Rumsfeld Seeks to Revive Burrowing Nuclear Bomb

Originally posted by mrmulder
I never said that.

Ok, so the US shouldn't let anyone else have nukes.

Why should they? What makes them so special?

They have the ability to penetrate hardened facilities and destroy them. Such as North Korean nuclear processing plants buried inside mountains.

However, one particularly observant general, looking at the photos of these sites noted, 'why don't we just drop a regular bomb on the entrance?" Seems that might work also. But I cannot see how someone can state that the ability to destroy heavily armoured and deeply buried facilities is not a good thing.

I have to disagree with everything you just said. The world would be better off without nukes

I said quite a bit more than just that tho. While I am 'felxible' on whether or not nukes in general are a detriment, I don't see how that makes it possible to remove nukes from the face of the planet.

djohnsto77
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

This, of course, is a valid arguement against nukes being a good thing. I'm not absolutely convinced that they are. They certainly stopped World War Three, between the USA and the USSR over europe, but it is conceivable that, at some indeterminable point in the future, the US will not be able, or have the resolve to prevent, another country from building a large nuke stockpile. Look at it now, people actually think that Iran or NK should have nukes. I mean, thats dangerous and insane. If nuke war is bad, then NK and Iran cannot be allowed to have nukes, period.

marg
So what else could it be?

So, just to keep the record clear, you do or do not think that the US should prevent Iran from developing nukes? SHould, or should not, the US prevent even more countries from building nuclear stockpiles?

If you're WHITE you're RIGHT! If you're BROWN, we're keepin' ya DOWN

I agree the policy is hypocritical, but I disagree that it has anything to do with racism. If Serbia tried to build a nuke arsenal, they'd be discouraged just like the US.

We would never use our power for nefarious purposes!

Fair enough, so, does that mean that the US should or should not prevent other countries from developing nuclear stockpiles?

Originally posted by Nygdan
Fair enough, so, does that mean that the US should or should not prevent other countries from developing nuclear stockpiles?

I agree the U.S. should prevent other countries from developing nukes. But that doesn't mean that in order to prevent it we should keep our nukes. IMO, there are other ways to get rid of nukes without having nukes ourselves.

Originally posted by instar
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 !

Okay Instar let me clear that up for ya. What I was saying was that yeah it's a bummer that these weapons exsist but what I also said is that now that they're here we will NEVER be able to get rid of them. It was not contradictorary for me to then say that we might as well keep up the most advanced nuclear stock pile in the world. We must be certain that these things won't be used in large numbers (WWIII) by making sure that the countries that do have them keep them assuring that Mutually Assured Destrection (MAD) stays in place.

We already have those burrowing thermobaric weapons. We used them in the Afgan war and they worked just fine. Why do we need to take it up a notch and go nuclear? Even though most of the blast is contained underground, there still is a small amount of fallout. I think we can all agree that even a small amount of nuclear contaminaton is bad. I won't even get into the effects on underground water sources...

news.bbc.co.uk...

Are they forgetting that the big bad enemy of the moment isn't Russia? It's terrorists who are very unlikely to have bunkers that require nuclear force to be destroyed. You don't fight terrorists with nukes...that's insane.

Rummy and his ilk are just using the terrorist scare to go against international law and precedent to create more nuclear weapons. I don't know why...I guess they just like things that can cause mass death and pollute/contaminate at that. It's like a bunch of 8 year olds playing a game. "Dude, nukes are sooo cool."

One interesting thing is that the adminstration is appointing people who back the development of new nukes and the like to the US anti-proliferation board. These are the people who are supposed to advocate anti-proliferation all over the world, US included. It's the old fox watching the henhouse situation. Seems that there's alot of that these days.

Bottom line: At this point, the world will never be rid of nukes.

If countries like the USA didn't go around stomping on peon nations and stealing their resources, countries like Iran might not feel the need to go nuclear. Let's be honest, they have a fair enuff reason to trust they might someday need them as a deterrence. They got oil and our undying animosity.

It's the foreign policy stupid!

Yes I agree with ESK that's what I've been saying. We will NEVER be able to eliminate nukes from the world.

I just don't understand how you can look at Iran getting a nuke as being something that they should be allowed to do. The reason Iran wants to develope a nuke isn't because they are afraid of the U.S. comming in, it's because all they want to do is nuke Israel. The only reason why the U.S. would ever go into Iran at this point would be to prevent iran from getting a nuke. If Iran wants the U.S. to stay out than they better give up their nuke program.

I'm sure there are plenty of Iranians who see things in the reverse: that Israel wants to nuke it off the map. The truth is, they both look at each other the same way. And.. Israel has nukes. The Iranians probably see this as very hypocritical.

Back to the foreign policy thing.. it's all a damn shame. Iran was once known to us as our jewel. Then we had to go monkey around w/their leadership and install the Shah against the wishes of its people. Then came the Iranian Revolution and those crazy as bed bugs Mullahs; hence, our everlasting animosity towards them.

what's sad is, the majority of Iranians are under 35 and would probably have wholly embraced us & their independence, against the Mullahs had we not gone over to Iraq acting like Dirty Harry on acid. They now probably prefer the monster they know to the foreign monster they don't, to borrow a saying.

Things could be done so much more intelligently.

[edit on 2-2-2005 by TRUTH Ambassador]

Originally posted by EastCoastKid
I'm sure there are plenty of Iranians who see things in the reverse: that Israel wants to nuke it off the map. The truth is, they both look at each other the same way. And.. Israel has nukes. The Iranians probably see this as very hypocritical.

Yes once again you are right and I agree with you on that point. But...I'm not all that sure the iranians are as smoked at us as you think they are. I don't think the people of Iran are angry because we got rid of the guy next door who was responsible for the killings of many of their country men in the Iraq Iran War. If anything they like us more for helping put the squeez on the Mullahs by establishing democratic countries on either side of their nation. A free Iraq and a free Afganistan will only encourage the Iranian people to rebel and take back their country from the Mullahs. I only see evidence for the Iranians to like us.

Originally posted by mrmulder

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]

I can't read the link - it requires me to register.

Regardless, I must dissagree with the implication that the US is trying to over run the world. That is just silly. So yes, i will say we would never do that. Even if a president wished to, he would not get congress (or the America population for that matter) to go along with it.

Nukes give a balance of power, and there are some nations that are better suited to handle that power. Nations with dictators should not have that power. Nations that do not have great global political influence should not have them.

IMO, the nations that sould have them would have Democratically elected officials, and have far reaching power. This is because these nations have more to lose by going nuclear on an oponent then weaker smaller nations. For instance, if France were to use it's nukes against an enemy, their would be global sanctions on them almost instantly. However, a nation such as north Korea that already has sanctions on them would have far less to lose.

This is actually, imho, a pretty important part of our needed arsenal for the wars to come.

The program has been restricted each year by Senate and House members who have argued that even studying the potential for such a new nuclear weapon undermines Washington's attempts to limit other countries from developing their own nuclear arsenals.

Yep, and Pakistan, India, North Korea, and Iran show just how futile those attempts are. This is one point where I'll actually agree with the evil emperor....this is a weapons project long overdue...but it should be relegated to the "black" world. Then again, with this administration, who needs spies? as they prefer to put it all over the front page... Still amateur hour in Langley I see....

Originally posted by mrmulder
I agree the U.S. should prevent other countries from developing nukes.

Good, seems sensible enough.

But that doesn't mean that in order to prevent it we should keep our nukes.

I agree, the US military and economic power sans nukes is sufficient to do this, if one doesn't consider that the russians have soviet stockpiles.

However since the Soviets have their own stockpile, how can the US get them to reduce their if they eliminate the US stockpile?

[edit on 2-2-2005 by Nygdan]

I would love for you to be right. Unfortunately, the way things are currently, the Iranian Shi'ites might be more inclined to fight us, or the Sunni resistance alongside their Iraqi counterparts. I'm talking about the people of one region arraying themselves against an aggressor from the other side of the earth. Look at iraq - Shi'ites and Sunnis have fought us in unison against our forces. That is a miracle in itself. That strange confluence could develop in Iran as well. Especially considering they think we invaded Iraq for oil. They now see us through a much more jaundiced eye.

[edit on 19-09-2003 by EastCoastKid]

Maybe I've just missed every reported instence of the Iraqi Shi'ites and Sunnis attacking coalition forces. I do know that the Sunnis have been causing most the trouble over by supporting the terrorists and some joining them. But isn't mostly just a small portion of that population? And I haven't heard at any time that the over all Shi'ite population had it out for the US not to mention any attacks by them.

like I said maybe you know something that I don't.

Right now, estimates of the insurgency are at 100,000-200,000 people. And, it's just about impossible to defend against guerillas.

We have Ayatollah al-Sistani to thank for the relative Shia calm. I can't imagine what it would've been like w/out his reasoned leadership. They really listen to that guy.

The most amazing aspect to this occupation (by all accounts I've heard on the ground) is that Sunnis and Shias have worked together. For them to work together - or, I should say, even in tandem, is something that has never happened before. Sistani has worked overtime to keep that to a minimum, tho. The thing that unites them is simply their wholesale desire to see the occupier leave. They don't like each other, but they like us less at this point.

Regarding Iran's Shi'ite influence.. one of the promises that the Iraqi Shi'ites made to the USA (in order to hold elections) is that they would not permit an Iran-style fundamentalist regime to take hold.

One thing that I appreciate with the Shi'ites is that they have promised to be as fair as possible with the Sunnis. I sure hope they follow thru with that noble goal. If not, a civil war may very well ensue.

Okay....based on your last post it sounds like you think that things are bad but that they are stable preventing things from getting out of hand. At least that's the way I interpreted it.

And regarding the insurgent's numbers you listed I think that sounds kinda high. But even if you are correct on the numbers don't you think that some of those guys might think about giving up now that there has been free elections? I mean they haven't done much since the elections except hold toys hostage.

Originally posted by TRUTH Ambassador
Okay....based on your last post it sounds like you think that things are bad but that they are stable preventing things from getting out of hand.

Well, as long as the Shi'ites follow Sistani's lead I think things in the South will stabilize.

And regarding the insurgent's numbers you listed I think that sounds kinda high.

Not really; especially considering it grows by the day.

But even if you are correct on the numbers don't you think that some of those guys might think about giving up now that there has been free elections?

Free is in the eye of the beholder. Sunnis do not see this election as legitimate. It'd be like the US voting for president minus the midwest. Would we see that as legitimate?

I mean they haven't done much since the elections except hold toys hostage.

50 people were killed the day of the elections if memory serves. No small thing. As I said before, it will be interesting to see how the Shi'ite-controlled government behaves with the Sunni minority. Who knows? Maybe they could actually hammer out some kind of truce.. that all depends on how the Sunnis are treated, tho.

They could, at some point, stand in agreement to demand the unconditional removal of our troops.

And that is no small thing, those iraqis died as heroes and I hope they will be comemorated in history. But what I said was what have the terrorist done since the elections? Plus the attacks during the elections were far less than expected. I'm not holding my breath but the more time goes by without an attack the more I begin to think that maybe the terrorist are beginning to look at Iraq as a lost cause. Then again they are probably just taking time off to plan how they will mess up the election results to spark off a civil war. At this point it's one of the only things left for them to do to win IMO.

Gentelman, from this cold site in SW Va. I see this as a great scientific step backwards. My feeling is that Los Alomos and its real (good and tight!)security will let this info. slip through to either the China or to the next bidder. I feel that the only positive outcome will be a quest for our adversaries to accquire this tech. and one day to use it against us. Overall, I will give it aand a big grin to those knuckleheads in the Pentagon. who have nothing to do all day but dream up stuff like this crazy stuff.

Originally posted by FLYIN HIGH
Gentelman, from this cold site in SW Va. I see this as a great scientific step backwards. My feeling is that Los Alomos and its real (good and tight!)security will let this info. slip through to either the China or to the next bidder. I feel that the only positive outcome will be a quest for our adversaries to accquire this tech. and one day to use it against us. Overall, I will give it a

and a big grin to those knuckleheads in the Pentagon.

who have nothing to do all day but dream up stuff like this crazy stuff.

The technology is already held by the major powers. All it is is a hardened tip of the weapon, a high speed on impact, and the warhead designed to explode downwards instead of outwards.

This is not something China or Russia would need to steal...a few million dollars is all it would take.