Author Topic: Ground Zero (Read 2820 times)

anonymous · « **Reply #135 on:** July 25, 2004, 10:03:22 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by demaw1
just a reply

the point anonymous is simple...[forgive me i am going to be a little stronger this time]..how can you possibly send conventional weapons against nukes. why is that concept so hard to understand. If you sent 200000 of our military in youare going to lose 150000 can you deal with that. Their woman and kids are not innocent, as that philisopy is ingrained in them. Also we must not allow any country to get away with nuking us even if we could take them out conventionaly,because we must show everyone the price paid for using a nuclear weapon OR ELSE SOMEONE WILL DO IT AGAIN.

I thought I had a reasoned response to this, guess the world doesn think so ,oh well, but how easy it seems to be you all dismiss the 200000 killed in new york.You see I am just an old fashion fool, I feel if an American is killed in this way It is the same as if my mom/dad/wife/ son /daughter were killed.

demaw i dont agree. give iran ten or fifteen tac nuke warheads. think about how modern warfare goes. we would dominate the c4i aspects of the battle so totally that they be popping a tac nuke to kill a company of marines and twenty thousand of their own people. saying that they could knock out 150000 of 200000 is dead wrong. and saying that women and kids are ingrained to sneak nukes into the us is dead wrong as well. if you dont want to apply modern military sci to the problem and the moral question is should a nuke from terrorist be answered by a nuke to the nation that backed them i say thats not the right path to take. the people youd end up killing wouldnt have a lesson to learn. everyone responsible would be long gone by the time the nuke got there. do you really think that women and children in some nation are guilty of being indocd to hate usa? that hasnt been my experience.

hawker238 · « **Reply #136 on:** July 25, 2004, 10:19:41 PM »

Your sig says it all, anonymous.

anonymous · « **Reply #137 on:** July 25, 2004, 10:27:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by demaw1
just a reply

the point anonymous is simple...[forgive me i am going to be a little stronger this time]..how can you possibly send conventional weapons against nukes. why is that concept so hard to understand. If you sent 200000 of our military in youare going to lose 150000 can you deal with that. Their woman and kids are not innocent, as that philisopy is ingrained in them. Also we must not allow any country to get away with nuking us even if we could take them out conventionaly,because we must show everyone the price paid for using a nuclear weapon OR ELSE SOMEONE WILL DO IT AGAIN.

I thought I had a reasoned response to this, guess the world doesn think so ,oh well, but how easy it seems to be you all dismiss the 200000 killed in new york.You see I am just an old fashion fool, I feel if an American is killed in this way It is the same as if my mom/dad/wife/ son /daughter were killed.
p.s. you all and you etc. is just generic .

hey look at it this way guy. say that nuke gets popped in london. say the backer of the mission is iran. safe bet that us would tell uk that full might of us would seal off iran take down leadership and find those responsible. nukes were power equalizer for global warfare between two most powerful nations to ever exist. they pretty much useless for anything else unless you are talking about special yield for deep penetration for heavy underground fortification.

Leslie · « **Reply #138 on:** July 25, 2004, 10:41:46 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by anonymous
hey look at it this way guy. say that nuke gets popped in london. say the backer of the mission is iran. safe bet that us would tell uk that full might of us would seal off iran take down leadership and find those responsible. nukes were power equalizer for global warfare between two most powerful nations to ever exist. they pretty much useless for anything else unless you are talking about special yield for deep penetration for heavy underground fortification.

It wouldn't take much yield to do that. Most of the meltdown part of a nuke blast goes straight down.

Les

anonymous · « **Reply #139 on:** July 25, 2004, 10:48:45 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Leslie
It wouldn't take much yield to do that. Most of the meltdown part of a nuke blast goes straight down.

Les

i think they are actually some kind of shaped charge type nuke. cant say for sure because fortunately for everyone living within a few hundred miles of various nuclear labs i am not a nuke designer.

Leslie · « **Reply #140 on:** July 25, 2004, 11:42:28 PM »

Gosh, how many kinds are there? Shaped charge?

Anyway, just sticking my nose in where it doesn't belong. Nothing personal. I't's too serious for me....this discussion. I'm not imaginative enough to foresee the situation in 2007. If other nations lose respect for the US, then I would say something like being nuked is a distinct possibility. If that happens, nothing we could do could stop it if we didn't react quickly and with equal retaliation. This was understood by the Soviets and China. Why do you think the Soviets backed down during the Cuban Crisis. China doesn't even need nukes if we were in a war with them. They could beat us with sticks.

Terrorist countries should learn from them, at least as far as watching out for their own population when it comes to using nukes. Let's hope and pray Mid East countries are smarter than to do that.

Les