insult him.

 

And, some of you guys still don't get it. Nuclear is a type of warhead...it does not mean that everything within 10 miles will die...not even within 1 mile. Like Lo said, it is the way that the bomb blows up that makes it nuclear.

 

Its like the difference between a match and a lighter. They do the same thing(make fire) only they do it different ways. A nuke is not a giant bomb that destroys all life. If that was so, then nuclear power plants would blow up everywhere...they operate on the same principle...fussion or fission. It generates energy and some radiation depending on which reaction...these would be tiny fission bombs and not even come close to the bombs dropped in Japan. Again, these would be no more powerful than bombs that we already use.

[shiznit]

LOL...what a insecure person...I mean, I didn't see anyone directly insult him, or even indirectly insult him.

 

And, some of you guys still don't get it. Nuclear is a type of warhead...it does not mean that everything within 10 miles will die...not even within 1 mile. Like Lo said, it is the way that the bomb blows up that makes it nuclear.

 

Its like the difference between a match and a lighter. They do the same thing(make fire) only they do it different ways. A nuke is not a giant bomb that destroys all life. If that was so, then nuclear power plants would blow up everywhere...they operate on the same principle...fussion or fission. It generates energy and some radiation depending on which reaction...these would be tiny fission bombs and not even come close to the bombs dropped in Japan. Again, these would be no more powerful than bombs that we already use.

548947[/snapback]

 

Fusion power plants are about 50 years away for the first commercial application. All nuclear power is produced by nuclear fission today - a particularly dirty process radiation-wise.

 

OK let's say for argument's sake that these warheads are supposedly safe to use. I'm reserving judgement on that since I have seen absolutely nothing here but the opinions of a few posters here. None of which are exactly experts in nuclear physics from what I've seen so far.

 

So, why use them? If they have such a limited effectiveness, why not simply use conventional explosives? These can collapse tunnels just as easily as a nuclear warhead and are far cheaper to produce. Why spend all the billions that it takes to manufacture nukes when conventional explosives are every bit as effective for these small-scale tasks? Nuclear warheads are classified as WMD as far as the rest of the world is concerned.

 

Why is it so absolutely necessary that G.W. Bush needs expanded power in deploying them? They are not needed. And ig he is planning some larger scale attacks he can go through the proper procedure for deploying them.

[LoArmistead]

GW Bush doesn't need expanded power to deploy nukes, this is just a measure to huff and puff and show what we are capable of (directed towards certain *other* countries, not necessarily terrorists). They don't have limited effectiveness, and are more deadly than a conventional warhead. Assuming this draft even gets through the House, which I highly doubt it will, we would never use a nuclear missile unless we absolutely had no other choice; in which case we would use a nuke regardless of whether or not this draft made it through congress. So it's reall a moot point. We can say "OMGzz we can't use nukes we will blow the world up!" and we can say "Shoot dewd, this is kewl. I can't wait to get in 'der and keel me some towel heads!" The end result will be a bunch of wasted minutes typing on our parts, and nothing else. This won't change the way we fight wars (though I wish it would), and it won't make us any more likely to use a nuclear missile than we were before.

[shiznit]

Exactly the point I was trying to make. You don't need to use nukes against the terrorists. Conventional weapons will do just as well without resorting to nuclear measures. Don't forget that the U.S. government must by international law account for every nuclear-capable device in its arsenal. Using them frivolously is not something the American government is prepared to do at this time.

 

Thus GW doesn't need more streamlined powers to deploy them. If this ever came down to a nuclear conflict, the U.S. would approach it as it has done in the past.

 

If this draft was raised as an attempt to intimidate the terrorists, it will not work. The terrorists are well aware of American and allied nuclear capabilities. It does not stop them or even slow them down.

 

Remember all, this is just a draft. A suggestion and no more. If it even makes it to be a bill there is no need to get worked up into a snit. In the meantime the U.S. will pursue its military objectives the same way it has been doing all along.

Edited September 22, 2005 by shiznit

[bigred]

first off, it would NOT involve using "new" nuclear weapons. it would be refitting the existing stock pile of them to do a new job. so there would be no build any new warheads. and it's my understanding that such an action would not be illegal according to international law... which by the way outlaws such items as napalm, land mines, hollow point bullets, explosive tipped bullets, shooting at paratroopers before they hit the ground, shooting at medics, medivac vehicles and many other things (some of which the US ignores).

 

second there is a BIG difference between the explosive power of a nuclear weapon vs conventional by weight. a "small" nuke packs more punch than the largest of conventional weapons. MOAB which is the largest non nuclear weapon in the world is roughly 1 12/ times the size of a BUS. imagine getting the explosive power greater than that out of a weapon that's the size of an average size man.

 

and again the effects of a nuclear blast would be negated by it actually being IN the mountain... causing a major blast underground. you could never achieve that kind of blast with a conventional warhead because something that size would be impossible to deploy like a bunker buster weapon. this is actually a job that a nuke is overall the better choice for. just remeber this isn't for "glassing over" open ground and killing everything in our path. it's basically a deep earth explosion to create a small man made earth quake.

[hockeyrcks9901]

Yea, I wasn't saying we had nuclear fussion reactors yet. I know we don't, we can't control them yet. But, yea, we all sorta have gotten ourselves worked up over a draft

[shiznit]

first off, it would NOT involve using "new" nuclear weapons.  it would be refitting the existing stock pile of them to do a new job.  so there would be no build any new warheads.  and it's my understanding that such an action would not be illegal according to international law...  which by the way outlaws such items as napalm, land mines, hollow point bullets, explosive tipped bullets, shooting at paratroopers before they hit the ground, shooting at medics, medivac vehicles and many other things (some of which the US ignores). 

 

second there is a BIG difference between the explosive power of a nuclear weapon vs conventional by weight.  a "small" nuke packs more punch than the largest of conventional weapons.  MOAB which is the largest non nuclear weapon in the world is roughly 1 12/ times the size of a BUS.  imagine getting the explosive power greater than that out of a weapon that's the size of an average size man.

 

and again the effects of a nuclear blast would be negated by it actually being IN the mountain... causing a major blast underground.  you could never achieve that kind of blast with a conventional warhead because something that size would be impossible to deploy like a bunker buster weapon.  this is actually a job that a nuke is overall the better choice for.  just remeber this isn't for "glassing over" open ground and killing everything in our path.  it's basically a deep earth explosion to create a small man made earth quake.

549767[/snapback]

 

Doesn't matter if you are slagging a city or dropping a mountain. In order for the U.S. to deploy these - particularly on foreign soil like Afghanistan they needs buttloads of justification not only to the senate & congress, but to the ruling body of the country they are looking to use them in. Do you really think the Afghanis would be jumping for joy about the U.S. exploding nukes in their country regardless of the perceived safety? Do you really see any of the neighboring countries standing for it? Right now the international forces there have that country's permission to hunt down taliban terrorists. It took a lot of effort to get that permission in the first place. I don't think that permission extends to deploying nuclear devices on their soil.

[RADEON]

nm

Edited September 24, 2005 by RADEON

[LoArmistead]

and again the effects of a nuclear blast would be negated by it actually being IN the mountain... causing a major blast underground.

[bigred]

Doesn't matter if you are slagging a city or dropping a mountain. In order for the U.S. to deploy these - particularly on foreign soil like Afghanistan they needs buttloads of justification not only to the senate & congress, but to the ruling body of the country they are looking to use them in. Do you really think the Afghanis would be jumping for joy about the U.S. exploding nukes in their country regardless of the perceived safety? Do you really see any of the neighboring countries standing for it? Right now the international forces there have that country's permission to hunt down taliban terrorists. It took a lot of effort to get that permission in the first place. I don't think that permission extends to deploying nuclear devices on their soil.

549801[/snapback]

 

 

what ruling body?!?!?!??! do you think the current gov't in afganistan is going to argue with us? who put them there? WHY are they in power? oh yeah cuz we came there to get terrorists OUT of thier country. do you think they're going to tell us "no you can't use your weapons to hunt down and kill terrorists in our country"???? that's what caused us to come and take out the former gov't.