Pre-emptive nuclear strike a key option, Nato told

www.globalsecurity.org...

Low yield tactical nukes have lost funding so expect huge airburst megaton devices to be used. Thank the liberals for all the fallout and human loss of life.

www.globalsecurity.org...
Thankfully the job was done for the current stockpile, we got penetrators.

So them Iranian Nuclear facillities cut into the mountains and burried under the ground will be vulnerable.

Originally posted by SectionEight
Thank the liberals for all the fallout and human loss of life.

This is a disingenious comment. Maybe we should blame the Wolofowitz/Rove/Cheney gang for squandering our conventional power in Iraq?

Originally posted by buddhasystem

Originally posted by SectionEight
Thank the liberals for all the fallout and human loss of life.

This is a disingenious comment. Maybe we should blame the Wolofowitz/Rove/Cheney gang for squandering our conventional power in Iraq?

Facts, blame the liberals because they passed laws that will lead to more nuclear fallout.

We already had a 300kiloton penetrating nuke and the liberals cut funding for testing lower yield but higher penetration nukes in the 2kiloton range. The deeper the penetration the less fallout. So our only choice at this time is to up the explosive power when we could have funded projects to deepen the penetration and lower the explosive power for the same effect.


www.physicstoday.org...

reply to post by SectionEight


You seem to be very confused. This is not a liberal/conservative issue we are talking about. Democrats and Republicans aren't split straight down the line and neither is the typical American citizen. You'd be surprised to find you even have liberal tendencies.

Like freedom of speech? That's called liberalism bud.

It goes much deeper than politics here.

Look at who is making the most money off war.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
The fundamental question here if this is to be an air blast or surface explosion. It's night and day.

Well I was assuming a surface blast.

An air blast, while very deadly to those below it in the first seconds after the blast, should leave behind almost no fallout. The lack of residual effects would mean that an air blast of any size would have very little direct effect on the health of those in any other nation.

As pointed out already, however, we would probably be talking about a sub-surface blast. It is amazing what a relatively small amount of earth will do in containing both initial and residual radiation. Big radioactive holes, yes. Danger to the surrounding population? Slight, especially given proper clean up of contaminated soils in the immediate area.

Really, while not condoning their use, nuclear penetrators pose little threat to the surrounding populations and should be viewed in a different light than their surface and air blast cousins.

Originally posted by biggie smalls
This is not a liberal/conservative issue we are talking about.

I agree 100%

Really sectioneight, your polarized world view is getting tiresome.

Are you really capable of turning EVERY issue into a right vs. left schoolyard rivalry?

Do you honestly believe there is a difference between liberals and conservatives in modern politics?

An interesting article on the differences in Air, Surface and Subsurface detonations:

www.fas.org...

reply to post by TrueAmerican

I don't know if anyone here has heard of this video game.

But a few years ago I was searching the shelves at Wal-Mart
looking for a good video game that I could add to my
existing collection.

I ran across this video game called "Superpower" and it looked interesting
so I bought it and took it home and played it.

It is a very realistic role playing game based upon the world stage
and you are in control of all tactical nuclear weapons of the US.
Basically, you are the commander in chief. Then the game offers
small scenarios (CIA Black Ops) to change regimes in the world
like Iraq, Iran, Central America and you can actually funnel money
from your federal budget to these CIA ops and have agents in those
countries creating chaos to change election outcomes, etc .....
And if all else fails to change the country to what you want, then you
have the option to blow them to smitherenes with tactical nukes. It
actually goes to a world map and shows these missiles in flight
to their targets. It then also shows the worlds responses to your
actions. In playing that game I actually used those nukes a couple
times and no matter what scenario I implemented or what country
I nuked there was always blowback. If I nuked Russia, then China
would launch a half dozen nukes and wipe out 6 major cities in the
US. At first this game was downright fun til I realized in the end
that there is no winning a nuclear attack. If you use them, they will
be used on you.

If you have never played this video game called "Superpower"
I'd suggest giving it a try, even if only for the history lesson
it gives on nuclear weapons. I quit playing it a couple years
ago mainly for 2 reasons. It takes so long to play it as it takes
weeks to get through a scenario AND PLUS, it got downright
depressing to see what happens to the world when nukes
were used.

but if you're into that kind of thing, try it !!!
You can buy it here at Amazon or there may be some other place
on the net you can get it. Happy Nuking !!!

edit for spelling

[edit on 22-1-2008 by SimonSays]

Originally posted by biggie smalls
reply to post by SectionEight

 

You seem to be very confused. This is not a liberal/conservative issue we are talking about. Democrats and Republicans aren't split straight down the line and neither is the typical American citizen. You'd be surprised to find you even have liberal tendencies.

Like freedom of speech? That's called liberalism bud.

It goes much deeper than politics here.

Look at who is making the most money off war.

Just look at the facts.
Higher penetration with lower yield bombs will do equal damage to a target yet with exponentially less collateral damage (fallout). They vehemently opposed this research and development, and cut its funding when they took control of Congress.

reply to post by biggie smalls


Well China already has nukes, so we have to assume that they are talking about Iran or N Korea. The problem I see is this... If a country were to say to the US "hey get rid of your nukes or we are going to start sanctions" or something to that effect we would tell them to shove it. But we do it all the time. It's strange that nuclear proliferation is such a heated debate even though to my knowledge the united states is the only country that has ever used a nuclear device in an act of war.

Originally posted by SectionEight
Either deploy a missile shield or remove any rouge nations abillity to have nuclear power.

Could you please explain how you define a 'rogue nation'?

Originally posted by SectionEight
Higher penetration with lower yield bombs will do equal damage to a target yet with exponentially less collateral damage (fallout). They vehemently opposed this research and development, and cut its funding when they took control of Congress.

In my experience, the science budgets of all sorts (including basic research for the DOE) has experienced terrible times, recently, under both Republicans and Dems. I'm no longer sure if these idiots (both parties) have a faint glimpse of what they are doing to this country's future.

Originally posted by cavscout
Really, while not condoning their use, nuclear penetrators pose little threat to the surrounding populations and should be viewed in a different light than their surface and air blast cousins.

I went to the links posted earlier in this thread (the "concerned scientists" site) and looked at the data. It doesn't look pretty. The explosion of the nuclear penetrator is no different from a plain surface blast, given the current technology (too shallow). And that, as you pointed out, produces a lot of fallout. Chernobyl, anyone?

I agree with the poster who said that a hugely supersonic and massive KE penetrators will probably be better for the task.

Originally posted by SectionEight
There will be no "blowback" from a nation that no longer exists. It will serve as an example that persuing getting a rag tag nuclear missile program with a couple of missiles will be a death sentence for those nations.

Mutually Assured Destruction wasn't called MAD for nothing. And if you figure that revenge couldn't be exacted with a suitcase bomb built from ex-Russian fissionable materials, you should go to BTS with the rest of the kids. Section 8, indeed!

reply to post by RogerT


To a right wing hypernationalist, a "rouge nation" is any nation that doesn't obey the dictates of the United States.

They see nothing wrong with the US appointing itself as a global police force, and nothing wrong with three hundred million people dictating the fate of six billion. It's tribalism taken to it's most extreme, where nationalism becomes an almost religious faith.

You'll have more luck arguing with a brick wall or a shoehorn

I have a theoretical question and scenario for you guys here so hopefully somebody can respond with some reason-

What would be the possibility of say, the US aiming each nuke they have at every possible adversaries capital cities aswell as their enemies launch pads whether they be fixed or mobile that they know off all at the same time, and the unknown ones that slip through the net be taken out by the missile shield.

In theory, wouldnt this be a win win scenario for the side that launches them first?

Not M.A.D, but Assured Destruction of your enemy, for in that one quick and hard first strike, you annhialate the major cities, the majority of their population and most of their ability, land based of course to retaliate.

Then you just have the subs to worry about, that you hope the missile shield will take care off.

Yes, you may loose a handful of your own cities, but better than the entire country.

look forward to your responses on this one.

Originally posted by SectionEight
There will be no "blowback" from a nation that no longer exists.

Ah-hem .... (clears throat)

undoubtedly you have never been to NORAD
OR to Russia's and China's equivalent. They can detect
a nuclear launch as soon as it is airborne.

A computer calculates it's trajectory by speed, size and angle of ascent
and within a few hundred meters can tell exactly where the missile
is going. Since any ballistic missile known to man has to take at least
a minimum of 30 minutes to reach another continent half way round
the world. This gives a 30 minute window of opportunity for a nuclear
counter-strike. Since the birds pass each other in the air.

And if you'd like to get a lil more technical, I read an article last
year that the Russians have countered the US anti-missile
technology with it's newest ballistic missile which can separate
during flight into 6 mini-missiles making a shoot down of
all of them virtually impossible if it breaks apart real close to the
target as we could not intercept them with secondary strike.
The Russians have a nuclear version of our Cluster bomb.

That's a frightening thought ........

Originally posted by Melbourne_Militia
In theory, wouldnt this be a win win scenario for the side that launches them first?

NO! cuz you can not account for each nation's nuclear submarine's
arsenal. Each Los Angeles Class sub can hold up to 24 nukes
(I think) and we have at least 12 subs with that capabilities.;

I'm sure Russia has at least the same capabilities as we do.
And I think China has 2 subs with the same. I read about that
last year.

So NO !!! It is not a win-win scenario as there are also mobile
stations that move on a platform which can only be tracked
by satellite. If it moves to another location when our sat can't
see it then we have to re-acquire it. Mobiles are harder to hit
due to the time lapse.

A nuclear launch from anybody would be opening oneself
to the same punishment we are dishing out.

The only way to win a nuclear war .......
is never have one

Not to mention that just between the US and Russia we have
enough nuclear weapons to destroy this planet 100 times over.

US: 2,400 warheads
Russia: 1,200 warheads

that's enough to take out the entire globe and make it uninhabitable
for 1,000 years or more.


[edit on 23-1-2008 by SimonSays]

reply to post by Melbourne_Militia


It would be better to identify your main threats, set up a bargaining position with them to get them to react the way you want then play out the cards to achieve your position.
This is exactly what the Soviets did leading up to the Cuban missile crisis. Their real goal was to get us to not deploy missiles in Turkey, they could have cared less for Castro. Or was it really our goal to keep our other missiles in Europe by creating the Turkey deployment first?

Russia at this time aiding Iran is betting they are making a good enough bargaining chip to get us to not deploy missile defenses in europe. Only this time there are no Soviet missiles to pull out to end the crisis, the US must go in and they see this as further weakening their enemy. They care not what happens to Iran. But wait, did the US purposely propose deploying this anti missile system in Europe to force Russia's hand so that their position is not an unkown variable when we do inevitably go in? It is a game of cat and mouse.

Was it "war games" with Matthew Broderick that proved nuclear war reveals no winner? In an effort to win the war, dropping nukes is like a domino effect. US drops it on Iran, Pakistan on Europe, Europe on China, and so on till the entire world has been nuked in an effort to stop nuclear proliferation. Well it works in a way. No one is alive to create nuclear weapons anymore.