It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Rumsfeld Seeks to Revive Burrowing Nuclear Bomb

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 07:23 PM
link   

those whom wish for nations like Sudan or N Korea to have nuclear weapons in "all fairness" are begging for WW3
just think about that for a little bit


Just think about this for a little bit, the US should disarm and dismantle its own WMD before preaching to the rest. I dont say give palestine etc Nuclear weapons, but that US, france, russia, china etc shouldnt have the bloody things either. Us ,having more Nuclear weapons than you can poke a stick at, and has used two, has NO RIGHT, to preach, but should disarm as example or shut the f*ck up and butt out!!




posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 07:45 PM
link   
Oh, give me a frigin' break Instar! First of all the two nukes we used 60 years ago saved more lives on both sides than they killed.

And second if the US has no right to be telling other nations that they can't have nukes than where the hell are you and the rest of the world. I'm so sick and tired of hearing people like you telling me and my country that we should not be preventing other nations from developing nuclear weapons. Because if we don't it certainly doesn't look like anybody else cares. So, if all goes your way in a few year you'll be telling some guy in Iran that he shouldn't tell Saudi Arabia that they can't have nukes.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:04 PM
link   
why does anyone need nuclear weapons?
if nobody had them, nobody would need them to "defend" themselves.
why do we let our gevernments make "bigger and better" weapons? the only reason for WMD is to create mass destruction! to kill hundreds of thousands of people, people who have nothing to do with whatever the government is upset about. the world is going downhill, because a bunch of idiots are allowed the power to do whatever they want to it, with no concern for anyone standing in there way. and for the most part all anyone does is complain.
don't forget, if you are a US citizen you are george bush's boss! he is your "elected" president, he has to answer to you, and everyone else in the country.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
Truth hurts dont it! Dont matter it was 60 yr ago, the world hasnt forgotten . I dont buy the lame fall back of "it saved more lives than it killed" crap either. Those who do wrong ALWAYS seek self justification. The Us should have stopped right there, no, shouldnt have encouraged proliferation during the cold war and there wouldt be so bloody many WMD around today. US was scared that big bad russia would top them, russia was scared big bad us would top them, so both were so damn proud they had to keep making more, even AFTER hiroshima and nagasaki.
The horror of that should have sunk in and put a stop to proliferation right there and with any forsight an immediate non proliferation treaty from that point, but no, Its always clearer in hindsight isnt it, now the US wants to stop what it started, bit bloody late!



don't forget, if you are a US citizen you are george bush's boss! he is your "elected" president, he has to answer to you, and everyone else in the country.


Thats a brand of democracy that atleast 60 million sheeple didnt understand before the election!

[edit on 082828p://09028 by instar]



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
What were we supposed to do? Ask Russia to please not make any nuclear weapons?
And it's not like America was just chuggin' nukes out of factories imediatly after WWII ended. Many of the developers of the US nuke program were sadened by the fact that they had officially ushered in a new age of warfare. We may have made the first nuke but it's only because it was believed that the Germans were getting close to having their own nukes (And they were close). I'll be the first to idmit that life would be better without nukes and I wish that they were never developed but now that we have them we will NEVER be able to get rid of them.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
Why is it ok for us, and NOT ok for other nations?

What does that have to do with it being a sensible thing for the US to do?



Nygdan, I never respond to rants like most post in here. I find they want to drag you down to their level and beat you to death with stupidity.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:34 PM
link   
I had read somewere that the B-2 bombers were to be fitted so that they could carry 96 low yield nuclear bunker busting bombs and be able to fire them off at 96 indivdual targets at the same time.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:37 PM
link   
you just said


I'll be the first to idmit that life would be better without nukes and I wish that they were never developed but now that we have them we will NEVER be able to get rid of them


and i thought, well thats reasonable im glad you beleive they are a bad thing. then i looked back and see that you said


The American plan is to use nukes that are currently sitting around (No need to develope any new ones). I also see the need for having these weapons. having these hardend nukes would be great for busting up Osama (Scrambling the mountain he's in) as well as blowing up the Iranian (or any other rouge nation) nuclear bomb manufacturing facilities. Another thing these nukes I belive are also called low-yield nukes (lower impact). These things aren't going to blow away entire cities and country sides.

I would have no problem if France, Russia or any other responcible long time nuke owning country said that they would like to do the same thing (As long as they used curently developed bombs).


seems to be a little contradiction there between


I'll be the first to idmit that life would be better without nukes and I wish that they were never developed


and


I also see the need for having these weapons. having these hardend nukes would be great for busting up */* I would have no problem if France, Russia or any other responcible long time nuke owning country said that they would like to do the same thing (As long as they used curently developed bombs)


Make up ya bloody mind man !



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 08:56 PM
link   
The world would not be better off without nukes. No nukes, you have an American-Soviet War over eastern europe, and effectively the destruction of most of the world.

If you have lots of nukes going around, you'll have multiple nuclear exchanges, and thus the destruction of most of the world.

If only or or two groups have large numbers of nukes, then hopefully you have detterence, no nuke exchange, and, indeed, no war between the super camps, and thus do not destroy most of hte world.

But its all moot. Nukes exist. Any country can make them. The US has lots of them. It'd be sheer stupidity for the US to get ride of their stockpiles, and also hope that the rest of the world doesn't develop them.



Originally posted by w555hc
I never respond to rants like most post in here. I find they want to drag you down to their level and beat you to death with stupidity.

I guess I'm a mental masochist or something!



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by cryptorsa1001
I had read somewere that the B-2 bombers were to be fitted so that they could carry 96 low yield nuclear bunker busting bombs and be able to fire them off at 96 indivdual targets at the same time.




I don't know if the number is right, but that would make sense.

The B-2 is the worlds premier nuclear bomber. Thats what it was deigned to do - deliver as many nukes to as many targets with the lowest chance of mission failure.

Some things to think about...

Bunker busting nukes may make war LESS likely:

Yup - I said it, and here is why...Who takes countries to war? The same people that have hardened bunkers deep underground. The US government has these for congress, the president, and a lot of major military assets. Now, if you know that the enemy has nuclear weapons specifically designed to destroy YOUR bomb shelter, would that not make you LESS likely to feel safe, and thus less likely to agree to a nuclear war?

Bunker busting nukes would be smaller in yield to most ukes and also cause less contamination:

Yes - they would be outright smaller - they would not be the all destructive city leveling weapon that most people think of. They would be "miny nukes" specifically designed to destroy highly hardened targets and NOT designed to destroy a city. Also, it is known that a nuke detonating underground is much better contained then those destroyed aboe ground and especially those that explode high in the atmosphere. When the US started with their Hydrogen bomb project, they decided to use sub earth detonation because it would contain the extreme contamination better. This same thing would make 'burrowing' nukes relatively less destructive.

The major powers of the world already posses both the technology and the means to creat these nukes:

The US does not hold an advantage in this regard, and nations such as Russia would most likely build the same weapons soon. These weapons make no significant leap in technology nor destructive power. These are the weapons that would be used on high value targets - not civillians.

The US along with the other global powers of the old war have proven to use restraint with nuclear weapons:

While many will criticise the US for using the first two nuclear weapons in war, they did so in defense. One cannot overlook the fact that the US was in fact the one assulted, and used these two bombs to avoid losing more of it's own soldiers defeating an enemy that had attacked first.

Since then the US (and just about every other nuke owning nation) has had these weapons, there have been many instances where there use not only could have been exercised, but was recomended. In the Korean war, generals wanted to use the bomb against China, there was of course the Cuban missle crisses, and numerous instances where early warning systems went off, and yet never once in far more hostile times then these were they used.

The major powers have nukes, but smaller powers do not (is the way it should be):

This may not sound "fair" but to be honest it is safer that way. Large powerfull nations have far more to risk in using nuclear weapons then smaller countries. Smaller nations with much less power are in fact MORE LIKELY to use nuclear weapons as an equalizer. Since they can not stand up head to head with larger nations they will use nuclear weapons to level the playing field while large military powers have nuclear weapons only as a deterance to the other powers.




The bottom line is that if small nations feel threatened, they should call up the US or Russia or another country for a mutul protection pact. That is the safest way for a small nation to be protected without becoming a nuclear power. The spread of nuclear weapons should and will be limited as much as it can be by the powers that be. So stop crying foul - it's the way it is and we are all better off for it. Would it be better if pandoras box had never been opened? Of course, but it's to late for that. Nuclear weapons are a fact of life, and the fewer that have them the better.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
It has nothing to do with the government not being corrupt.

Why should the US let anyone else have nukes?


I never said that. Besides who said they should

Why shouldn't the US develope thi nuclear bunker buster?


Why should they? What makes them so special?



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nygdan
The world would not be better off without nukes. No nukes, you have an American-Soviet War over eastern europe, and effectively the destruction of most of the world.

If you have lots of nukes going around, you'll have multiple nuclear exchanges, and thus the destruction of most of the world.

If only or or two groups have large numbers of nukes, then hopefully you have detterence, no nuke exchange, and, indeed, no war between the super camps, and thus do not destroy most of hte world.

But its all moot. Nukes exist. Any country can make them. The US has lots of them. It'd be sheer stupidity for the US to get ride of their stockpiles, and also hope that the rest of the world doesn't develop them.


I'm sorry but I have to disagree with everything you just said. The world would be better off without nukes. They're are other ways to bring peace to the world. Nukes spreads fear. Not peace.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
Strategic nuclear weapons have probably been the most stabilizing military invention in history so far since they are held by countries that have a lot to lose by using them. Putting them in the hands of the Iranians or North Koreans would be suicide since these countries have nothing to lose and will use them. The Iranian mullahs have said it's their religious duty to nuke Israel and if they were killed in a retalliatory nuclear stike, they'd go straight to heaven to their 72 virgins. Do you really want that to happen???



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
What make US so special? Well that is easy to answer, our nation is run by mentally insane and war happy people.


So what else could it be? More nuclear power to intimidate and bring control to the rest of the world.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by djohnsto77
Strategic nuclear weapons have probably been the most stabilizing military invention in history so far since they are held by countries that have a lot to lose by using them. Putting them in the hands of the Iranians or North Koreans would be suicide since these countries have nothing to lose and will use them. The Iranian mullahs have said it's their religious duty to nuke Israel and if they were killed in a retalliatory nuclear stike, they'd go straight to heaven to their 72 virgins. Do you really want that to happen???


couldn't agree more.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
What make US so special? Well that is easy to answer, our nation is run by mentally insane and war happy people.


Exactly! Isn't that sad?


So what else could it be? More nuclear power to intimidate and bring control to the rest of the world.



Correct. Having nukes makes other people fear you, regardless of who you are.



posted on Feb, 1 2005 @ 11:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder

Originally posted by Nygdan
The world would not be better off without nukes. No nukes, you have an American-Soviet War over eastern europe, and effectively the destruction of most of the world.

If you have lots of nukes going around, you'll have multiple nuclear exchanges, and thus the destruction of most of the world.

If only or or two groups have large numbers of nukes, then hopefully you have detterence, no nuke exchange, and, indeed, no war between the super camps, and thus do not destroy most of hte world.

But its all moot. Nukes exist. Any country can make them. The US has lots of them. It'd be sheer stupidity for the US to get ride of their stockpiles, and also hope that the rest of the world doesn't develop them.


I'm sorry but I have to disagree with everything you just said. The world would be better off without nukes. They're are other ways to bring peace to the world. Nukes spreads fear. Not peace.


History says otherwise my friend. Stalin was every bit as bad - if not worse - as Hitler. If there were no nukes, he had the man power to over run Europe.

Think about it...Since nukes were developed there has been no war that comes even close to either WW, which was becoming the norm for the 20th century.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by muzzleflash
those whom wish for nations like Sudan or N Korea to have nuclear weapons in "all fairness" are begging for WW3


No one here voiced support for those countries to have nukes. Some of us are merely pointing out the astounding hypocrisy. If you're WHITE you're RIGHT! If you're BROWN, we're keepin' ya DOWN!

Some are so naive as to believe the US government is somehow better, or dare I say, more sane, than those various brown folks scattered across the earth. Guess what? Our government officials are just dressed better. Take Rumsfeld, for example, he's as demented and power hungry as Hitler was. Anyone who doubts that needs to get their head examined.



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 08:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
History says otherwise my friend. Stalin was every bit as bad - if not worse - as Hitler. If there were no nukes, he had the man power to over run Europe.


Yes but since we have nukes, we have the power to overun the world. Are you saying we would never do anything like that?

Take a look at the direction we're heading in now and then read the article below. It makes sense to me.

www.smh.com.au...

[edit on 2-2-2005 by mrmulder]



posted on Feb, 2 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by mrmulder
Yes but since we have nukes, we have the power to overun the world. Are you saying we would never do anything like that?


Of course we wouldn't M2, We would never use our power for nefarious purposes! We're the USA, and we're the most righteous nation the world has ever seen!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join