true and the fact Iran and syrian sensability about nukes really worries me I mean despite my statements about the use of the bunker busters in a remote area to help stop this war faster maybe ............I find the Iranians and Syrians more confrontational than they should be over having nukes that would tell me they would use them on a wim and if they thought they would lose them were as other countries who have had them dont wish to use them at a drop of the hat as witnessed by the reaming i have been taking over the issue

Like 'Spock' says to 'Kirk'- - - - Sounds Logical

however Mr Nimoy as ( the newer spokesman) continues...

[in answer to Mr Shatners' plea of dual spokespersons]

squeezing the mouse 3X...squeak...squeak...squeak !

ST Udio which part sound logical the part about syria and iran or the fact that the nuke bunker busters should be use to end the war faster or the comment of comprimise wherein i was questioning the ability to change the nuke pay load for equal or greater power equivalent of plastic or tnt

Stuido


Its very important that I understand and get to discuss your response
what is logical I want to know what I said so I can do it again

I hope thats a joke D......oi vie.

That said, in a moment...a few minutes of frustration, I thought about the same thing.

After all didnt Pakistan test thier nukes inside a mountain.

Set up several Regiments in camps along the Afghan mountain lines. Evacuate civilians (very carefully screening).

Come up with a covert cover story. The always make the press with everything else!.......drilling for water.....drilling to lodge super sensitive sensors (hey why not their beleiving in the 1960s UAV concepts again, why not ground sensors).

If AQ and the Taliban want to bash thier heads against the bases let them.

Have engineers at these base camps slant drill shafts into these wholes to a point I dont know...under thier peaks. Then pump some small nukes down to the bottom seal them up and blow when ready.

My thought was the memory of the Pakistani tests. The whole mountain jumped. That must have collapsed every cave in the mountain system.

And wouldnt it do the same to the AQ and Taliban hideouts?

But this is ugly science fiction. What about the underground water supplies in the area, making a region unlivable for centuries. Or messing up fault lines. Thats what the mountains are big fault lines and plates I think. Never mind just getting a few thousands insurgents, we'd be FU everything for millions of innocent people to get a couple of thousand nut jobs.

We would deserve to be nuked back for that as far as I'm concerned.

I hope you were joking.

And wouldnt it do the same to the AQ and Taliban hideouts?

But this is ugly science fiction. What about the underground water supplies in the area, making a region unlivable for centuries. Or messing up fault lines. Thats what the mountains are big fault lines and plates I think. Never mind just getting a few thousands insurgents, we'd be FU everything for millions of innocent people to get a couple of thousand nut jobs.

We would deserve to be nuked back for that as far as I'm concerned.

I hope you were joking.

Gotta disagree with you on this one D. Sorry.

But feel free to keep speculating.

What is that craiganddrew what in particular is it you dont like

Its that question. Not can we. But should we.

Whilst I agree it would probably totally FU any AQ up in the mountains I don't know if the mass of Americans or the alliance would want to take that risk that it would be all it does.

See, You can ony theorise what would happen if you did. Its one thing to say use a new explosive bomb, but to take a boffins word that you could use a nuke that way.

Plus, IMPO America used the bomb to end a war (my dad was on his way up to Japan for the landings so I'm not going to get into an argument with anyone else about this). But it was a world war of industrialised nations. Not a terrorist war, certainly not this war. Put in place to give the go, I couldn't agree to using nukes.

I wouldnt even want to take responsibility for suggesting it.

My own personal opinion is all.

craiganddrew then what about my previous reply of the same idea with conventional explosives in the same application how could we do it in a bomb the same size and purpose as a bunker buster able to penetrate the mountain the same way

If the engineers had special drilling equipment (plus I dont know if the geology of rock would be soft enough for it....not my strong point) they could drill/cut a wide enough hole I suppose to put the widest diameter convention bomb (Daisy Cutter or bigger).

BUt you'd need so many borer equipments and personnel to do it it might not...probably would not be effective. Its only going to have a localised effect and it can be countered.Thats easily done by moving covertly. If it wasnt Bin Laden would be dead and AQ fighters would be running scared.

I'm sure Coalition Forces do make it hard for them, but .....hell you'd need to ask an expert not a former reservist come forum poster about this one.

I'm not gonna win any freinds with this post you know



This is probably a topic discussed on weapons. I don't think it will make to many people happy here and I'm not out to cause deliberate offense.

[edit on 20-10-2004 by craigandrew]

I dont think they would set still for us to drill they would either run or come out fighting and an engineering crew would be a setting duck not to mention loss of the element of surprise



CRAP there is no way to end this now is there one big boom and we save alot of lives ......Its so frustrating it makes me sick in my insane brain