Nuclear attacks are bad because of the picture they paint.

The US uses one, no matter how small and every other nation pricks up their ears and thinks,

'Well, they used one and so and so have been getting a bit too big for their boots, why not?'

Then it starts. Everyone will be throwing them around, it's best if none are used in the first place. Or even better, don't go to war! Wouldn't that be good?

All that needs to happen is for scientists to figure out some way to develop a weapon that will render any nearby nuclear device inert.
Of course, im sure that would be abused as well.

Originally posted by xmotex
If the US launches a "preemptive" nuclear strike on Iran, it's time for a civil war.

If our country sinks that low, it's time to stop talking to the 28-percenters, and start shooting at them.

I assume that your ignorant remark about "28-percenters" refers to the more conservative members of the US population. Hopefully, you were only making a very poor attempt at a joke.

As for the Nuclear Facilities in Iran, I believe the US can and will use whatever level of force is necessary to destroy these facilities. If the job can be done with large penetrator type conventional bombs that would be best. If not, there may be some other weapon in the US arsenal that is not yet known to the public. Special Operations forces could also be used to enter and destroy the facilities from the inside out after a massive aerial bombardment campaign to suppress any resistance in the area. If the only sure way to destroy the facilities is nuclear weapons I expect to see them used.

Please accept my apology for misunderstanding your post.

It's OK, these are angry times and divisive topics and I should have made myself clearer.

And I agree with you in that I hope nuclear weapons will never be used again.

As for the nuclear Genie, it's been out of the bottle for quite a while now, since 1945. Lots of dangerous people are going to get their hands on them - lots of dangerous people already have

Fact is that anyone with sufficient resources can build a bomb now, there is no mystery about how to do it.

But if we can survive a fifty year intercontinental nuclear standoff with a massive global power that believed it's destiny was to lead a worldwide revolution against Economics 101, we can probably survive even a nut like Ahmadinejad or Kim getting a few low-yield fission bombs.


[edit on 10/8/07 by xmotex]

I'm with the guy that's ready to kill the 28%rs

the diagram clearly illustrates that there is no way these nuclear bunker busters will work, there is no such weapon that lands, and then drills, a bigger weapon will just make even bigger radioactive poisoning, guaranteeing an eventual nuclear strike on an American city through whatever means..using a nuclear weapon on Iran is much more likly to lead to a nuclear attack on America then Iran simply having nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by Mainer
I think the US Administration thinks more about the repercussions if they didn't. North Korea developed a nuke and now the USA is forced to negotiate with them, I do not think they wish for the same outcome with Iran.

Well, if you look at it the other way, North Koreas population is now safe from US aggression. Iran deserves the same.

Otherwise we get this situation with US attacking weaker countries as it wants.

You guys seem to have forgotten that Iran havent done anything, yet you are talking about how to best attack it...

I hope the retaliation against the US becomes very strong if they attack Iran, really showing them that they cant keep attacking countries as they wish. It seems to be the only way to get the message through, since US dont like diplomacy.

Maybe take out a city... which one would you like? New York?


[edit on 9-10-2007 by Copernicus]

another issue of concern is what if Iran already has not only a nuclear weapon but also ICBMs it is certainly not out of the realm of possibilities, remember you only need a small sputnik type rocket and you can put a few kg warhead on that..sputnik was 1957..50 years ago and Iran has been playing around with big rockets for some time now..we know they want to keep everything a secret so the western european countries and Russia and China don't freak out and start sanctionng them too much..if the us did this insane action and it turn out they already got a nuke icbm..then you would have an instant retaliatory strike on a US military base like maybe n.carolina..or possibly a nuke on diego garcia or guam..

i can't beleive anyone in the us military or govt is seriously considering such madness..it's all just a bunch of trash talking ultra-conservatives trying to prove they are more extreme than the next guy.

Guys, dont think for 1 second that the US does not possess a way to take out these bunkers. Thats just wishful thinking, your looking for anyway to thwart ol USA. You can say what you want about our methods of policing attempts, but when it comes to blow for blow, damage capabilities, the US is on a whole other playing field cpmpared to the rest of the world. The sad thing is, if or when we do attack, the world will more than likely say we used a tactical nuke anyways, because the conventional bombs that will be used will be so massive, people will not know the difference.

I pray that it doesnt come to that though, but Iran isnt likely to back down now, they have talked too much crap for that to happen. And I can promise the US isnt just going to say "oh well we tried" and let it go. If they dont start to cooperate with the UN 100%, the US or Israel will take out the bunkers and most of the Iranian military as well in 1 fell swoop.

I have a few questions.

Why does it have to go directly through the concrete? Would it be possible to go in at an angle or to the edge of the bunker so the missile would just travel through a couple hundred feet of sand and explode to destroy the facilities from the side or underneath, or is the facility encased in hundreds of feet of concrete and packed earth.

Or if we do have bunker busters that could travel through 30 feet of concrete and these missiles are supposed to be quite accurate, would it to any good to just target multiple missiles in the same location?

Someone also mentioned a 30K pound penetrator that could do it, but the problem is a stealth jet could not carry it. What about a rocket like used on ICBMs?

I like these American supramists who keep insisting there is a way for an air dropped weapon to dig thru thousands of feet of hardened bunker, even though all common sense and the scientific analysis that was posted on this thread clearly indicates otherwise..because they think that the US posses some kind of secret weapon that no-one knows about; don't you think they would have publisized that by now, all US defense projects that ae anywhere near completion get out, and there would be no reason to keep this a secret..The iranian nuke sites are dug to deep period..remeber a nuclear weapon is more like a giant napalm than a giant TNT..it's a hot flash, the destruction caused by it is due to the massive amounts of heat and air deing diplaced by the vaporized fireball..it is always going to blast upward into the atmosphere when dropped by a plane

"damage capabilities, the US is on a whole other playing field cpmpared to the rest of the world."

I don't know what the f your talking about, obviously Russia and China can wipe out all of the USA many times over..or do you thnk that the US has some 'secret weaopn' again


and if Iran produces as little as 12 or 20 icbm's and buries them in deep silos..than they will have already reached parity..

and no it shouldn't be new york it should be one of those 'red' states like texas or the carolinas..thats where most of the neo-con retard element is.

Originally posted by Wiz4769
Guys, dont think for 1 second that the US does not possess a way to take out these bunkers. Thats just wishful thinking, your looking for anyway to thwart ol USA. You can say what you want about our methods of policing attempts, but when it comes to blow for blow, damage capabilities, the US is on a whole other playing field cpmpared to the rest of the world. The sad thing is, if or when we do attack, the world will more than likely say we used a tactical nuke anyways, because the conventional bombs that will be used will be so massive, people will not know the difference.

I pray that it doesnt come to that though, but Iran isnt likely to back down now, they have talked too much crap for that to happen. And I can promise the US isnt just going to say "oh well we tried" and let it go. If they dont start to cooperate with the UN 100%, the US or Israel will take out the bunkers and most of the Iranian military as well in 1 fell swoop.

[edit on 9-10-2007 by pkspeaker]

Originally posted by princeofpeace
What would a 50 megaton two-stage cobalt salted thermonuclear device do to it? Me thinks it wont care how deep its dug in.

50 megaton hmmm I think that might take two bottles of Tritium gas to get that much...

Originally posted by pkspeaker
I like these American supramists who keep insisting there is a way for an air dropped weapon to dig thru thousands of feet of hardened bunker, even though all common sense and the scientific analysis that was posted on this thread clearly indicates otherwise..because they think that

Alien technology dude...Don't you read ATS!

Why not just secure the area and bring in a team to penetrate it while the great US Air Force kills anything that moves within a mile of the place? The US also goes after the doors and with a foot accuracy they send missiles knockin one by one and once the doors are open then big brother comes on down just enough to create the biggest firecracker you ever seen as it is wrapped with 20 or 30 yards of reinforced concrete

Originally posted by aye aye
Why does it have to go directly through the concrete? Would it be possible to go in at an angle or to the edge of the bunker so the missile would just travel through a couple hundred feet of sand and explode to destroy the facilities from the side or underneath, or is the facility encased in hundreds of feet of concrete and packed earth.

I asked my dad who is a civil enginner and well versed in mine and underground structure engineering (Not a bunker expert but....). He indicated the canopy or concrete structure / packed earth would be bigger than the structure it was protecting. So you avoid the canopy come at an angle you may not get close enuf to do sig. damage. You would still get a shock effect much like an earthquake but Iran is an active fault zone and structures take this into account.

The other issue is one of penatration. coming at an angle would require the warhead to go through more material than straight down. Kind of like why they slope armor on a tank.

The other issue with an angle approach is getting the warhead to bite in and tunnel. You run the risk of it expending a great deal of kinetic energy doing so thus reducing its ability to penatrate (It could also bounce off if the angle is too exreme