[Tenchiro]

This is absolutely disgusting, does this country not already posess enough of these god awful things, or is it that no other country should be allowed to develop them except us? Why is our government overly concerned with killing other people and not concerned enough with aking care of our own?

Panel Votes to End Low-Yield Nukes Ban
Fri May 9, 8:58 PM ET


By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A Senate committee said Friday it had voted to lift a decade-old ban on the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, overriding Democratic arguments that repeal would damage U.S. efforts to stop the spread of nuclear arms.

MORE...

 

[LordOpie]

Low-Yield Nuke is like saying Low-fat McDonalds meal

 

[-BB-]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
This is absolutely disgusting, does this country not already posess enough of these god awful things, or is it that no other country should be allowed to develop them except us? Why is our government overly concerned with killing other people and not concerned enough with aking care of our own?

Panel Votes to End Low-Yield Nukes Ban
Fri May 9, 8:58 PM ET


By KEN GUGGENHEIM, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A Senate committee said Friday it had voted to lift a decade-old ban on the research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons, overriding Democratic arguments that repeal would damage U.S. efforts to stop the spread of nuclear arms.

MORE...

Not that I am FOR it, but this comment seems to make some sense regarding why we should do this but tell others not to build stuff:
America has had a ban on this research since 1993, yet that has done nothing to stop other countries from seeking to acquire nuclear weapons," Warner said.

 

[Silver]

How about the authorization of 3.5 billion for 20 F-22's?

2 less than they wanted, for a cost savings of $217 MILLION.

Nothing like spending our way out of a deficit, I guess.....

 

[Thepagoda]

The f-22 is the most advanced fighter on the planet, it's stealth capabilites make it capable of slipping under even the most advanced terrorist anti air network and destroting all of their air force before the terrorists even know that they are there. OH WAIT! In the war against terrorism (however valid and stabilizing that is...) we have thus far encounterd and engaged how many fourth generation enemy fighters? and the vast anti-air networks that the terrorists have have actually shot down how many US planes (I'm not talking about stupid tactics in which helicpoters are used to "soften" anti-air batteries in Iraq, another argument all together)?

So not to get away from the original post. Low end Nukes, like what were used on Hiroshima, (in the realm of 20 megatons) are actually not the problem it is ICBMs that we should worry about. And hey, since having a ban hasn't helped, maybe leading by example and lifting the ban on overt nuclear development is the way to go.



Endfacitious.exe
Endrant.exe

 

[LordOpie]

Originally posted by Thepagoda
Endfacitious.exe
Endrant.exe

Damned terrorists... keep your viruses outta here!

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by LordOpie
Low-Yield Nuke is like saying Low-fat McDonalds meal

Its not, really.

A low yield Nuke that weighs a 20th of a traditional explosive bomb will be alot more accurate, thereby causing the same intended damage with less civilian casualtys.

Low yield nukes, IMO, arent bad at all. Current technology stops contamination due to blasts and all....where's the downside?

Simply the word "NUCLEAR" bothers alot of people. Thats it.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Its not, really.

A low yield Nuke that weighs a 20th of a traditional explosive bomb will be alot more accurate, thereby causing the same intended damage with less civilian casualtys.

Low yield nukes, IMO, arent bad at all. Current technology stops contamination due to blasts and all....where's the downside?

Simply the word "NUCLEAR" bothers alot of people. Thats it.

The downside is that we don't need to spend money on weapons like this when our schools are in such piss poor shape. It disgusts me how much money this country throws at ways to kill other people and ignores it's own needy.

The downside is that the less "messy" war becomes the more liekly we are to turn to it, instead of peaceful solutions. That is the last thing our we need when a bunch of war mongers are running the country.

This country needs to spend money on ways to improve the lives of everyone, not on more efficient killing devices.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
The downside is that we don't need to spend money on weapons like this when our schools are in such piss poor shape. It disgusts me how much money this country throws at ways to kill other people and ignores it's own needy.

The downside is that the less "messy" war becomes the more liekly we are to turn to it, instead of peaceful solutions. That is the last thing our we need when a bunch of war mongers are running the country.

This country needs to spend money on ways to improve the lives of everyone, not on more efficient killing devices.

No, i think this is a viable cause. America's arsenal must progress and evolve, and its understandable, expected and typical for there to be opposition to this. Staying one step ahead of the competition has always benefited the US. I dont see a reason now to stop that trend with the world in its current state. We;re always developing and the only reason this causes a stir is because it involves the word "nuclear".

Schools are hurting, i agree, but the defense budget is not where from we should drain funds. IMO.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
the defense budget is not where from we should drain funds. IMO.

Where should it come from? In your opinion.

---------------------------------------
And you'll have to explain to me how current technology prevents contamination from a nuclear blast. To be small, as far as I know, it must be a fission bomb. Again as far as I know, fission bombs are messy.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
Where should it come from? In your opinion.

---------------------------------------
And you'll have to explain to me how current technology prevents contamination from a nuclear blast. To be small, as far as I know, it must be a fission bomb. Again as far as I know, fission bombs are messy.

Piss, cant help ya on the physics. Ill look for a link.

I think the money should come from the budget of the Mexican ID cards.

 

[Tenchiro]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
No, i think this is a viable cause. America's arsenal must progress and evolve, and its understandable, expected and typical for there to be opposition to this. Staying one step ahead of the competition has always benefited the US. I dont see a reason now to stop that trend with the world in its current state. We;re always developing and the only reason this causes a stir is because it involves the word "nuclear".

Schools are hurting, i agree, but the defense budget is not where from we should drain funds. IMO.

We have far and above the most technologically sophisticated military in the world, and will be that way for some time, even if we stopped developing any new technologies.

The US has budgeted somewhere about $350 billion dollars this year for defense spending, yet public schools are starting to charge parents for bus services and cutting discount lunch programs for needy families. They are also cutting out non-essential personelle, sports and music programs and some are even cutting periods off the school day.

Now maybe we shouldn't cut the budget of the military, but we definately need to bolster the budgets of our schools before we build new ways to kill people.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio

And you'll have to explain to me how current technology prevents contamination from a nuclear blast. To be small, as far as I know, it must be a fission bomb. Again as far as I know, fission bombs are messy.

Here's that link i promised.

Link To Good Nukes

Well, theyre not good, but certainly better than our current options. I think the research money will be well spent when considering the reduction in overall civilian casualities, not only from the blast, but also from Nuclear fallout.

 

[Thepagoda]

Dear Mr. Burly Surly,
I don't see how you can feasibly argue that tactical nukes are more accurate than convention weapons. there is nothing inherent in nuclear weapons that makes them more likely to hit the desired target, its all in the guidance. The weapons delivery system is responsible for getting the weapon to its target, that delivery system could be applied to either conventional weapons or nuclear weapons.

As For our defense budget not being cut to assist our schools, I can't believe that there is going to be an argument here. Our Navy and Marines alone could have easily won the war with Iraq, but when you also consider that we have the most technologically advanced army and air force in the world then it begins to beg the question, why? Why is it essential that the united states spend so much money on the upkeep of an military that is capable of decimating any other country's military when the road ahead of us promises to be much less conventional battles? What are stealth interceptors going to attack when the target is a small terrorist cell. The wars ahead of us do not require the occupying force that the army provides, we are not taking countries anymore, we are fighting terrorists. what is needed here are groups of well trained commandoes, and those groups cost a lot less than the fighters, their support crews, fuel and training for the pilots. this is not to say that the US should not maintain an air force, but why buy F-22's when the USAF could easily maintain air superiority with F-15s (which have a flawless air to air record). It's no secret that our pilots are the best trained in the world, and probably only have fewer combat hours on average than the Israelis. It is also no secret that when your children go to school they will be recieving a second rate education at best from the public system. Sports, arts and music are not in the budget because of the cost of maintaining a cold war strength army that has no real potent adversary. Our defense budget DOES need to be cut and that funding channeled to our failing school systems. The freedom that we strive to protect will mean nothing if we cannot maintain the capacity for its importance. Ignorance is NOT bliss. Knowledge is power.

Sincerely,

ThePagoda

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Thepagoda
Dear Mr. Burly Surly,
I don't see how you can feasibly argue that tactical nukes are more accurate than convention weapons. there is nothing inherent in nuclear weapons that makes them more likely to hit the desired target, its all in the guidance. The weapons delivery system is responsible for getting the weapon to its target, that delivery system could be applied to either conventional weapons or nuclear weapons.

Thanks for the class in weapons guy. Did you read how these things work? They are much more accurate and effective than conventional weapons....else we'd not be making them. Yes, of course, the delivery system is responsible, but with their smaller size and easier delivery capability of the nukes, it becomes much easier to avoid the civilian casualties. Again, its only the word "nukes" that causes the problem here. We're not talking Hiroshima here. Bunker Busters.

About the F22's and whatnot....well, its true that mostly we're fighting terrorists these days, but the threat from other countries will always be there. Refer to the CHINA THREAT THREAD. Now is not a time to rest on our laurels in my opinion. The better our equipment gets, the fewer of our troops will die in combat. To me, thats worth any amount of money.
The US has been on the cutting edge of combat technology for the last 50 years. If you decide to do any research on the aircraft the Russians are putting together these days, perhaps you'd see why we must always progress. Other countries arent just deciding to say "aw heck, our military's good enough as it is" Why should we? You say we dont need an occupying force, but what are we using right now in Iraq? The country would be complete anarchy right now. Im sorry, but i dont think you get how this all works. Cut the defense budget now? 2 years after what happened in NYC. A month after Iraq? Please.

Education to me is just as important, and i agree that our kids dont get the best education in the world. However, i dont see how my agreeing with the current nuke research somehow automatically makes me against education reform Hell, raise taxes for all i care, we still dont pay crap compared to what alot of european countries do. Use that money for education, but dont make vulnerable the very children we're trying to educate by cutting down the military. These very children might grow up to fly F22s or pull dead bodies out of the next world trade center. Who knows? It wouldnt be my choice to grow up in a more vulnerable, less defended America.

Sincerely,

Burly Surly

 

[llkoolkeg]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
This is absolutely disgusting, does this country not already posess enough of these god awful things, or is it that no other country should be allowed to develop them except us? Why is our government overly concerned with killing other people and not concerned enough with aking care of our own?

To secure peace, you must prepare for war. Our government's ability to protect its citizens is at the very root of taking care of its own. Regarding low-yield nukes, I think it's a good idea. What we have currently among the nuclear powers is a stalemate. The nuclear weapons currently possessed, particularly by China, are so terrible on a global scale that they are reasonably thought to only have a chance of being used during an Armageddon-esque event. What good is it to threaten your enemy with taser when you're both standing barefoot in a kiddie pool?

Let's say that China decided to invade Taiwan and Japan with overwhelming conventional forces under the assumption that we would be unable to react quickly enough with an effective conventional response and that we wouldn't use nukes because they have them too. How useful would our current nuclear arsenal be in stemming such an invasion when the collateral damage to friendly nations would be extreme and non-combatant casualties in China would be also. Low-yield tactical nukes would allow us to "surgically" annihilate the invaders without great collateral damage and without putting China's back to a wall to where they see no other option but to release all their ICBMs and bring about the end of the world as we know it. We haven't yet been able to develop an effective "Star Wars" defense system, but this option would be an intermediary stop-gap.

Now as for diverting defense spending for social welfare programs and education, it's just not the answer to the problem. Government's job is to keep our societal infrastructure up and running and provide for the common defense. It is our duty as citizens to educate ourselves. I think our priorities are often misguided and that we should spend a reasonable amount to keep public schools competitive and running well. Without question, public school class sizes are too large and teachers are grossly underpaid. I should know- my wife is one. By paying teachers so little, the profession currently attracts only highly dedicated scholars or mediocre slack-asses. This does not change the fact, however, that only a small percentage of parents consider the education of their children their own responsibility. Most look at public schools as free daycare. THAT is crux of the problem with education in America.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Cut the defense budget now? 2 years after what happened in NYC.

How much of that budget will have ANY effect on our ability to prevent another domestic terrorist attack? To my knowledge that falls under Homeland Security/CIA/FBI. You can use 9/11 to justify an awful lot of things, but F-22s and tactical nukes are not some of them.

I'm not arguing that we ELIMINATE defense spending. But since the end of the cold war, we need to seriously re-examine our budgeting. IMO, that's the one positive of Rumsfeld taking office...

I also (in agreement with you, BS) don't like the claim that defense is mutually exclusive with education. However, barring an increase in taxes because we're not going to see one any time soon, or an increase in tax revenues which we also aren't going to see in the current economy, money for education should come from the programs with the most fat to cut. IMO, the end of the cold war left a huge love handle around the mid-section of the DoD.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
How much of that budget will have ANY effect on our ability to prevent another domestic terrorist attack? To my knowledge that falls under Homeland Security/CIA/FBI. You can use 9/11 to justify an awful lot of things, but F-22s and tactical nukes are not some of them.

I disagree.

I think that the tactical nukes would serve a very valuable purpose in combating terrorism abroad, which in turn keeps us safer at home. The BunkerBuster Nukes are ideal for dealing with small terrorist factions in underground bunkers in places such as Afghanistan. The F-22s, while maybe not as directly applicable, still round out our defense force at a higher level. As ive said, the better our equipment is, the better off the troops will be.

The DoD is simply not the place to be taking money from. Some of the Bushy tax cuts are bothering me as well, but perhaps there's a master plan i just dont get Have to wait that one out i guess.

 

[Thepagoda]

I agree on the note that we should be paying more taxes. Its something I'd be willing to do for the sake of education, but I'm not willing to pay more taxes if its going to go to the defense dudget

As for the occupation force in Iraq, no I don't think that it's needed, but this stems from the issue that the situation should have been solved with the aid of the United Nations. If the US is going to go on foolish endeavors in the name of security, then perhaps we do need an occupying force. But I can tell you that I don't feel any safer from terrorist threats today than I did five months ago, actually I feel more at risk because the US has successfully pissed off more people.

As for a war with china and the need for a large technologically advanced army to stop them, we already have the technology to deal with them. No large scale war can be won in the 21st century (if fought without the kind of administrative Bullsh1t that was in during the vietnam war) without maintaining air superiority over the battlefield. China's air power can't even hold a candle to ours, that said if they wanted to invade taiwan any forces that they managed to put ashore could be cut off by as few as 4 of our 13 supercarrier fleets. Then we have Marine expeditionary units, Air Force Bomber and fighter squadrons and the army to push around. Not only does the US have the most advanced military in the world, it also has the best supply infrastructure and communication network. Both of the latter have been very essential in achieving victory in the past.

OK, so if if we don't want to use those forces in this purely hypothetical situation (in which case why are we keeping them?), then lets use the tactical nuke that you're talking about. Obviously we don't need to test it any more if we already know its capabilities. And if we did need to test, CFD (computational Fluid Dynamics) has proven itself capable enough that live munitons tests are not necessary.

Finally the word nuke is a problem. Because the US needs to be a major player in anti proliferation, we run the risk of hypocracy when we develop nuclear weapons of any kind, whether they be tactical or strategic.

The military should be downsized, this does not mean abolishing it. Smaller more tactical units should be used to fight when needed. The US is maintaining a military that is capable of cold war style war when that's not what we are looking at. It is going to cost more lives (militarily) if the US does not adapt. We do not need an military for world power plays. I'm not advocating a moritorium on defense research either. What I am saying is, Our defense budget supports a military that is far more capable than it needs to be, and that our technology is already astoundingly advanced (with respect to what other countries have), so the rate at which new technology is developed does not have to be so rapid.

Justifying the defense budget with respect to 9/11 is effectively ignoring the cause: TERRORSISTS. Not chinese armies, not russian subs, not squadrons of tuplevs, but 24 men who walked into the airport and onto the planes. Our current military spending and tactics are for an adversary that no longer exists.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Thepagoda
I

As for a war with china and the need for a large technologically advanced army to stop them, we already have the technology to deal with them.

We dont want or need a war with China, but what we need is to be able to react in case there is one. Saying we already have the technology to deal with China, is rather bold given that we dont know "exactly" what China has, and that they've got more 2-year-olds than we have people. Still though, even if we do, how long will that last? We know how quickly they're coming along in the world, and i would as much as anyone else just like to make friends with them, but with the reality of the situation, difference in government stance and the whole Taiwan issue. We'll need to put our money where our mouth is. Thats not to say i even agree with the mouth, but lets face it, there are differences in opinion here. And China isnt our only potential problem. North Korea is a very real threat as are many other countries.

Now, about the occupation force in Iraq and waiting for the UN, I am in staunch disagreement with you. We'd never have gone to Iraq if it were up to the UN, and maybe you agree with that, but id say the mass grave just uncovered was reason enough for me. This is another debate entirely, but im just going to say that an occupation force is being used right now, and rightfully so. Theres no need to get rid of it.

The Smaller more tactical units you speak of, im afraid, are just simply not as effective in a widescale battle. I think there's still plenty of concern for wars of the type and iraq was a pretty good example. Yes, its true that it didnt take everything we had, but thats a good thing, being that we're capable of a war on many fronts if needs be.

To me, the minute we let our guard down, is the minute someone begins to take adavantage. I agree with our keeping the upper hand and the option for a war of attrition that we can win outright. I want some skittles now.

 

[slein]

so... i'm not sure of my viewpoint, so i'll ramble anyway.

i kinda like the idea of the small nuke. i completely agree with BS that when people see NUKE, they cower and become afraid. its all about doing more with less. when efficiency improves, the boss is happy. if the boss is happy, he's less likely to do something stupid.

PREVENTION, PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE... that's what the military is all about. that being said, new wars are always fought with the previous wars' technology. developing new aircraft and bombs are good for keeping the war machine rolling, such that if there is a situation that needs some elbow grease, the defence contractors are in place to make the tools to get the job done.

that's the way the world changes, and it will likely be like this until women are the leaders of the nations. men have been screwing it up for too many years now.

once upon a time, CANADA had a formidable military machine - like the world's third largest navy at the end of WWII. it was killed when the US made CANADA dump our AVRO ARROW. i think that's why the US is supporting us now militarily, for we were a threat to them long before anyone else was. i like it though. it gives us CANADIANS better things to spend our money on - like plowing our roads in winter. we don't need nukes, for u guys got 'em.

so, i vote for the baby (killing) nukes

 

[Thepagoda]

I just want to make sure what has been said is actually what I think it is. So we don't want a war with China, I think that everybody would agree on that, but then I have to ask, why post a thread entitled "The China Threat." That's an indicator that you already think of them as the enemy, but it seems here that you are explicitly stating otherwise. A statement is then fostered about how we don't knbow what China has. If you can even buy into the Iraq thing for a second, then you have to believe we know what's going on in China. So hypothetically speaking we are totally ignorant of what china's army is capable of, except that they may have a mass army of two year olds. Get real. you know that the intelligence community has had its noses in china for a while, and while we may not have an inventory of their weapons, we sure have a damn good idea of what they are capable of.

As for tactical units simply being not as effective as the entire force, well no Sh!t. Its about how much you need. I didn't see the army (or the rangers, or the SEALs or Force Recon or anybody for that matter) come up with Osama. But that has been put onto the back burner now. Ok so what's the point here? We don't have a strategic battlefield anymore. We aren't storming beacheads, our enemy is not a large army, and to react to the threat, things need to change. Tactical units are much much cheaper than conventional units for what they accomplish (see price per kill comparison of a tactical marine sniper team compared to a marine conventional marine platoonfor example), and they are much better suited for a mission that has a theater of war that is not defined by a political map. Large armies simply cannot move fast enough and cheap enough to respond to that type of threat.

And Finally about our presence in Iraq. I agree that saddam is a real bastard, but I also realize tha the US came to these conclusions after they couldn't deal with him any longer (see Rumsfeld interaction with Saddam, Circa 1983). Human rights would be a good reason for going, but that really has nothing to do with our presence there. If Human rights had any bearing on our foriegn interests, outside of public manipulation, then we would have done something about the Cambodian holocost, we would be shipping more of our GNP to foriegn countries and The US might actually be involved in africa where AIDs epidemics and ethnic cleansings are as common as our credit card bills. The occupation force that is in Iraq right now is doing a fine job, and you have to respect those men for putting their balls on the line, and those women for putting thir junk in the way too, but that doesn't justify their presence in Iraq. So an argument about this has been had, and is of course not resolved. but while the occupation force is doing their job, they aren't really making our country any safer except putting news of Iraq on TV rather than what is going on with our failing economy and getting people's minds of our domestic problems. They are not enhancing our national security and they are not lighting our future, or the future of our children.

I do Support our troops, I do NOT support the decision that sent them there, and I don't think that maintained military status at what it is is necessary.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by Thepagoda
I just want to make sure what has been said is actually what I think it is. So we don't want a war with China, I think that everybody would agree on that, but then I have to ask, why post a thread entitled "The China Threat." That's an indicator that you already think of them as the enemy, but it seems here that you are explicitly stating otherwise. A statement is then fostered about how we don't knbow what China has. If you can even buy into the Iraq thing for a second, then you have to believe we know what's going on in China. So hypothetically speaking we are totally ignorant of what china's army is capable of, except that they may have a mass army of two year olds. Get real. you know that the intelligence community has had its noses in china for a while, and while we may not have an inventory of their weapons, we sure have a damn good idea of what they are capable of.

As for tactical units simply being not as effective as the entire force, well no Sh!t. Its about how much you need. I didn't see the army (or the rangers, or the SEALs or Force Recon or anybody for that matter) come up with Osama. But that has been put onto the back burner now. Ok so what's the point here? We don't have a strategic battlefield anymore. We aren't storming beacheads, our enemy is not a large army, and to react to the threat, things need to change. Tactical units are much much cheaper than conventional units for what they accomplish (see price per kill comparison of a tactical marine sniper team compared to a marine conventional marine platoonfor example), and they are much better suited for a mission that has a theater of war that is not defined by a political map. Large armies simply cannot move fast enough and cheap enough to respond to that type of threat.

And Finally about our presence in Iraq. I agree that saddam is a real bastard, but I also realize tha the US came to these conclusions after they couldn't deal with him any longer (see Rumsfeld interaction with Saddam, Circa 1983). Human rights would be a good reason for going, but that really has nothing to do with our presence there. If Human rights had any bearing on our foriegn interests, outside of public manipulation, then we would have done something about the Cambodian holocost, we would be shipping more of our GNP to foriegn countries and The US might actually be involved in africa where AIDs epidemics and ethnic cleansings are as common as our credit card bills. The occupation force that is in Iraq right now is doing a fine job, and you have to respect those men for putting their balls on the line, and those women for putting thir junk in the way too, but that doesn't justify their presence in Iraq. So an argument about this has been had, and is of course not resolved. but while the occupation force is doing their job, they aren't really making our country any safer except putting news of Iraq on TV rather than what is going on with our failing economy and getting people's minds of our domestic problems. They are not enhancing our national security and they are not lighting our future, or the future of our children.

I do Support our troops, I do NOT support the decision that sent them there, and I don't think that maintained military status at what it is is necessary.

 

[fluff]

So let me get this straight, this is a thread about nuclear weapons that the US can use in an offensive manner?

So we all decry weapons of mass destruction (at least in the hands of people unfriendly to the US) yet some of us are in favour of developing smaller nuclear weapons that the US can use in a pre-emptive fashion?

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by fluff
So let me get this straight, this is a thread about nuclear weapons that the US can use in an offensive manner?

So we all decry weapons of mass destruction (at least in the hands of people unfriendly to the US) yet some of us are in favour of developing smaller nuclear weapons that the US can use in a pre-emptive fashion?

Sounds pretty hypocritical to me.

These are not weapons of mass destruction, theyre bunker busters for the 473rd time.

 

[fluff]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
These are not weapons of mass destruction, theyre bunker busters for the 473rd time.

D'you wanna define weapons of mass destruction for us then?

Is it the method or the size?

Would a small bio/chem weapon attached to a bunker buster be OK according to your logic?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by fluff
D'you wanna define weapons of mass destruction for us then?

Is it the method or the size?

Would a small bio/chem weapon attached to a bunker buster be OK according to your logic?

For my purposes, and probably most other people's i think you could define a WMD as : Any weapon capable of inflicting a wide area of devastation without regard to civilian life or equipment.

You're trying to completely twist this around as usual, but i'll just say that it would be completely pointless to attach a chem/bio weapon to a bunker buster, as that would defeat its very specialized purpose...to hit an underground area while not harming the areas around it too badly. Can you not grasp that concept fluff?

This is a pretty simple one.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
These are not weapons of mass destruction, theyre bunker busters for the 473rd time.

did you read the article you posted?

low yield nukes have decreased heat and blast, but still massive amounts of radiation. Designed to kill lots and lots of people without destroying all the physical structures. a.k.a. neutron bombs, a.k.a. the "capitalist" bomb (nicknamed so by the russians because it would kill all the people but leave all the property/goods).

 

[Tenchiro]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030520/ts_nm/arms_congress_dc_2

Democrats also were challenging the Pentagon (news - web sites)'s plan to continue research on a high-yield warhead to burrow into the ground, which Rumsfeld said is needed to deter countries from burying the materials for weapons of mass destruction in deep bunkers.

Rumsfeld said the administration just wanted to study these weapons, "not to develop, not to deploy, not to use" them.

Does he think we are stupid enough to swallow a line of crap like that? He says he wants the ban lifted on research and development, then does a 180 and promises not to develop them...

 

[FlipSide]

Originally posted by Tenchiro
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20030520/ts_nm/arms_congress_dc_2



Does he think we are stupid enough to swallow a line of crap like that?

Absolutely...

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
did you read the article you posted?

Read a little further down the page champ.


"The low-yield weapons being considered now would be designed to penetrate reinforced bunkers housing chemical or biological weapons and detonate underground, concentrating their explosive power and heat on the chemical or biological agents and reducing or eliminating radioactive fallout in the atmosphere, scientists say."

 

[valve bouncer]

BS you can put a ribbon on a turd and it's still a turd. All your attempts to gild the lily here don't change the fact that what is being considered here are nuclear weapons and they are, by definition, WMDs. This kind of thinking on nuclear weapons (i.e- tactical nuclear weapons) has gone on since at least the Korean War. They aren't used and won't be used for precisely the reason that they are nuclear weapons. If used they run the risk of escalating any conflict into the realms of the unthinkable- it's no use saying "aw gee, come on, it was only a little iddy biddy bunker buster one, you guys are just so over-reacting".
As an aside, why would the US want to consider a weapon that sounds to me like it would be the perfect weapon for terrorists?

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Read a little further down the page champ.

read even further down the page, boss:

'"Requirements for low-yield weapons," including neutron or enhanced-radiation weapons that create less heat and minimize explosive effects, along with "agent defeat weapons" designed to neutralize chemical and biological weapons, were put on the agenda for a Future Arsenal Panel at that conference, according to notes from the Pentagon planning session.'

The Post has some questionable use of of quotations, but it sure sounds to me like the proposed research is all encompassing... not just radiation-contained bunker busters. I'm also curious about how they propose to contain radiation. We can't even contain the radiation in used fuel from nuclear plants deposited in the middle of the desert... they're going to somehow keep a bomb explosion from contaminating earth and drinking water in the middle of a city?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by ohio
read even further down the page, boss:

'"Requirements for low-yield weapons," including neutron or enhanced-radiation weapons that create less heat and minimize explosive effects, along with "agent defeat weapons" designed to neutralize chemical and biological weapons, were put on the agenda for a Future Arsenal Panel at that conference, according to notes from the Pentagon planning session.'

The Post has some questionable use of of quotations, but it sure sounds to me like the proposed research is all encompassing... not just radiation-contained bunker busters. I'm also curious about how they propose to contain radiation. We can't even contain the radiation in used fuel from nuclear plants deposited in the middle of the desert... they're going to somehow keep a bomb explosion from contaminating earth and drinking water in the middle of a city?

Im sorry, how did that lend credit to your previous post

I think if we need to bomb the christ out of something, Id rather contaminate a water supply and run humanitarian aid missions than simply destroy the entire city....but hey..thats just me.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
BS you can put a ribbon on a turd and it's still a turd. All your attempts to gild the lily here don't change the fact that what is being considered here are nuclear weapons and they are, by definition, WMDs. This kind of thinking on nuclear weapons (i.e- tactical nuclear weapons) has gone on since at least the Korean War. They aren't used and won't be used for precisely the reason that they are nuclear weapons. If used they run the risk of escalating any conflict into the realms of the unthinkable- it's no use saying "aw gee, come on, it was only a little iddy biddy bunker buster one, you guys are just so over-reacting".
As an aside, why would the US want to consider a weapon that sounds to me like it would be the perfect weapon for terrorists?

Look man, the word nuclear is the only problem here. You can see that. If these were C4 bunker busters that did the exact same thing, you all would probably applaud the effort to save civilian lives....but no. Its anti nukes this and anti nukes that. Find a new cause guys....seriously.

 

[ohio]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Im sorry, how did that lend credit to your previous post

"including neutron or enhanced-radiation weapons"

Sorry. Next time I'll use big lettering so you can read easier...

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Look man, the word nuclear is the only problem here. You can see that. If these were C4 bunker busters that did the exact same thing, you all would probably applaud the effort to save civilian lives....but no. Its anti nukes this and anti nukes that. Find a new cause guys....seriously.

You better believe I've got a problem with nukes. Don't you? It doesn't matter what they're used for BS or how big they are or anything else. Their use is unacceptable because of the risks involved. Do you seriously think if one of these baby nukes is used it isn't going to provoke the risk of escalation far more than the equivalent use of conventional weapons. What if one goes off target as bombs do? What happens if for some reason the spread of radiation isn't contained. Too many risks BS. They won't build them anyway. Why build a tactical weapons system that the pollies will never let you use?

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
You better believe I've got a problem with nukes. Don't you? It doesn't matter what they're used for BS or how big they are or anything else.

Talk about insightful...

Anyway, its obvious that this argument as well has gone frivelous. I think ive represented my point well, and, with posts like that one...i dont see any point in continuing this one.....

Im going to cook some bacon now

 

[valve bouncer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
Talk about insightful...

Anyway, its obvious that this argument as well has gone frivelous. I think ive represented my point well, and, with posts like that one...i dont see any point in continuing this one.....

Im going to cook some bacon now

Typical BS tactic, walk away with his fingers in his ears whistling "not listening, not listening". People have presented some very real concerns with these proposals that you haven't addressed. As soon as you find the arguement going against you you walk away saying the arguement is frivilous. Address the concerns and the points raised, don't act childish. Thought you'd turned 21 already.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by valve bouncer
Typical BS tactic, walk with his fingers in his ears whistling "not listening, not listening". People have presented some very real concerns with these proposals that you haven't addressed. As soon as you find the arguement going against you you walk away saying the arguement is frivilous. Address the concerns and the points raised, don't act childish. Thought you'd turned 21 already.

Ok dude...go read what you just posted.

You basically said. "I dont care about anyone else's points nukes are bad" Blah blah blah blah...

Whats the use in arguing? Seriously? Ive argued numerous points in this thread and most pretty effectively i think...then you come along talking (once again) out of your a$$, and its just pointless. You didnt raise one valid point in the crap you just posted, so go look in the mirror.
And quit (once again) resorting to personal attacks in your posts. Its rather childish i think.