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.

 

US Could Use Limited Nuclear Weapons in Iraq

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Pentagon seeks funding for "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator" bombs.

U.S. forces could use nuclear-tipped "bunker-buster" bombs against buried terrorist weapons in Iraq, should Congress approve funding to develop the new weapons.

The enhanced bombs, called "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators (RNEP)," would be used to destroy caches of weapons of mass destruction hidden deep inside hardened caves and bunkers.

Like the conventional "bunker-busters" used in Afghanistan against cave-hidden Taliban and al Qaeda weapons and personnel, the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator bomb will not fully detonate until deep below ground. Unlike the explosives in the conventional bunker-buster, however, the RNEP's warhead will pack a nuclear punch.

Story Link - usgovinfo.about.com...




posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 10:26 AM
link   
classic piggy back technique.

Oh no of course we don''t develop nuclear weapons and WMD's any more we're actively getting rid of them!
these? oh they're "bunker busters" we only use them on "terrorists"



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 10:46 AM
link   
They can now make nuclear weeapons with yields as small as 50 tons of TNT. This limits collateral damage considerably reduces radiation to a minimum.
If they already have these mini yield nukes, could they have used them already in the remote Afghan mountains ? It would be easy to mistake nuclear explosions of this size for conventional ones.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by deepwaters
Pentagon seeks funding for "Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator" bombs.

U.S. forces could use nuclear-tipped "bunker-buster" bombs against buried terrorist weapons in Iraq, should Congress approve funding to develop the new weapons.



The new weapon ?


What about the " Excalibur System " ? An ICBM warhead who is designed to penetrate the ground. More than 1000 Fts I think.

P.S : If Lupe don't like this "new" weapon, it mean only 1 thing : WE NEED IT ! So, I like this new weapon.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 11:05 AM
link   
I don't like hepititus B either Ultra, presumably your going to nip off to contract it.

Ignoring arguments by taking the opposite stance on principle is deeply, DEEPLY immature.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lupe_101
I don't like hepititus B either Ultra, presumably your going to nip off to contract it.

Ignoring arguments by taking the opposite stance on principle is deeply, DEEPLY immature.


No lupe.It's when you don't understand sarcasm that you are immature. I will not say that you are immature, I'll just say that you don't understand what's sarcasm.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 08:09 PM
link   
c'mon now kids, take it easy, eh?.....

Anyhow, the US is not going to be using any nuclear weapons (at least not officially). The rest of the world would have a fit.



posted on Jan, 30 2003 @ 08:19 PM
link   
Depleted Uranium is more radioactive when it is hit, or disperesed than this mini-yeild nukes that MS is talking about.

I don't see anyone complaining about Depleted Uranium...

Sincerely,
no signature



posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 11:33 AM
link   
A classified document signed by President Bush specifically allows for the use of nuclear weapons in response to biological or chemical attacks, apparently changing a decades-old U.S. policy of deliberate ambiguity, it was learned by The Washington Times.

"The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force
including potentially nuclear weapons to the use of [weapons of mass destruction] against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the document, National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14 last year.

Story Link - www.washtimes.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 02:27 PM
link   
well aint that a bitch....



posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by FreeMason
Depleted Uranium is more radioactive when it is hit, or disperesed than this mini-yeild nukes that MS is talking about.
I don't see anyone complaining about Depleted Uranium...


You don't follow US events, such as the Navy using DU rounds on Vieques?
Or, how cancer rates and birth defects have gone off the scale in Iraq since the Gulf War due to DU rounds being used?
From a military geek perspective, those tank busters are cool as hell; however, the residule effect is evil as hell.
"A second, potentially more serious hazard is created when a DU round hits its target. As much as 70 percent of the projectile can burn up on impact, creating a firestorm of ceramic DU oxide particles. The residue of this firestorm is an extremely fine ceramic uranium dust that can be spread by the wind, inhaled and absorbed into the human body and absorbed by plants and animals, becoming part of the food chain.
Once lodged in the soil, the munitions can pollute the environment and create up to a hundredfold increase in uranium levels in ground water, according to the U.N. Environmental Program."

Add to that the fact that it stays radioactive for millenia, it's not a question if we are going to use "nukes" on Iraq; it's a question of if we are to use them AGAIN!

seattlepi.nwsource.com...



posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Nukes are the last option for our military. We aren't hellbent in pissing off the entire world by using nukes.

Most of the misguided world already hates us for dropping conventional bombs on evil people like the Taliban and Saddam already, so we're not going to make things worse.

Please feel free to now link articles from left-wing/anti-US web sites that have bogus quotes from so-called Pentagon personnel stating the US with nuke the entire world if needed.



[Edited on 31-1-2003 by MT69]



posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 04:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by MT69
Please feel free to now link articles from left-wing/anti-US web sites that have bogus quotes from so-called Pentagon personnel stating the US with nuke the entire world if needed.
[Edited on 31-1-2003 by MT69]


You mean National Security Presidential Directive 17, set out on Sept. 14, 2002, as referenced above? Bush the Usurpers government is many things, but left wing is not one of them.
Man, that one is right up there with you thinking Venezuela is the worlds largest oil producer! Based on the background you profess to have, you would think that you'd know that this CINC has changed, for the first time in history, our policy on the use of nukes.
R-E-A-D-I-N-G......it's fundamental!



posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Bush said we will use nukes against Iraq if they unleash WMDs on us. That is the last straw with our military. We WILL use NUKES if needed, got it???

As for Venezuela, funny that oil industry experts believe they are sitting on more oil than Saudi Arabia...but it must be a lie since you didn't see it on a left-wing wacko website.



posted on Jan, 31 2003 @ 09:37 PM
link   
I remeber reading an article about the '91 Gulf War. It stated that the US had several bombers with micro yield warheads, stationed in Turkey. These were to be supposedly used on critical air defence targets if the conventional bombers missed.
I can't find a link, does anyone else have any information.

I think we can safely say that the only obstacle to to the US using micro nuclear weapons is world opinion.



posted on Feb, 1 2003 @ 12:07 AM
link   
these bombs are always fun


www.usatoday.com...


and here is a link to low yield nukes

www.active-duty.com...

[Edited on 1-2-2003 by thehippiedude]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join