dcsimg
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: Is this true?

  1. #1

  2. #2
    Member Ironforge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Posts
    362
    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

  3. #3
    Former volunteer
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    San Antonio, TX USA
    Posts
    4,664
    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.

  4. #4
    Member Hawkeye178's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    www.TechIMO.com
    Posts
    250
    If it is, that's pretty scary.

    Hawkeye178
    Hawkeye178
    www.techimo.com

  5. #5
    Senior Member Graham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Ipswich, Suffolk UK
    Posts
    521
    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
    Nothing moves faster than goalposts


  6. #6
    Ultimate Member surrealchereal's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    In a tent
    Posts
    1,070

    surprised if the US and British military ever left home without their "nukes"

    I agree with Graham on this one.

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Minneapolis, MN, USA
    Posts
    58
    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

  8. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Posts
    134
    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.

  9. #9
    Insane Member Warthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    3,512
    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

  10. #10
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 1999
    Location
    Kent, WA USA!
    Posts
    26
    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

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Long Island, NY, USA
    Posts
    208
    The Worldnetdaily is the Internet equivilent of a supermarket checkout tabloid. You know, the ones with the headlines "Bush Meets with Aliens."

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Saddleback Valley, Ca.
    Posts
    726
    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.

  13. #13
    I'll take two... CPU's BBA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Jacksonville Fl, USA
    Posts
    3,012
    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.
    WINDOWS 2000....Need I say more!


  14. #14
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Posts
    134
    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

  15. #15
    Insane Member Warthog's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 1999
    Location
    Vermont, USA
    Posts
    3,512
    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

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •