America plans to detonate nukes

[CptStern]

"The Bush Administration has again requested funding from Congress to research a new type of nuclear bomb. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) is a nuclear weapon that would burrow a few meters into rock or concrete before exploding and thus generating a powerful underground shock wave."



Scientists' Letter to the Senate on Mini-Nukes


"There is no need for the United States to develop new low-yield nuclear weapons beyond those it has already developed and tested. Opponents of the law argue that the ban impedes exploration of nuclear weapons concepts for attacking deep underground targets and destroying chemical and biological agents. However, technical analysis shows that low-yield weapons would not be effective for these tasks. Low-yield earth-penetrating weapons cannot burrow deep enough and do not have a large enough yield to destroy deep underground targets; moreover, the explosion would not be contained for even low-yield earth-penetrating weapons, and would necessarily result in large amounts of radioactive fallout. If a nuclear weapon was used to attack chemical or biological agents, it is far more likely that this would result in the dissemination of these agents rather than their destruction."



RNEP could kill millions of people: A simulation of RNEP used against the Esfahan nuclear facility in Iran, using the software developed for the Pentagon, showed that 3 million people would be killed by radiation within 2 weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation


source


if scientists are afraid then we're in big big trouble



edit: oops should be in politics

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

"The Bush Administration has again requested funding from Congress to research a new type of nuclear bomb. The Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator (RNEP) is a nuclear weapon that would burrow a few meters into rock or concrete before exploding and thus generating a powerful underground shock wave."



Scientists' Letter to the Senate on Mini-Nukes


"There is no need for the United States to develop new low-yield nuclear weapons beyond those it has already developed and tested. Opponents of the law argue that the ban impedes exploration of nuclear weapons concepts for attacking deep underground targets and destroying chemical and biological agents. However, technical analysis shows that low-yield weapons would not be effective for these tasks. Low-yield earth-penetrating weapons cannot burrow deep enough and do not have a large enough yield to destroy deep underground targets; moreover, the explosion would not be contained for even low-yield earth-penetrating weapons, and would necessarily result in large amounts of radioactive fallout. If a nuclear weapon was used to attack chemical or biological agents, it is far more likely that this would result in the dissemination of these agents rather than their destruction."



RNEP could kill millions of people: A simulation of RNEP used against the Esfahan nuclear facility in Iran, using the software developed for the Pentagon, showed that 3 million people would be killed by radiation within 2 weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan and India would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation


source


if scientists are afraid then we're in big big trouble



edit: oops should be in politics

Hmm, dumb in my opinion. If anything, we have nuclear arms that can create low levels of fallout and low radiation unlike say Nagasaki/Hiroshima, just look into Neutron Bombs.

I've proposed using neutron bombs in the less inhabited regions of Tora Bora (well, not now anyway, they're out of there now) after giving stern warnings to civillians to leave and doing forced evacuations of homes, then just killing everyone in the caves, without permanently marring the land.

edit: Why would you nuke a -facility-? That sounds utterly retarded for me. The purpose of nukes is to destroy everything in X range. In practical use, low long lasting radiation yield small nuclear munitions are good for say, massive troop movements in a huge war and the like. As an example, say, the 6 day Arab-Israeli war, when those huge convoys of Arab tanks and troops were coming in. You could use one right there, bam. Not always having to be on a city. If you're trying to take out a facility, you can use simpler ordnance and the job will be accomplished.

 

[Skaadi]

Holy hell!!!!!. Now we're all screwed......

 

[baxter]

Hmm, dumb in my opinion. If anything, we have nuclear arms that can create low levels of fallout and low radiation unlike say Nagasaki/Hiroshima, just look into Neutron Bombs.

I've proposed using neutron bombs in the less inhabited regions of Tora Bora (well, not now anyway, they're out of there now) after giving stern warnings to civillians to leave and doing forced evacuations of homes, then just killing everyone in the caves, without permanently marring the land.

And .........this is a good thing ?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

And .........this is a good thing ?

Um no?

 

[CptStern]

Hmm, dumb in my opinion. If anything, we have nuclear arms that can create low levels of fallout and low radiation unlike say Nagasaki/Hiroshima, just look into Neutron Bombs.

I've proposed using neutron bombs in the less inhabited regions of Tora Bora (well, not now anyway, they're out of there now) after giving stern warnings to civillians to leave and doing forced evacuations of homes, then just killing everyone in the caves, without permanently marring the land.

edit: Why would you nuke a -facility-? That sounds utterly retarded for me. The purpose of nukes is to destroy everything in X range. In practical use, low long lasting radiation yield small nuclear munitions are good for say, massive troop movements in a huge war and the like. As an example, say, the 6 day Arab-Israeli war, when those huge convoys of Arab tanks and troops were coming in. You could use one right there, bam. Not always having to be on a city. If you're trying to take out a facility, you can use simpler ordnance and the job will be accomplished.

you should read the article ..it's not about nuking mass troops but underground bunker busting

 

[chrisuk27]

yeah they could use those nuclear handgrenades, throw it 20 feet and it makes a 200ft crater when it goes off

 

[baxter]

.

I've proposed using neutron bombs in the less inhabited regions of Tora Bora (well, not now anyway, they're out of there now) after giving stern warnings to civillians to leave and doing forced evacuations of homes, then just killing everyone in the caves, without permanently marring the land.

.

Sorry maybe I misread your post but I thought you proposed bombing Tora Bora, after giving stern warnings to the civilians, and then just killing everybody in the caves.
My mistake.

 

[Moto]

Hey great! Let's think of new ways to kill other human beings! The current nuclear weapons aren't good enough. I mean, they kill everyone but they don't cause big enough Earthquakes. Let's add insult to injury and make the Earth shake beneath the already devastated land affected by the warhead. I don't think it will make anyone hate us, do you? Nobody else can have nukes, but we damn well can!

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Sorry maybe I misread your post but I thought you proposed bombing Tora Bora, after giving stern warnings to the civilians, and then just killing everybody in the caves.
My mistake.

I did!

you should read the article ..it's not about nuking mass troops but underground bunker busting

Yeah I did and it's a dumb idea, just was stating the current modern day applicability of tactical nuclear strikes.

 

[Shamrock]

Hey great! Let's think of new ways to kill other human beings! The current nuclear weapons aren't good enough. I mean, they kill everyone but they don't cause big enough Earthquakes. Let's add insult to injury and make the Earth shake beneath the already devastated land affected by the warhead. I don't think it will make anyone hate us, do you? Nobody else can have nukes, but we damn well can!

Who the hell...

I have never heard of you before..

 

[Moto]

Yeah I didn't come here for a long while. But, your name is shamrock and mine is pat, so we're Irish friends now.

 

[satch919]

And here we are 60 years later after the first use of a nuclear bomb and it appears that we haven't learned anything. Sad.

How about we invest some more time and money in figuring out ways to help people and solve issues diplomatically instead of killing eachother.

Finally, why do we tell other nations to get rid of their nuclear arsenal when, here we are, developing more? Hypocritical? Maybe just a tad.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

And here we are 60 years later after the first use of a nuclear bomb and it appears that we haven't learned anything. Sad.

How about we invest some more time and money in figuring out ways to help people and solve issues diplomatically instead of killing eachother.

Finally, why do we tell other nations to get rid of their nuclear arsenal when, here we are, developing more? Hypocritical? Maybe just a tad.

We do it in the best interests of the United States. Having a rogue nation have them is dangerous to our people. Britain and France having them, not so much of an issue.

 

[Korgoth]

The bomb kills just as many innocent people, whether we drop it, or a "rogue" nation drops it.

 

[Direwolf]

On the one hand: yeah, its an insane idea and probably a little bit of overkill.

On the other: I can't help but be annoyed with scientists who decry something as a long shot before it even gets going. The requested funding is apparently intended to just research the idea, and who knows what they might turn up along the way. Someone out there apparently thinks the idea has some merit, but whether or not thats justified remains to be seen. Even if the darned things got built, they'd likely rot in bunker somewhere because everyone would fear the PR disaster if they used them in anything but a certain doom scenario.

 

[AntiAnto]

We do it in the best interests of the United States. Having a rogue nation have them is dangerous to our people. Britain and France having them, not so much of an issue.

Tell me... how will bombs help in any ways the interests of the United States? Because I seriously hope eadicating human race is not in the list of the "best interests of the United States".

 

[Kangy]

http://www.ucsusa.org/general/special_features/page.cfm?pageID=1782

That's a flash movie that explains why there's no need for bunker busters, and why they're so stupidly dangerous.

 

[baxter]

I did!

I was being sarcastic.

Is there some sort of deep satisfaction to developing more and more terrifying ways of killing our fellow human beings or does the idea of bunker busting nukes really have a role today?
As I go about my daily life, working, going down the pub, sitting with my family, reading etc, etc...The furthest thing from my mind is the idea of developing a bunker busting nuke. Clearly somebody thinks of nothing else and also clearly other people agree with him.
For the life of me I can't see any need or use of these weapons and pray to goodness they won't be developed let alone deployed.
Maybe we such spend the money trying to save lives rather than taking lives.

 

[oldagerocker]

No country, in the world should develop nuclear weapons. When the US are trying to stop Iran and North Korea from developing these weapons... they're building more themselves.

Nuclear weapons would radiate the land and hundreds of square miles around the blast with radiation, making the place inhabitable for centuries. Wether the blast was a few metres underground or not.

 

[CptStern]

I was being sarcastic.

Is there some sort of deep satisfaction to developing more and more terrifying ways of killing our fellow human beings or does the idea of bunker busting nukes really have a role today?
As I go about my daily life, working, going down the pub, sitting with my family, reading etc, etc...The furthest thing from my mind is the idea of developing a bunker busting nuke. Clearly somebody thinks of nothing else and also clearly other people agree with him.
For the life of me I can't see any need or use of these weapons and pray to goodness they won't be developed let alone deployed.
Maybe we such spend the money trying to save lives rather than taking lives.

this explains it:


"As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?


We seem to have forgotten the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success: a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
responsibilities today and modernize our armed forces for the future;


• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;


• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;


• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.



signed:


Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dick Cheney, Jeb Bush and others

 

[baxter]

The history of the 20th century should have taught us that it is important to shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire. The history of this century should have taught us to embrace the cause of American leadership.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

That is one scary link.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Baxter I've stated numerous times the fact and why I think bunker busting nukes is a stupid idea. It's a waste of funds, if you do things to help end the deficit like tax cuts, etc, and then throw money at NON issues like this, useless projects, you may as well do nothing in the first place.

PNAC has good intentions, the problem is they just focus too much on external problems. People don't realize the reform we now need here at home in society and government.

 

[CptStern]

pnac is the new world order, the military-industrial complex and the beginnings of the american age of overt yet clandestine fascism

americans are the rank and file that will deliver this New World Order ...one that is built on lies and the blood of it's citizens

 

[baxter]

Yes you did and suggested alternatives to the massive nuclear arsenal

If anything, we have nuclear arms that can create low levels of fallout and low radiation unlike say Nagasaki/Hiroshima, just look into Neutron Bombs.

Yeah I did and it's a dumb idea, just was stating the current modern day applicability of tactical nuclear strikes

We do it in the best interests of the United States. Having a rogue nation have them is dangerous to our people. Britain and France having them, not so much of an issue

I am stating that many people, me included find any country developing, amassing and heaven forbid deploying these types of weapons is offensive.
My objection is the offhand way these weapons are seen.
It's not about funds, it's about the individuals with their fingers on the button and again, heaven forbid the use of these weapons.

Ok let me put this to you....would you use a nuke?

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

In the proper instance, yes, would have in Tora Bora. Wouldn't have used huge thermonuclear warheads, but would certainly have deployed neutron bombs.

There hasn't really been another instance where it could tactically be used besides that one though.

Like I said about the PNAC, acting too globally. We can't apply our societal standards everywhere, some places are just too different, religiously but also culturally rooted in thousands of years of history. Like I've been saying, we need to focus on strengthening America here at home first, sorting our own problems out. It's like a dentist on a mission to fix everyone's teeth on his block as they are rotting, while his are slowly started to decay. Reading that, it's a very stupid comparison, but it pretty much fits . Hehe.

 

[B.Calhoun]

Nuke Canada.

 

[Sparta]

Like I said about the PNAC, acting too globally. We can't apply our societal standards everywhere, some places are just too different, religiously but also culturally rooted in thousands of years of history. Like I've been saying, we need to focus on strengthening America here at home first, sorting our own problems out. It's like a dentist on a mission to fix everyone's teeth on his block as they are rotting, while his are slowly started to decay. Reading that, it's a very stupid comparison, but it pretty much fits . Hehe.

Wait, are you saying, first you want America to sought itself out first.............and then everyone else?

 

[jabberwock95]

Wow, this is just such a bad idea.

Bush is the first american president in a long time to introduce a new class of nuclear weapon, shouldnt that tell him something? When even the scientists are saying hes insane!

"The worst soldiers in the world have more morals than the average scientist" - War in 2010

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Wait, are you saying, first you want America to sought itself out first.............and then everyone else?

It would be good if actually feasable but we can't afford to like I said before, and the fact that our standards can't fit in every culture. They need to sort themselves out. And after we leave Iraq, our focus should turn inward a lot more than it is now.

 

[CyberPitz]

I forsee the end of this world soon. Thanks alot Bush.

 

[Gray Fox]

Rakurai are you sure that neutron bombs don't leave a lot of fallout, cause as far as I know thas exactly what they do more then a conventional nuke. A large part of the energy is used to create radiation instead of an explosion. Hence a neutron bomb has a far lesser blast ardius, but much more radiation.

 

[jabberwock95]

Rakurai are you sure that neutron bombs don't leave a lot of fallout, cause as far as I know thas exactly what they do more then a conventional nuke. A large part of the energy is used to create radiation instead of an explosion. Hence a neutron bomb has a far lesser blast ardius, but much more radiation.

You are correct that nuetron bombs create more radiation, but there is a difference between radiation and fallout.

Fallout is dust/sand from the initial fireball of a nuke that has become radioactive. It blows about in the wind (sometimes for miles) and settles while continuing to give off harmful levels of radiation (alpha, beta or gamma varieties).

Neutron bombs put most of their energy into creating neutron radiation. This is also called 'initial' radiation as it is only produced by the initial explosion. It does not make anything radioactive, merely is produced by the blast. Normal a-bombs do not produce much compared to blast/thermal effects.

A neutron bomb creates a small blast and a lot of neutron radiation. This radiation only lasts for a split second (it travels at the speed of light) but it is powerful enough to give people within range a dose that will be fatal very rapidly. Thus, neutron bombs are used as anti-personnel weapons, because they kill people without damaging structures/vehicles.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Well it's misleading to say that they can be used against structures and not destroy them. There is a fairly big blast that would level a couple blocks probably, or at least a big crater. The main point is they can kill a lot of people in a big area very fast, without leaving the radiation for ages to kill like happened in Japan.

That's what made them so fit for use in Tora Bora, it's sad to see a situation like that or say this, but it's as if it was the 'ideal' environment for them to be used, like they were created FOR that situation.

 

[15357]

America has some 13000 nuclear weapons. Why do they need to destroy every city in the world 5 times over?

 

[jabberwock95]

Well it's misleading to say that they can be used against structures and not destroy them. There is a fairly big blast that would level a couple blocks probably, or at least a big crater. The main point is they can kill a lot of people in a big area very fast, without leaving the radiation for ages to kill like happened in Japan..

Admittedly yeah, there would be a big blast on the scale of 'conventional' explosisves. Tiny compared with a standard nuke though.

Actually, the 'ideal' situation as far as im concerned would be a massive division of some enemy gathering in a fortified city threatenting you.

Drop a few neutron bombs, enemy soldiers die, your forces go in and take over the undamaged defences/guns/tanks (after moving the bodies).

 

[clarky003]

Isnt this getting a bit perculiar... why oh why does a country's government feel so obligated to have more powers to police the world, when its already clear they have the most powerful military force ever, its getting a bit out of hand if you ask me.. whos in control here..? the people , or the corporate entity that is the military industrial complex.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The Corporate Entity should always be in control. Not 'small c' corporations, such as businesses given that name, but The Corporate State. Everything within the state, nothing outside of it.

 

[clarky003]

Thats fine aslong as the corporate entity doesnt effect, or have to much controlling influence in government, the war > profit machine is a dangerous one.

I read something earlier today about cheney wanting to develop these nukes to use on Iran, whos hiding in Iran?... more weapons of mass destruction? or are they just planning this for fun.

 

[Adidajs]

that was a funny video. thanks guys. Maybe our govt needs better bunker buster-type bombs, but it doesn't look like low-grade nuclear bombs will do the necessary job. Oh and Stern, nice title. misleading. i should have expected that. You really try and stir some sh*t up around here.