They’ve been talking about these ‘bunker-busting’ nukes for a while and to my understanding their main purpose is to destroy underground caches of weapons, specifically ‘weapons of mass destruction’ such as other nukes.
And upon what basis can you make such a statement , Curtis? (I know you don’t support it, but I’m challenging the belief). You also have to wonder about the practical applications. 2 Megaton is not “mini”
Originally posted by Curtis
They’ve been talking about these ‘bunker-busting’ nukes for a while and to my understanding their main purpose is to destroy underground caches of weapons, specifically ‘weapons of mass destruction’ such as other nukes.
That is a really fucking STUPID idea. Okay- so it blows up the nukes with a nuke and… uh… wouldn’t the nukes it destroy BLOW UP AS WELL? Christ. Armageddon near?
Uh, Sorc… The US already has enough Nuklear capabilities to destroy the world a hundred times over. I fail to see how developing MORE nukes will prepare for a future war.
I swear to god, this is the most stupid decision ever. And to make it at this time, too… >_< It almost looks like Bush WANTS to have a nuclear war on his hands.
One of these days I’m gonna build myself a spaceship and colonize Mars. Especially if this keeps up.
Damn those Duke Boys!
I swear… if we re-ellect (sp?) Bush… :enguard:
Heh, well the assumption would be that if North Korea were holding nuclear weapons, they would be hiding them in ‘underground bunkers’ that can’t be reached by normal bombs. So if we wanted to go to war with North Korea, we would be able to disable their nuclear capability(or try to) by shooting ‘mini-nukes’ at suspected hiding places, then move in with conventional forces. So the development of these new weapons means that our leadership expects to be going to war with nations that have nukes or bio/chemical weapons.
Machiavelli advised that ‘if a war is going to happen, it is inevitable and can’t be prevented, only prolonged to start at a time that is most advantageous to yourself’. I think that inevitably we would have had some kind of conflict with Iraq down the line even if Bush hadn’t invaded, and I think inevitably we’re going to end up at war with North Korea, if their government doesn’t collapse beforehand. That being said, these tactical nukes would be a good thing to have in such a war. However, over the long-run, the idea of nuclear weapons being used in a non-doomsday scenario terrifies me and I think that after the first time that one of these ‘bunker-busters’ is used, the world will be irrevocably changed.
Um, upon the basis that I make such a statement, well I read it awhile ago at some news site. Let me look… if someone knows more about this than I do, share your info.
"A nuclear penetrator is built in the shape of a thin cylinder with a pointed nose. Dropped from an airplane, its weight and speed allow it to smash through the surface of the ground or puncture rock or concrete. It buries itself 20 to 30 feet deep before exploding, Celec said. The power of the explosion ``couples’’ with the earth to send shock waves down toward buried targets.
The shock waves from a penetrator loaded with conventional high explosives ``would probably struggle to destroy a target 100 feet deep,’’ Celec said. But a nuclear weapon could reach much deeper.
Both sides of the bunker-buster debate agree that intelligence – knowing where the bunkers are – is vital, as has been demonstrated by the difficulty encountered by the CIA and military in finding Saddam.
Deep targets with imprecise coordinates would require a larger nuclear explosion, Celec said. ``You’re going to have to match the target with the weapon with the intelligence you’ve got on it.’’"
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/5695249.htm
Here’s another link:
http://64.177.207.201/pages/8_166.html
Also, they would be used not only to destroy hidden caches of weapons, but also underground enemy command centers and reasearch labs. The idea is that in the future of warfare the enemy is going to be hiding a lot of important things deep underground, where even our most powerful bombs can’t reach.
Originally posted by Wertigon
Uh, Sorc… The US already has enough Nuklear capabilities to destroy the world a hundred times over. I fail to see how developing MORE nukes will prepare for a future war.
I agree with you for the most part, we’ve got enough already - however these are missles from the 50’s well through to the 80’s. Some of the weapons we have stockpiled are possibly older than our President’s children, not to mention a great number of the posters on this forum. The practical application of such weaponry with todays technology is in question, I think.
As far as the bunker-busters go, I thought we used those against Iraq? And I thought they were non-nuclear missles?
Sorcerer, the links will explain it. We did use bunker busters in Iraq, but they were regular bombs and not nuclear. The idea is that ‘nuclear bunker busters’ can reach deeper than the regular kind and effect a wider area.
The development of this will probably scare the hell out of North Korea.
Originally posted by Devillion
He didnt.
What the hell are you talking about?
The popular vote showed Gore ahead, but the Electoral College vote (one of the stupidest systems ever, in my opinion) made Bush the president.
Darn. . .I don’t know who to vote for, anymore.
Xwing1056
What a freaking idiot!
His idiocy doesn not surprise me though…
Man, I always wondered how anyone could possibly find “justice” in attacking countries “with nuclear weapons” which they don’t even have) when you have the worlds greatest amount yourself… and I don’t freaking care if it’s “just for psycological war”
Originally posted by IonMage
[b]I knew he was stupid, but this is retarded even by his standards. Does he expect china to stand by and do nothing while he does this?!?Hello, cold war 2, you’ve finally come… [/b]
yup, i’ve said it before and I say again, America attacks China, and “america is turned into a leaky piece of meat”… possibly anyway
Originally posted by Evangelion
What the hell are you talking about?
The popular vote showed Gore ahead, but the Electoral College vote (one of the stupidest systems ever, in my opinion) made Bush the president.
Not quite Steve, he was elected, but not by the people. He was elected by the Supreme Court. Their decision affected which electors voted, therefore who got elected.
As for the nukes, nukes only breed more nukes. We have more than enough nukes to protect ourselves. Using nukes in any other situation is stupid. If we launch/drop nukes then everybody else who has them will find a reason to launch them which too horrible of a situation to think of. Nukes are only used to keep others from using nukes. Nuclear weaposn are far too common to make using them practical. In WW2 we were the only country with them which made it possibel for us to drop one since no one could really retaliate. Now many nations ahve them which means that they could easily retaliate if they chose to do so. Nukes only prevent nukes from being used by another country in fear of retaliation. However, America has more than enough nukes to do that. This quote form the article brings up very good points.
‘Why are they even talking about this now, unless something is planned? It makes no sense to us. America has the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, but it did not stop 9/11,’ said Schaeffer.
Seriously, we’ve been disarming for a long time, why the sudden shift? Also, we’ve got the largest arsenal, so why the fuck do we need to increase it? Like I said, nukes only stop nukes, which we already have enough to do. Man, here I was when Bush first got elected thinking that his missile defense system was a stupid idea since we don’t quite have the technology yet. That idea was a million times better than this one. At least a missile defense could stop a variety of attacks, including nuclear.
…At least Bush is being smart about how he does it. The article even said the whole thing was to done quietly, I don’t think that many people will know about it at least in the public eye.
The main problem is, there aren’t that many people in the opposing party I really feel like I’d vote for in the next election. If I could vote anyway.
Unlike most people, I think the whole thing with Iraq was bound to happen, and should’ve happened a long time ago, but I think Bush was the wrong guy to lead everyone into the war, and he carried it off in one of the worst possible ways; telling people of the nuclear weapons they had without knowing for sure…etc. And now, if we leave, it’ll only make things worse since things look worse now than they did before we entered Iraq. Things’ll have to get worse before they get better I suppose.
Personally, as long as my dad get’s out of being shipped to Iraq January, and we don’t get bombed to oblivion (which I’m not even certain of now) I’m happy.
<img src=“http://www.rpgclassics.com/staff/tenchimaru/td.gif”> I think the title of this thread sums it up nicely.
It isn’t the first time the people haven’t voted for the president. John Adams was elected president by Congress over Thomas Jefferson when the vote was too close to call, and I do believe that Jefferson was elected over Hamilton in the same fashion.
Ok to respond to Curtis:
-This sets up the pre-emptive use of nuclear weapons, which is a change from the typical policy of deterrence.
-This also creates other issues if the plan doesn’t work. The ideas you presented are speculative. You don’t want something which might work, you want something which WILL work
Sorc:
-The US can load nukes on cruise missiles, that’s certainly not 1950s.
>This also creates other issues if the plan doesn’t work. The ideas you presented are speculative. You don’t want something which might work, you want something which WILL work
Those ideas might be speculative, but its the reasoning behind the development of these nukes. Some could argue that in war nothing is certain, and that we have to remain on the cutting edge of technology and strategy, even if it means taking chances. I’m sure that there were a few new things tried out in Iraq that weren’t certain and that might not have worked. Of course, messing with nukes can have big consequences, but these things haven’t actually been created yet, and I’m sure the government is going to test and retest them time and time again to see just how much above-ground damage and fallout there really is. These bunker busters alone don’t worry me, but what does worry me is that its the first step towards using tactical nukes against cities and armies.
One of the reasons nukes shouldn’t even be considered is that 60 years later Japan is still sort of recovering from the bombings. The affects fo nuclear bombs last too long.
…At least Bush is being smart about how he does it. The article even said the whole thing was to done quietly, I don’t think that many people will know about it at least in the public eye.
How is keeping it a secret being smart about it? Last I checked, the people hate it when President’s keep secrets from them. Besides, when dealing with such a major issue, it is very bad to keep it hidden. By keeping it hidden, he’s just doing what he accuses Iraq and Korea of doing. Bush it keeping it quiet since he knows that most people will disapprove. Bye doing this, Bush is becoming no better than those who he is accusing of being part of an “Axis of Evil”.