Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: slimm50 on July 01, 2005, 06:06:14 PM
-
Many of you are probably aware the US Gov't is appropriating funds for R&D for this tactical nuke. This "bunker buster", if you will. Basically it's a medium to high yield bomb designed to penetrate deep (don't know how deep) into rock and earth and create a huge pressure wave to crush hidden bunkers. Problem is, it will potentially expose 10s of 1,000s of ppl downwind to lethal doses of radiation. I personally fear this developement will do irreparable damage to the international nuclear arms agreements now in place.
Your take? Many of you are more knowlegeable than I am on the subject.
I'm not a Quaker but look here anyway (http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=88&issue_id=48)
-
umm if it is supposed to go off deep underground, how does the raidiation get into the air to effect people downwind?
-
Ooooohh rah.
Yup! Put this in the inventory... outstanding terrorist deterrent.
Also good for gophers infestations.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Ooooohh rah.
Yup! Put this in the inventory... outstanding terrorist deterrent.
Also good for gophers infestations.
say what?
(http://sportsmed.starwave.com/media/pg2/2002/0726/photo/gopher.jpg)
-
LOL!!
Great movie. The rodent stole the show. ;)
-
Why would "10's of 1000s" of people downwind suffer "lethal" radiation?
Oh wait, "reports by some scientists (note that it doesn't say who, might be Greenpeace for all we know)" suggest that if this ANTI-BUNKER WEAPON was detonated in a city then a lot of people could die. Hmm....not exactly rocket science...detonate a 1-megaton weapon in a city and a lot of people might die. Wow...did they have to graduate from Yale or MIT or something just to figure that out? That's really putting their education to use! I'll go so far as to suggest that if you detonate a 1-megaton weapon in an urban setting, you're pretty likely to have a heck of a lot more than 50,000 people die. Look at what mere 18 kilotons did to Hiroshima.
We don't need a 1-megaton weapon to flatten cities though. We have 20+ megaton weapons to do that with. We need to kill enemy bunkers which are very frequently underneath mountains. That is the job the proposed weapon is designed for. This new weapon looks like an EXCELLENT addition to the US
arsenal.
That website looks like a typical anti-nuke site which is high on fearmongering and short on sense.
J_A_B
-
protecting human lives is not on Bush's agenda, so who cares about the after-effects?
-
Originally posted by spitfiremkv
protecting human lives is not on Bush's agenda, so who cares about the after-effects?
Depends on who's lives you're considering.
-
well if used, lets say, in a remote bunker complex......like....um...let s say....tora bora were there is no "innocents" to die from radiation wouldn't this be a good Idea to have?
-
I'm thinkin we can loan it to the pakistani's to test.. a few sites in eastern pakistan come to mind.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well if used, lets say, in a remote bunker complex......like....um...let s say....tora bora were there is no "innocents" to die from radiation wouldn't this be a good Idea to have?
Think of the time it would save. Who says the Gov't isn't efficient!?!
-
Originally posted by slimm50
Problem is, it will potentially expose 10s of 1,000s of ppl downwind to lethal doses of radiation. I personally fear this developement will do irreparable damage to the international nuclear arms agreements now in place.
You mean sort of like the "safe" Chernobly plant?
-
I think the real danger of that kind of weapon isn't atmospheric pollution, but of radiation leaking into the underground water diposits.
Think of all the uranium/plutonium oxides that can reach some strata where there's running water. It stays there, is absorbed by plants, eaten by animals, etc...
Being atop the food chain, it'll reach us eventually.
Daniel
-
this must be the thread where all the lesser types find solace.
-
The "lesser types"?
I've seen yer picture Yeager. Who do you think you are?
I promise not to insult you if you promise not to insult everyone else.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
this must be the thread where all the lesser types find solace.
Triumph: "You don't deal with lesser lifeforms? You must be a very lonely guy!" :D
Daniel
-
Problem as I see it is
1 not nice to nuke anyone in the first place
2 if you know their location well enough to nuke em you can prolly just sit on the site for long enough and you get the bad guys
3 how are you going to go in and check whom you have killed if its higly radiated? robots..no.
4 even if the fallout was contained within a relaivly small area, that area would be useless and dangerous to civilians adn wildlife for a long long time
-
I'm all for it. Bring all the troops home, nuke anyone who messes with us.
-
Originally posted by FUNKED1
I'm all for it. Bring all the troops home, nuke anyone who messes with us.
You wanna nuke your own goverment? :p
-
It wouldn't be the first time I suggested it.
-
are you an "enemy of the state"? ;)
-
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robust_Nuclear_Earth_Penetrator
$15M for a study is small potatos WRT the defense budget. Still, I wonder why we're still trying to improve upon a type of weapon that we have not used in sixty years.
Today, can you imagine any scenario that would require our use of a nuke?
-
NK nuke strike on Tokyo with simutaneous invasion of SK by NK ground forces?
Just guessin'.
-
Only way you get that is if you spray the entire North Korea with PCP.
-
North Korea? No way.
This bomb was designed with a specific use in mind. If used, it will be used in the mountains of Pakistan.
It would need to be a very big event for the U.S. to launch nuclear missiles at a country bordering China. LOL- Just remembered pakistan borders china.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Today, can you imagine any scenario that would require our use of a nuke?
That comment is in response to this question. My response does not address the use of this penetrator weapon directly.
-
I know. But the scenario you cited was about as far from a correct answer as I could imagine. I've said it before, I'll say it again... NK will need to be slapped upside the head by China when the time comes. Any other action will be unacceptable to the Chinese.
-
It is, however, the only scenario I can presently imagine that might cause us to use a nuke.
You never know what a "me so ronely" guy will do and you don't know if the Chinese will stop him in time if he does something foolish.
I'm pretty certain if Japan gets it, we'll reply for them. About the only scenario I can imagine where we'd use a nuke. Note I did not assign a probability to it.
-
I can't seriously see a scenario where launching a strategic nuke at a country bodering China will be viable.
Not without launching a few thousand of them at China too.
-
I truly feel that any use of a "nuclear weapon" whether it be a ICBM, tactical artillery shell, or a bunker buster is crossing the line that should not be crossed. If we start doing this, who are we to say if other nations do not start doing the same way. To top it off, what is the ethical difference between a bunker penetrator and a tactical nuke shell. One detonates under ground, the other above ground, but both are nuclear weapons. This development bothers me, because I think it is an angel hair away from opening the rest of Pandora's Box.
-
I can't see a scenario where NK nukes are exploding over Japan and NK troops are parking tanks around Pusan again where we don't.
But it's all imagination and idle speculation.
-
well nash, looking at the very limited response to my statement, I was wrong about the lessor types reference. Your response being the only exception.
Ive seen your picture too and I will not insult you based on your physical attributes. Your rhetoric here is ammo enough.
Heres my smiley for you :D
-
From one lesser type to another: ;)
-
Just like all our nuclear weapons, the purpose of this weapon is deterence. What this weapon tells enemy leaders is that if they start something, they will personally pay the price, no matter how deep of a hole they dig.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Why would "10's of 1000s" of people downwind suffer "lethal" radiation?
Oh wait, "reports by some scientists (note that it doesn't say who, might be Greenpeace for all we know)" suggest that if this ANTI-BUNKER WEAPON was detonated in a city then a lot of people could die. Hmm....not exactly rocket science...detonate a 1-megaton weapon in a city and a lot of people might die. Wow...did they have to graduate from Yale or MIT or something just to figure that out? That's really putting their education to use! I'll go so far as to suggest that if you detonate a 1-megaton weapon in an urban setting, you're pretty likely to have a heck of a lot more than 50,000 people die. Look at what mere 18 kilotons did to Hiroshima.
We don't need a 1-megaton weapon to flatten cities though. We have 20+ megaton weapons to do that with. We need to kill enemy bunkers which are very frequently underneath mountains. That is the job the proposed weapon is designed for. This new weapon looks like an EXCELLENT addition to the US
arsenal.
That website looks like a typical anti-nuke site which is high on fearmongering and short on sense.
J_A_B
Ummm no.
Brooks and the National Nuclear Security Administration are also involved in efforts to develop so-called bunker-busting nuclear bombs, including the proposed Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator Weapon, a low-yield bomb that is supposed to be able to burrow deeply enough into the ground that most of the fallout would be contained. However, Brooks was recently forced to disabuse Congress of any notion that radioactivity would be substantially minimized by the weapons. In testimony in March, Brooks said: “I really must apologize for my lack of precision if we in the administration have suggested that it was possible to have a bomb that penetrated far enough to trap all fallout. . . . I don’t believe the laws of physics will ever let that be true.
Linton F. Brooks
National Nuclear Security Administration: Director
-
Raider179--
The proposed weapon is not really "low-yield", unless you consider a 1 megaton weapon "low-yield" (compared to some of our 20+ megaton weapons I suppose it could be seen that way). A traditional low-yield nuke is something on the order of 1 kiloton, like the Genie A2A rocket our interceptors used to carry.
The risk from fallout from using ANY nuclear weapon, while present, is usually exaggerated. There have been many dozens if not hunders of nuclear detonations right here in the USA, some airbursts, some (all the more recent ones) underground. Is the fallout from THOSE explosions something you worry about on a daily basis? Are all your friends dying of radiation poisoning? Didn't think so. Smoking and alcohol kill more people than fallout ever has. So why worry about the prospect of using one or two bunker-busters in a likely remote region halfway across the globe?
Even then, the guy who's quote you linked only said that you can't trap "all" fallout. Testing in Nevada and other sites as well as computer simulation has proven that while you can't trap it all, you CAN trap signitigant portions of it--further reducing the risk. Is a nuclear bunker buster something I'd want to use with reckless abandon every time the enemy dug a trench? No, not by a long shot. Is it a valuable tool to maintain in the inventory in limitied quantity? Experience has proven yes.
Even more important than having these weapons, though, is making people believe that we will actually USE them if we have to. A weapon is worthless if your opponent knows that you'll never use it against him. This is the REAL issue with nuclear weapons--are they worth building when our enemies are well aware that our chances of actually employing them are at best slim?
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Today, can you imagine any scenario that would require our use of a nuke? [/B]
How about a deep underground breeder reactor in Iran? Doesn ANYone think this govt WOULDNT use a nuclear weapon if it had one?
-
I can see why others would be against this.....
But as far as US citizens go....
Why would you NOT want the US to have the best and the most powerfull in the inventory? Seriously, if an enemy was developing, or planned on developing, or would be capable of developing this in the next decade wouldn't you want the US to allready have this technology down?
I mean why not? Do you really think the US is going to use a nuke in a conventional fight?
If you get rid of this why not get rid of ALL US Nukes. I say this because you probably are going to say something on the lines of we arent' responsible bla bla bla And I'd counter with get rid of all of them and let the argument begin that way.
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
Why would they?
Why would people strap on a bomb vest and walk into a crowded market full of women and children and blow them to bits? There are a LOTS of peeps like that in middle east--dont assume they have anything like the same respect for life as you
-
Originally posted by bj229r
Why would people strap on a bomb vest and walk into a crowded market full of women and children and blow them to bits? There are a LOTS of peeps like that in middle east--dont assume they have anything like the same respect for life as you
wow good point.
Don't forget public transportation, Cafes, resturaunts, clubs, malls and places of worshim (mosqes and churches) have all been bombed by terrorists.
-
The ones in charge don't strap bombs to themselves, they let others do that for 'em. I think it's unlikely Iran would let any of their nuclear material get away from them. Should that happen, and should any of that nuclear material find its way into the US as a bomb, bad things will happen to the people in charge in Iran. And they know this.
-
Cos yeah, arab extremists would never do anything crazy or rash.
-
The leaders of Iran, in a nice comfortable place of power where we can find 'em. No, I don't think they would. Of course, it's all just conjecture.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
Raider179--
The proposed weapon is not really "low-yield", unless you consider a 1 megaton weapon "low-yield" (compared to some of our 20+ megaton weapons I suppose it could be seen that way). A traditional low-yield nuke is something on the order of 1 kiloton, like the Genie A2A rocket our interceptors used to carry.
The risk from fallout from using ANY nuclear weapon, while present, is usually exaggerated. There have been many dozens if not hunders of nuclear detonations right here in the USA, some airbursts, some (all the more recent ones) underground. Is the fallout from THOSE explosions something you worry about on a daily basis? Are all your friends dying of radiation poisoning? Didn't think so. Smoking and alcohol kill more people than fallout ever has. So why worry about the prospect of using one or two bunker-busters in a likely remote region halfway across the globe?
Even then, the guy who's quote you linked only said that you can't trap "all" fallout. Testing in Nevada and other sites as well as computer simulation has proven that while you can't trap it all, you CAN trap signitigant portions of it--further reducing the risk. Is a nuclear bunker buster something I'd want to use with reckless abandon every time the enemy dug a trench? No, not by a long shot. Is it a valuable tool to maintain in the inventory in limitied quantity? Experience has proven yes.
Even more important than having these weapons, though, is making people believe that we will actually USE them if we have to. A weapon is worthless if your opponent knows that you'll never use it against him. This is the REAL issue with nuclear weapons--are they worth building when our enemies are well aware that our chances of actually employing them are at best slim?
J_A_B
The 100 KT Sedan nuclear explosion, one of the Plowshares excavation tests, was buried at a depth of 635 feet. The main cloud and base surge are typical of shallow-buried nuclear explosions. The cloud is highly contaminated with radioactive dust particles and produces an intense local fallout.
In the Plowshare tests, roughly 50 percent of the total radioactivity produced in the explosion was distributed as local fallout — the other half being confined to the highly-radioactive crater.
In order to be fully contained, nuclear explosions at the Nevada Test Site must be buried at a depth of 650 feet for a 5 kiloton explosive — 1300 feet for a 100-kiloton explosive.2 Even then, there are many documented cases where carefully sealed shafts ruptured and released radioactivity to the local environment.
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm
Fallout may be exaggerated in some cases but to say it is insignifgant is ignorant. You ask why not use it, I ask why would you want to start making it acceptable to use Nukes? No one has used one since WW2(in anger) and that is the way it should stay. There is no justification for using one, short of final defense of the country.
Your information on underground testing in nevada is faulty. Maybe you could post a link?
The nuclear bunker buster is not a deterant type weapon. It is for offensive purposes only and I see no way it could deter someone just knowing "we will use it".
-
Originally posted by bj229r
How about a deep underground breeder reactor in Iran? Doesn ANYone think this govt WOULDNT use a nuclear weapon if it had one?
ehhh uhhhh.. USA has nukes, and more than one too!! They sit ontop of missiles and everything! :D
-
"You ask why not use it, I ask why would you want to start making it acceptable to use Nukes?"
I view nuclear weapons as another option and in some cases the best option. I do not view them as "boogeymen" or think they are likely to destroy the world (/laugh). I do not fear them any more than I fear any other highly destructive form of warfare such as mass carpet bombing.
In my opinion, it is acceptible to use a nuclear weapon if the use of such a weapon means saving American lives.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
well if used, lets say, in a remote bunker complex......like....um...let s say....tora bora were there is no "innocents" to die from radiation wouldn't this be a good Idea to have?
Ahh do you realy trust in racial way of thinking in US army ?
Untill sutch things happen link to BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4643481.stm) i would not be that sure, that army will use it properly.
Actualy whats does NPT say about sutch weapons ?
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
That's it isn't it? Saving American lives. Doesn't matter if you condemn thousands of innocent civilians to slow agonizing deaths as long as Americans lives are saved.
Well...probably just hundreds:D
-
[Originally posted by Sandman
Today, can you imagine any scenario that would require our use of a nuke?
No I can not. All the effort that is put into negative research in this country for better ways to control,deter and or kill each other is insane. I'am no tree hugger by any stretch of the imagination. But some how I feel our tax dollars need to be spent on other things besides cleaning up Daddys mess in Iraq. Or to avenge an attempt on some politcal leaders fathers life ten years ago. If your not ready and prepared to kick butt deont make half $%# attempts. Vietnam was a good object lesson for any political leader. If you are going to War let the generals do the job. Nukes are not the solution. Give the experts the men the material and the orders. Not mis spent reaserch dollars on penetration nukes, which are essentially old howitzers filled with low yield war heads.
-
Originally posted by uberhun
Vietnam was a good object lesson for any political leader. If you are going to War let the generals do the job.
Like Westmoreland? Naaaa. Powel maybe, not Westy.
-
Vietnam under Abrams was vastly different than Vietnam under Westmoreland. Westmoreland was the wrong choice.
-
I was not referencing so much the actual general per say as much as I was referecing the fact that when politicians run the war the objective gets lost. Just like Vietnam and Iraq today.
-
Originally posted by FaliFan
That's it isn't it? Saving American lives. Doesn't matter if you condemn thousands of innocent civilians to slow agonizing deaths as long as Americans lives are saved.
You're starting to get it.
-
It's a pretty simple concept...
Whack-a-Mole.
Big Time.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
It's a pretty simple concept...
Whack-a-Mole.
Big Time.
Do unto others before they do unto you.
-
[john wayne]
"I ain't gonna nuke 'em,
..no I ain't gonna nuke 'em.
...the hell I ain't."
[/john wayne]
-
One thing to be considered here, IMO, is what happens if other countries view this kind of weapon development as a violation of the non-proliferation treaty? (by the way, I think it is a violation) Then all of a sudden, everybody openly revives their nuke development and production programs and we are right back in a new Cold War. Only this time, the bad guys are the good ole USA, cuz they started it.
Anybody know what the Doomsday Clock says now?
-
"Anybody know what the Doomsday Clock says now?"
Terror Level: Mauve Smiting Jesus. Break out the duct tape, boys!
-
Mauve?
Nah. Damned alarmists.
We're sittin' at a comfy chartreuse. Everything's cool.
-
'revies' ?? 'everybody' ??
we're talkin about the mother of all gopher gasers here.. not a fleet of ICBM's or B-2's airborne 24/7 with H-Bombs.
knee jerk PC reaction to the 'n' word... in a world where clown controlled terrorist nations with third world camel cowboy operators wouldn't hesitate a split second to strap one on his bellybutton & pull the cord in manhattan if we let 'em breathe long enuff to put it together.
the system under consideration is a small tactical weapon taylored for a specific low yield below ground mission.
A far cry form SAC and MAD
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
'revies' ?? 'everybody' ??
we're talkin about the mother of all gopher gasers here.. not a fleet of ICBM's or B-2's airborne 24/7 with H-Bombs.
knee jerk PC reaction to the 'n' word... in a world where clown controlled terrorist nations with third world camel cowboy operators wouldn't hesitate a split second to strap one on his bellybutton & pull the cord in manhattan if we let 'em breathe long enuff to put it together.
the system under consideration is a small tactical weapon taylored for a specific low yield below ground mission.
A far cry form SAC and MAD
Doesnt matter that its a watered down Nuke. It is still a Nuke....
Why would it be acceptable to start using them? Would you get upset if Russia used one in chechneya?(sp) I think use of any Nuke, leaves a bad precedent and a dangerous opening for other countries to also start using them.
Also thinking its ok to do the wrong thing because some camel jockey's would do it to us is exactly why we shouldnt. We are different from them, remember? We don't just kill innocent people so we can kill a couple terrorists. That is what seperates us.
-
In war, there are no innocents.
And anbody camped out on top of a Bunker in eastern paksitan is not a likely candidate for the description of 'innocent'.
No matter.. regardles of the merit of argument for use of such a weapon, the mental stonewall of PC anti-nuke sentiment would still decry it use even in retaliation for it's first use against us.
I ain't gonna convince you.. you ain't gonna convince me.
Meanwhile.. thanks for the reasoned response!
-
Rule #5, rule #7.
-
Rule #5, rule #7.
-
Could anything be more perfect then Bush using WMD?