Is this true?

[TechDude]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=24829

[Ironforge]

I would think so..

I'm sure they would want to be prepared for anything..

however.. since their targets may be small... it might not be effective.. who knows :)

I don't have access to military intelligence to make anything but an educated guess :D

[daveleau]

I have heard this, too. I am not sure why they are doing it. I think it may open a door we don't want opened (suitcase nukes). Carpet bombing terrorsit areas, like we have been doing, is enough I think as long as it is far from non-terrorist dwellings.

[Hawkeye178]

If it is, that's pretty scary.

Hawkeye178

[Graham]

I would be very surprised if the US and British military ever left home without their "nukes", using them however is quite a different matter. It is unlikely that the situation would arise in this campaign, there are too many uninvolved civilians, and no real army to attack.

G

[surrealchereal]

I agree with Graham on this one.

[MrMikeL]

I think it would be EXTREMELY naive for us to think that these weapons of mass destruction will never be unleashed on our country by our enemies. We were caught with our pants down on Sept 11, I don't want that to happen again. If the need should arise, and I stress the need, then I believe the use of tactical nukes is not only warranted, it is demanded

[card_magic]

I don't think its totally unthinkable. They have tactical nuclear weapons with very low yeilds.

I have a book... called Nuclear Choices, by Richard Wolfson, and in there, he talks about some of these tactical nuclear weapons, like the neutron bomb, which was "designed specifically to stop advancing tanks by killing their crews with penetrating doses of neutrons."

So, I don't think the reasons for NOT using the weapons, aren't because innocent people would be killed, but rather, because the use of small nuclear devices might escalate to the use of some of our large multi-megaton bombs.

[Warthog]

There are nukes that can be fired out of artillery and nukes that are a small package that the SEALs were trained on during Vietnam (and possibly still).

I think the use of them now would result in a possible "retaliation" by the terrorists. Only as a response, IMHO.

What do you think the submarines around the world have on them? They're always ready.

Warthog

[Russ]

If the need should arise, and I stress the need, then I believe the use of tactical nukes is not only warranted, it is demanded

Absolutely. For those who would argue otherwise based on the fallacious assumption that nuclear weapons cannot be targeted to very small areas, I'd suggest a little research.

Modern nuclear weaponry is far more flexible and narrow in focus today then what might be thought when viewing the typical video of a blast.

OTOH, I'm not sure I'd place much stock in anything reported by World Net Daily. They have about as much credibility as The National Enquirer.

Russ, NCNE

[MTAtech]

The Worldnetdaily is the Internet equivilent of a supermarket checkout tabloid. You know, the ones with the headlines "Bush Meets with Aliens."

[Toadman]

What better way to bury a burrowed enemy in a hardened mountain cave or shelter than a low-yield underground 70-kiloton detonation placed by ground forces? No radiation mess, either.

[BBA]

The US military does not enter any situation without a nuke idly sitting by.

I think that it means we will use it if our troops take too many casualties. It also means...we are not over there to be nice.

[card_magic]

I don't think thats the point though. There are a few problems with using ANY nuclear munitions of ANY kind. Suppose we drop a small, itty-bitty, bite-size nuclear weapon, that has the power of a standard hand-grenade. Immediately, there are going to be groups that will be screaming "nuclear holocoust," which give America a very bad name, and would further drive the enemy to retaliate against their nuclear aggressors. Some nations may withdraw their support for us, because we used nuclear weapons. Furthermore, suppose the enemy HAS nuclear capabilities, but they are waiting for us to make that first strike, so they can justify the use of nuclear weapons. We could unwittingly unleash a huge nuclear attack on the United States. Also, once the US okays the use of one nuclear weapon, where does it end? The mentality would begin which would state, "okay... we used this nuclear weapon, and there were no problems... lets step it up a notch." Its only a matter of time before multi-kiloton bombs are being dropped, and innocent people are being obliterated. The reprocussions that come with the use of nuclear weapons FAR outweighs the benefits of their use. There are MANY technologies out there which would be much more suited to the task at hand. Also, what happens if even a small, tactical, low-yield nuclear weapon falls into the wrong hands? That could be a serious problem, especially if they were able to reverse-engineer it. I say, leave nuclear weapons out of it. We have enough munitions otherwise to blow them off the face of the earth, a few times over, anyway. We need to concentrate our efforts on intelligence, and training troops for a war in the mountains. Lets not have another Vietnam, because we were unprepared for their tactics, and lets certainly not have another Hiroshima, because we wanted to flex our muscles.

-Jim

[Warthog]

There are MANY technologies out there which would be much more suited to the task at hand

What else can cause this much destruction? Collapsing mountains, fun stuff like that...

and training troops for a war in the mountains

Special forces troops are trained for war in the moutains.

Warthog

[BBA]

Hey...the last time we used them...it was Ok...whats your beef :D

[dday]

It seems to me that the first and last times we used these munitions it wasn't about flexing muscle it was about expediting the Japanese surrender to stop more protracted and horrific loss of life fighting on the island of Japan.
I'm not a particular fan nuclear weapons , although I was rated to work on F-111's near the closing days of the Cold War , (dating myself) , but you 've got to know that we don't have this stuff sitting in silo in Kansas , they probably have the hardware pretty close at hand , not to say we would necessarily use them , but it's still a cold war mentalitiy of deterence.
We didn't drive all the way over there to bomb aspirin factories , we came to punish the bad guys. And we aren't about to show too much weakness in front of all our new found freinds either , some of these guys are still on the "bad girl and boys list" from last Christmas if you follow my meaning.
We have some very capable leaders in the current admin. and I believe they are following a prudent path in this situation , and none of these men are cowboys , they are real pro's. Many are ex-commanders and civilian Defense Dept. leaders , they take their mens' lives very seriously and also the lives of their enemies. And if you read a little about them you will find that they too are not big fans of the" Battle Feild Nuke" scenario.
"Chins Up " We have a long ways to go on this one !:)

[card_magic]

It seems to me that the first and last times we used these munitions it wasn't about flexing muscle it was about expediting the Japanese surrender to stop more protracted and horrific loss of life fighting on the island of Japan.

Okay, yeah... thats just what they TOLD us. Its a lie though. Recent exploration into the history of the bombings shows something completely different. At the time, the quotes were that 500,000+ American lives would be lost in an invasion of Japan. That is complete fiction. The actual numbers would have been closer to 24,000 - 40,000 lives, which is nothing compared to the 200,000 lives taken PER bombing in Japan. The reasons for dropping the bomb were much more political. There were at LEAST two more reasons for dropping the bomb. One of them, the less influential of the two, was that it was somewhat of an experiment, to find out the effect the bombs would have on human life, and a city's infrastructure. The main reason the bomb was dropped, however, was because we KNEW there was going to be bad blood between the Soviet Union, and the United States, after World War II. Dropping the bomb was our way of saying to Stalin, "back off, buddy... or we'll kick your ****." It was our first move in the cold war.

-Jim

[Aaron_J]

Also to add to what card_magic is posting.

To say we.... (A) bombed the Japanese because (B) we would have suffered huge losses in an invasion.... shows a complete lack of logical thinking.

The Japanese were all but defeated in the weeks preceding the the use of nuclear weapons. They didn't have the resources (fuel, supplies, ammunition, etc.) to mount any type of major offensive attack hence they were no real threat. Heck, Japan is a island for petes sake. Their economy is a trading economy. It required outside support (imports of oil, metals, etc,) to survive and we had totally cut off that support. Why not just blockade them? There was absolutely no law, rule, or commandment that stated we had to invade them yet for some reason, this is what anyone will tell you when you ask why we bombed them.

We did not have to invade them therefore the possible losses to our forces for an invasion is not a logical reason to have bombed them.

[U-96]

What else can cause this much destruction? Collapsing mountains, fun stuff like that...

The BLU-82 Commando Vault "Daisy Cutter" (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/dumb/blu-82.htm) would be a start - also known as "the pallet bomb", it was used for clearing chopper LZs in Vietnam and for scaring the bejesus out of entrenched Iraqi troops in the Gulf War.

[BBA]

Gee...I'm sure glad we have all these WW2 experts here.

I only hear this kind of **** from treehuggers. From the military sources...Japan could have defeated our fleets. They were in many countries that had resources to use. ( the Jap's werent just an island. )

We won the war by only a few decisive circumstances, because we pulled the stops.

The fact is, they messed up by attacking the world, so don't blame the US.

[card_magic]

I only hear this kind of **** from treehuggers. From the military sources...Japan could have defeated our fleets.

Woah there... whats up with the generalizations, here? I am not a "treehugger." I'm just pointing out that there were more reasons for dropping the bomb than just to save the lives of some American GIs. And why would you believe everything the military has to say? If the military wants to use the bomb, they are going to say what needs to be said in order to get their way. You can't just blindly follow what they have to say. Simply as a matter of National security, the military WILL lie to us, and WILL withhold information. They can't go around telling everyone what they did, and why. Sure, maybe the military DID quote 500,000+ American lives lost in an invasion. But, Truman's top advisors were quoting figures that were just fractions of that amount. Do you think Truman could have justified to the American people, the use of the bomb, if he told us that it would only be saving 40,000 American lives, but would be taking 400,000 Japanese lives? This is not to say that the decision to drop the bomb was right, or wrong. Although I have opinions on that, I'd hate to be labeled a "treehugger" because I don't like things that blow up really big. All I'm saying is, there were more reasons, and don't take what your high school-level, American written history book has to say at face value.

-Jim

[gyoung]

I agree with BBA here (but not his name calling or labelling).

400,000 or 40,000 it didn't matter, they dropped the bomb for many of the reasons you stated, but they ALSO dropped the bomb to save US soldiers from having to invade Japan. I believe that this still was the main reason. If you are fighting a war with another foe and you can save any of your troops but the tradeoff is massive casualties on the other side, I think you decision is clear (not easy, but clear). Truman knew how many people were going to die, but he made the hard decision. It was more important to bring our boys home.

It would have been a horrific battle to have tried to invade Japan. Remember for years after the war the some Japanese on remote islands thought the war was still going.

So you are right, but you are also wrong.