The Bush Administration want new nuclear weapons

[Razor]

Some of you might already know this, but for those that don't, the Bush administration are looking at the possibilities and have begun studies on specialist nuclear weapons that are designed to destroy underground command complexes and bunkers.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7318

They are looking for warheads capable of destroying a 200metre deep bunker, using a 300kiloton device, and 300metres deep, using a 1 megaton device. Unfortunately, this would also harm anyone on the surface as the detonation of the weapons would cause the same amount of damage on the surface as standard thermonuclear weapons of the same yield. The reason this is a problem is that before, nuclear weapons were only authorised in an extremely last resort situation, these weapons however are being built to cater for a specific need to destroy a strategic target, so strategically, can be used "justified" to be used against such targets.

What are your opinions on this? For me, this is something i disagree with completely, even when used against targets that aren't in urban areas as the risk from radiation would still be great and the damage to the local ecosystem would be horrendous.

 

[kirovman]

Yeah I heard about this (maybe a couple of years ago).

Developing and use of nuclear weapons, even experimentally goes against just about every treaty ever made, doesn't it?

Thing is, who's got 200 metre deep bunkers? Is it something an armed force couldn't handle?

On the other hand, it is a good detterant against dictators who feel safe in their bunkers. But it's only a matter of time before others develop it too, and the President's bunker will no longer be safe.

 

[Tr0n]

Yeah I heard about this (maybe a couple of years ago).

Developing and use of nuclear weapons, even experimentally goes against just about every treaty ever made, doesn't it?

Thing is, who's got 200 metre deep bunkers? Is it something an armed force couldn't handle?

On the other hand, it is a good detterant against dictators who feel safe in their bunkers. But it's only a matter of time before others develop it too, and the President's bunker will no longer be safe.

...and NORAD won't be safe ether. :O

 

[short recoil]

A nuke's a nuke........
1 megaton is a pretty powerful weapon, not the most powerful they can make a nuke but still, i cannot think of that many places where they would need to use such a device to take out a bunker.

 

[Razor]

...and NORAD won't be safe ether. :O

Norad could withstand a near miss from a Nuclear weapon but not a direct hit.

 

[Polaris]

Yes I heard about this. But also China, Russia, India, Iran, Pakistan, North Korea bastards want new nuclear weapons ... Cold War isn’t over

 

[GiaOmerta]

I think we should develope more neutron and EMP based weapons and get rid of the nuclear weapons.

 

[kirovman]

I think we should develope more neutron and EMP based weapons and get rid of the nuclear weapons.

You are aware neutron bombs kill people with a highly ionising flux of high energy neutrons, while leaving most building standing?

The direct radiation effects are more harmful than that of an ordinary nuclear weapon.

And as far as I know, any significant EMP can only be generated by nukes.

 

[CptStern]

I support this full heartedly ...cuz we all know how successfull all those bunker buster bombs were in finding osama ...anyone remember those elaborate bunker diagrams that al qaeda was supposedly hiding out in? ..some had entrances for trucks, had mulitple levels, a command center and elevators ...we all know how many bunkers they found in afghanistan :upstare:

 

[Bodacious]

They should just get these produced as fast as possible.

Our military would be untouchable.

 

[Tr0n]

You are aware neutron bombs kill people with a highly ionising flux of high energy neutrons, while leaving most building standing?

The direct radiation effects are more harmful than that of an ordinary nuclear weapon.

And as far as I know, any significant EMP can only be generated by nukes.

Our goverment is currently developing EMP bombs.

 

[CptStern]

They should just get these produced as fast as possible.

Our military would be untouchable.

heh now I know you havent a clue ...all the best tech in the world didnt stop 1500 americans from dying. This is no different, jsut another excuse to pad the pockets of the military industrial complex

 

[$kelet0r]

They should just get these produced as fast as possible.

Our military would be untouchable.

Course they would cos the US has a total monopoly on nuclear weapons
Oh wait its not 1949 you say
Damn

Our goverment is currently developing EMP bombs.

Nuclear bombs are EMPs or rather EMPs are nuclear bombs

 

[short recoil]

They should just get these produced as fast as possible.

Our military would be untouchable.

Are you joking?

China would soon follow.

 

[Tr0n]

Nuclear bombs are EMPs or rather EMPs are nuclear bombs

No no...

Listen...they're developing EMP bombs...without the nuclear/radiation/big boom boom side of it.

 

[Bodacious]

heh now I know you havent a clue ...all the best tech in the world didnt stop 1500 americans from dying. This is no different, jsut another excuse to pad the pockets of the military industrial complex

If our troops were bulletproof do you think that many would have died? Don't think so.

 

[$kelet0r]

Technology smackdown - Armour vs projectile
projectile always wins

 

[Absinthe]

They should just get these produced as fast as possible.

Our military would be untouchable.

And it's this mentality that will screw over humanity as we know it.

 

[Tr0n]

And it's this mentality that will screw over humanity as we know it.

Didn't nazi germany at the time have the same mentality? :O

 

[Bodacious]

Technology smackdown - Armour vs projectile
projectile always wins

Says you.

 

[Direwolf]

As a side note, we've gone way beyond just "developing" EMP weapons. Although none have been officially used in combat there are several different types that have been tested and experimented with. A cheap, down and dirty version of one can even be made for about $400 (see PopMech).

Theres also been some speculation that we even used one or two during Iraqi Freedom.

 

[Gray Fox]

Nah man, on a small scale chaff is far better. Cause even if you wipe it , the wind can blow it right back. I remmebr that from a gulf war documentary, an american officer was making a joke about it.

 

[GiaOmerta]

A cheap, down and dirty version of one can even be made for about $400 (see PopMech).

That's scary if you think about it. I personally can survive without power, but for a city ex. New York City, Mexico City, to be blacked out. :-\

 

[Tr0n]

As a side note, we've gone way beyond just "developing" EMP weapons. Although none have been officially used in combat there are several different types that have been tested and experimented with. A cheap, down and dirty version of one can even be made for about $400 (see PopMech).

Theres also been some speculation that we even used one or two during Iraqi Freedom.

:O

Where can I find the article at?I can't seem to find it...

Edit: Found it...

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1281421.html?page=2&c=y

 

[CptStern]

If our troops were bulletproof do you think that many would have died? Don't think so.

cuz bulletproof vests are adequate protection against roadside bombs ...I could have posted a link of various images that prove me right ..but they're too disturbing

btw are you suggesting that troops in iraq are poorly armed? you'd think that since bush has americans best interest in mind he'd splurge a little ...but then again I doubt there's many of the bush clan serving in iraq

 

[Bodacious]

cuz bulletproof vests are adequate protection against roadside bombs ...I could have posted a link of various images that prove me right ..but they're too disturbing

Hence why I said if we had what I linked to our military would be unstopable.

 

[CptStern]

Hence why I said if we had what I linked to our military would be unstopable.

you had bunker busters in afghanistan ...hows that going?

 

[Bodacious]

you had bunker busters in afghanistan ...hows that going?

I would say it is going good, but you are blinded by hate and bias so you will say it is bad.

 

[Ennui]

you are blinded by hate and bias so you will say it is bad.

The irony of that statement boggles my mind.

 

[r2000]

Some of you might already know this, but for those that don't, the Bush administration are looking at the possibilities and have begun studies on specialist nuclear weapons that are designed to destroy underground command complexes and bunkers.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7318

They are looking for warheads capable of destroying a 200metre deep bunker, using a 300kiloton device, and 300metres deep, using a 1 megaton device. Unfortunately, this would also harm anyone on the surface as the detonation of the weapons would cause the same amount of damage on the surface as standard thermonuclear weapons of the same yield. The reason this is a problem is that before, nuclear weapons were only authorised in an extremely last resort situation, these weapons however are being built to cater for a specific need to destroy a strategic target, so strategically, can be used "justified" to be used against such targets.

What are your opinions on this? For me, this is something i disagree with completely, even when used against targets that aren't in urban areas as the risk from radiation would still be great and the damage to the local ecosystem would be horrendous.

I say build em. That may actually discourage enemies from attempting to build bunkers, deep into the mountains, because we'd simply nuke em where they stand. These aren't full-sized nuclear wepaons, they're a sort of low-yield bomb. The fact is, for all its power, daisy-cutters and other anti-bunker munitions don't always work. We saw that at Tora Bora. These weapons, will do the job. Secondly, these are for underground bunkers. Not the type you'd see in a city. As for ecosystem damage, thats a fact of war.

 

[r2000]

cuz bulletproof vests are adequate protection against roadside bombs ...I could have posted a link of various images that prove me right ..but they're too disturbing

btw are you suggesting that troops in iraq are poorly armed? you'd think that since bush has americans best interest in mind he'd splurge a little ...but then again I doubt there's many of the bush clan serving in iraq

Your obviously no member of the military. The problem with supplies is deeper than Bush. It goes back to the fact that we had a peacetime army. A peacetime army, sadly, as we had under Clinton, was not ready for war. It shows. The fact is, we didn't expect the targeting of solidiers who were in medical convoys. Thats always been a weak spot for every army.
Secondly, it takes a lot of time, under the built up Pentagon beauracracy (its been this way since the 1900's) for troops to recieve equipment quickly. The only units in the military that get their toys quickly, are SF-types, but then again, they run tremendous risks.

 

[jverne]

They should just get these produced as fast as possible.

Our military would be untouchable.

Germany had the best weapons in it's time (ww2) but they lost, USA is going on the same road!

 

[Bodacious]

Germany had the best weapons in it's time (ww2) but they lost, USA is going on the same road!

Wrong. Liberals would ensure the path to Nazism(National Socialism) far easier than would any conservative.

 

[Absinthe]

Wrong. Liberals would ensure the path to Nazism(National Socialism) far easier than would any conservative.

And your reasoning behind this is?

The Nazis were socialists in name only. They were fascist conservatives to their very core.

 

[kirovman]

And your reasoning behind this is?

The Nazis were socialists in name only. They were fascist conservatives to their very core.

It's true that, and pretty much comparable to "The Democratic Republic of Korea"

 

[Mr Stabby]

A nuclear exposion is spherical, meaning if you want to go 300m through rock , you need to go far more than 300m through the air, the only way i see it possible is a multi-warhead deveice which have been banned by the SALT and START treaties aswell as the UN

 

[Maxi]

A nuclear exposion is spherical, meaning if you want to go 300m through rock , you need to go far more than 300m through the air, the only way i see it possible is a multi-warhead deveice which have been banned by the SALT and START treaties aswell as the UN

Yeah but I think the way these bunker buster nukes work is that they somehow shape the form of the blast so that most of the enrgy gets rammed down into the ground instead of going off in a sphere. I have no idea how they are doing that though.

 

[jonbob]

I was under the impression that bunker busters actually penetrated the earth before detonating. Still I think it's a bad idea to develop more advanced nuclear weapons, especially considering the fact that the country doing it is the only one to ever use them.

 

[Lemonking]

from all the people on this forum the Pinguin dude and ghost are the most ignorant and stupid Thats all I have to say.

/leaves Building

 

[Razor]

I say build em. That may actually discourage enemies from attempting to build bunkers, deep into the mountains, because we'd simply nuke em where they stand. These aren't full-sized nuclear wepaons, they're a sort of low-yield bomb. The fact is, for all its power, daisy-cutters and other anti-bunker munitions don't always work. We saw that at Tora Bora. These weapons, will do the job. Secondly, these are for underground bunkers. Not the type you'd see in a city. As for ecosystem damage, thats a fact of war.

If i was an evil dictator, i would just build a huge underground complex under a capital city and have a lot of my military command centres in a capital city, i.e. Baghdad. The weapons may be low yield compared to 100 megaton super weapons, but 1 megaton can not be called low yield as the devastation would be horrendous.

Bodacious, why is it everytime you make a post in the political forum, i seem to end up siding with CptStern immediately? CptStern might be a little biased towards the left, in my opinion, but you are completely biased in the opposite direction. Yes you have come up with some great sources of information that counter Stern's, but the way you talk just screams "i am a neo-conservative".