ZOMBIE FORUMS

It's a stinking, shambling corpse grotesquely parodying life.
It is currently Fri Mar 29, 2024 12:37 am

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:17 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Philadelphia
Tanks are not useless; they are very useful, and are therefore widly used in combat.

Nukes are -not- used. Why? Because they are powerful, more so then conventional weapons, and more force is not always better; there are a myriad of dangers surrounding their use and handling, and, as they involve nuclear material, this is nothing preventing anyone who can get their hands on them from making a larger and far more dangerous device.

Since 1994, our nuclear laboratories have been prohibited from undertaking research and development that could lead to a precision nuclear weapon of less than 5 KT, because, as is stated in the text of the bill, "low-yield nuclear weapons bluir the distinction between nuclear and conventional war."

Depsite what you believe and say, there -are no small yield nuclear weapons-. What you cite as being a battlefield nuke, the ones involved in the cuban missile crisis, were potent enough to wipe out a city.

Nuclear explosions are big and powerful. The smallest, 0.2 kt is the equivalent of something a little less than half a million pounds of TNT. Nuclear weapons are designed to blow the fucking shit out of things; they are immensly powerful. To delude oneself into thinking that they can be toned down is foolish - what is the purpose in such toning? If you make a nuclear bomb that has the strength of a firecracker, why not use a firecracker instead? That way, you avoid the risks of nuclear material, the price associated with it, etc.

What purpose, therefore, could nuclear weapons of low yield serve? Not bunker busters (http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm)

(http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/index.html is a good resource, even if it is an interest group).

In fact, those we did have we rid ourselves of. The neutron bombs developed, whose sole purpose was tremendous casualities in terms of people, were dismantled. (http://www.financialsense.com/editorial ... 3/0309.htm).

The technology you speak of is not new; it was all developed 40 years ago. If I remember correctly, there was a nuclear warhead that could be fired from am army bazooka. None of these are in use now. Why? Because of the dangers and problems associated with them.

Nuclear weapons are useless in a tactical sense.

_________________
--
Aerk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 9:45 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
ok ok, lets go over this again

<B>small nukes</B> 0.2KT = 200 tonnes, think of a B52 loaded up with 1000lbs bombs, how many of those to the ton? now times that by 200, that's not much is it, a few B52 bomb loads, kinda like a classic 'nam ArcLight raid no?

when I said do the maths I thought I wouldn't have to

now, small nukes LIKE I SAID are to be used INSTEAD of bomber raids, why? NO BOMBERS TO SHOOT DOWN, READ MY WORDS and you're firing it from an artillery piece so there's also no missile to even try to intercept

bigger isn't always better in weapons, both at a tactical level and a political one, what are infantry guns getting smaller and bullets of a lower calibre? different realities of warfare and new roles to use them in etc

I mean really everything you question I've answered at least once, but I'll go on

"low-yield nuclear weapons blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war." you say, yes, well, if there were a line in the first place, like I keep saying, DU is used daily as an anti tank weapon, that's a nuclear material, technically an act of nuclear war, but it's so small as to be considered a special case conventional weapon, just as small battlefield nukes are

you can keep saying that nuclear weapons are not tactical, but why are they called tactical nukes then? some random error no one's noticed?

try not to contradict yourself with each line, it doesn't make this any easier on me

<B>Cuban Missile Crisis</B> perhaps is didn't make this clear, the missile that the crisis was about are of the *big* type (actually medium ones, but lets say big MAD provoking ones for the record) but eth commander on the ground, like any senior Soviet commander, had access to battlefield nukes in the KT fractional range, not multi KT or MT sized things, they're on a whole different (MAD) level. I meant that if the US invaded to knock out the big nukes, he'd have hit them (if he'd wanted to) with little nukes

and 'prohibited from undertaking research and development' means that they can make no wholly new nukes, but they can maintain current ones to standard safety levels or some such clause that means they can basically undertake research and development in CURRENT areas, not new ones, it's a loophole.

now, anything else?

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 20, 2003 11:06 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
One question, when can I get issued a .01 KT nuclear grenade for my grenade launcher? I want one!

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:17 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Philadelphia
First: the quote I use is from the text of the prohibition itself. There is no loophole in the law - America's nuclear labs are not busily creating low yield nuclear weaponry.

I am not sure you really understand the math associated with the KT measurement of nuclear force...

Image

Furthermore: 1 ton = 2 000 pounds. Therefore, the blast is as if 400 1000 pound bombs went off at once. The sheer shockwave would level buildings, not to mention the intense heat and radiation. To drop it on a city, say, the size of :ondon, might only level a portion of it, again say, the size of Islington (I believe this to be a popular quote, but I do not know who to attribute it to) - but the spread of radiation, and there is a sizable amount from even a 0.2KT blast, would kill for many miles around.

Remember, 530 to 830 R+ = death, if taken over the period of a week.
Granted, a 0.2KT bomb would not produce enough to do so, but those affected would still be hit with a hundred times the radiation their bodies are accustomed to.


I am quite confident that history will prove me correct when I state that the 'tactical' nuclear weapon, as it stands now, will not be used as the costs of its deployment and use outweigh the gains provided by 'not having planes to shoot down, and it cannot be intercepted/blocked', to paraphrase your reasoning.

Your sense of strategy and revelence is too centered in the past; you bring up the Soviet Union and Vietnam, yet fail to address how the weapons could possibly be utilized in the population centers we are now fighting in. Just like B52 carpet bombing runs, the sort of massive destructive power provided by nuclear weapons, are not now needed or used.

Precise application of force in both strategic and tactical senses, and the massive bonus American technology grants to the United States, overrides the US's need to use nuclear weapons or even B52 carpet bombing style tactics. If our goal was to inflict massive civilian casualties, we could do that without 'tactical' nuclear weapons; biological or chemical weapons would do the trick nicely.

The need is for weapons that provide surgical strikes against hard-to-reach targets. Lobbing artillery shells filled with the equivalent of 400 1000 pound bombs, or 400,000 pounds of TNT, is not necessary or wanted in America's current theatres of war.

_________________
--
Aerk


Last edited by Aerk on Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:25 am 
Offline
PostWhorePornStar
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:00 pm
Posts: 7672
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Your chart seems a bit wonky. Why would a 10kt blast have less ionizing and thermal radiation than a 1kt blast, when a 100kt blast dwarfs them both. Wouldn't a 10kt have more than a 1kt? Also, there are types of nuclear weoponry that do no damage to physical structures. Neutron bombs, if I remember correctly, simply just kill everything while leaving most structures and such intact. Then, with a little bit of radiation cleaning, one suddenly has access to everything that was there, minus the lifeforms. I could be horribly wrong. I don't remember everything 100%, I'm sure.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 1:10 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
I think the 10KT is just missing a zero, Kry.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 11:15 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
Ollie wrote:
small nukes 0.2KT = 200 tonnes, think of a B52 loaded up with 1000lbs bombs, how many of those to the ton? now times that by 200, that's not much is it, a few B52 bomb loads, kinda like a classic 'nam ArcLight raid no?


As he mentioned, about the same amount of explosive force is put into a B52 bombing run, but why risk all those multimillion dollar planes when you can just lob a piece of artillery and do the same amount of damage?

Aerk wrote:
Furthermore: 1 ton = 2 000 pounds. Therefore, the blast is as if 400 1000 pound bombs went off at once. The sheer shockwave would level buildings, not to mention the intense heat and radiation. To drop it on a city, say, the size of :ondon, might only level a portion of it, again say, the size of Islington (I believe this to be a popular quote, but I do not know who to attribute it to) - but the spread of radiation, and there is a sizable amount from even a 0.2KT blast, would kill for many miles around.


What a goddamn idiot. Look at the chart, Aerk: 800 meters is the closest LETHAL radiation range has for 1kt, thats not even a kilometer, look at your own sources plz kk thx.

Lets take a quick guestimation, the lethal rad range might be a couple hundred meters, why are you saying it'd kill people for miles?

I dunno, maybe you should look at your own sources before hacking yourself to death with them, thats always good.

As to the tactical use; they were made with said situations in mind, if one country is ever up against another that concentrates his forces, bam its a nuke, it'll be used, I mean if its not designed to help in a city then it won't be used in a city, you're trying to say that current situations don't lend themselves to the use of tactical nukes, I agree, I mean they're meant to kill a lot of bad guys really quickly, nonconventional people in cities arn't like that usually. If we wanted to just kill them all and be done with it, we'd nuke the while city, but thats not really politically viable.

Anyway, point being you're trying to disprove the use of tacnukes by pointing out situations in which they won't be viable, whats the point of that etc, I can say tanks are useless forever because current urban fighting doesn't lend itself to 105mm sabots and all the investment, lets go back to infantry only etc. A dumb arguement if I ever heard one.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:14 pm 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Philadelphia
That is the range of lethal radiation on impact; I.E., so much radiation that you die instantly, said radiation coming from the initial blast.

The background radiation would still be exceedingly high, and any who stayed in the area would soon develop radiation sickness, if not death. -That- range, and the effects of -that- radiation, would be several miles.

As to the 'artillery shell' idea, let me put this into its grave:
1) How much do you think a 0.2KT nuclear shell would cost.
2) We don't want to have heavy bombers blowing up and burning entire cities. We want to destroy targets, not blast the whole area into dust.

Tanks -are- useful in urban enviroments, given the right deployment strategies and infantry support. Nukes, however, (and remember, the SMALLEST nuclear attack is the equivalent of 400,000 pounds of TNT) are not useful in urban enviroments because they would cause massive 'collateral' (read: civilian) damages.

Nuclear deployment is a slippery slope. If you can fire a 0.2KT shell and take out an entire army (killing them, not forcing them to surrender, but just slaughtering them), why not do the same to a city? To an entire country? You dismiss and poo-poo minor radiation damages, would it take a 1MT mushroom cloud so big it could be seen from space to change your mind?

Nuclear weapons, (And, I would say, especially neutron bombs) are the most horrific weapons ever created. I would prefere the planet not to be nuked to death, and the proliferation of low yield nuclear weapons would only bring that fate closer to realisation.

Just because something can be used, could be used, does not mean it -should- be used.

_________________
--
Aerk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 12:24 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 3730
Location: DELETED FOR SECURITY REASONS
the 800 meter range is LATENT.

Lets define latent:

Dictionary.com wrote:
Present or potential but not evident or active: latent talent.
Pathology. In a dormant or hidden stage: a latent infection.


Oh, it seems not immediately effective.

Can you please, please, PLEASE look up your own terms before spouting about it?

And like Ollie said, what about DU rounds? They burn and spread radiation, why don't they cause nuclear war?

You seem to be ignoring all the points made. It won't effect everyone for miles and miles around; that is a myth perpetuated by nuke-fear thats really stupid.

And btw, there already is a nuclear bunker-buster which I saw in science magazine, there was some controversy over using it but then silence on the part of the pentagon, I'd wager we used it as its much more effective than a normal bunker buster.

But hey, you'll just ignore that, its not like you took anything else anyone said into account.

-MiB

_________________
delenda est communism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 2:01 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
well at least it seems like I'm not talking total rubbish if others can see what I'm saying, I was starting to wonder. now, to follow on from MiB's 100% correct points

now -
Quote:
As to the 'artillery shell' idea, let me put this into its grave:
1) How much do you think a 0.2KT nuclear shell would cost.
2) We don't want to have heavy bombers blowing up and burning entire cities. We want to destroy targets, not blast the whole area into dust.


it's not an idea, it's a actual piece of hardware, and yes, it would cost a lot if I was to go and buy one, but I'm not a military industrial complex (look it up) as I said before, 'cost' isn't such a factor in that equation then and as MiB pointed out, I said it would be used instead of a heavy bomber strike, thus saving the tens of millions of dollars of aircraft and the lives of the crews in the process, and as for a bombe strike being different from a nuclear strike, have you seen a picture of Hiroshima? it looks very much like the cities hit by saturation bombing in WW2

<B>radiation</B> this is countered by AS I SAID troops and vehicles having NBC protection on them, yes, a naked man wouldn't have a nice time if hit by a nuke, but a guy trained in NBC warfare who's sat behind a shielded and air-filtered wall of armour who knows full well that burns and radiation treatment specialists waiting behind the lines just incase anything goes wrong would not have much trouble at all as long as the thing didn't fall on their head, as with any other weapon.

<B>big bombing runs aren't needed now</B> um, Afghanistan anyone? have you seen any of the footage of the bombing of the ToraBora caves/mountains? they were full on B52 bombing runs carpeting the whole mountains in order to cave in any bunkers that weren't hit directly etc, if anything a nuclear strike might have been more effective if they have a pinpoint target as the power of a few B52 bomb loads is concentrated into one big blast, not spread out over hundreds of meters, if anything a nuke is the best precision bomb going, not the least, just think about it please

Quote:
I am quite confident that history will prove me correct when I state that the 'tactical' nuclear weapon, as it stands now, will not be used as the costs of its deployment and use outweigh the gains provided


history has already proven you wrong I'm afraid, the reason that conventional forces have been (and in most cases) still are being scaled down is that technology allows a smaller force to both be more effective, and less at risk. the whole thing about the 'nuclear battlefield' is that you have to use your forces in a more spread out and slower fashion, spread so they are not at risk from battlefield nukes and slower as everyone is working in protective gear. wars don't make the place nice to live in, a nuclear war is just an extra stage of damage to the battle area

the cold war was won by the 'cost' of designing and stockpiling nukes, not the use of them, again, if you want me to explain that one please say, don't throw down random words to prompt me to correct you. the whole point of a weapon is that the threat is a big part of it's value, if you actually have to use it then the people you're shooting at obviously don't think much of it

you keep talking about 'urban environments' as I fear you have just watched some Gulf War footage on the news, the fighting in Iraq is happening all over the place, from open deserts to cave/mountains ranges to marsh and river deltas, yes, AND towns and cities, but have you ever thought that the only TV footage that gets back is filmed by the reporters who hang around the towns and cities? the desert's not a nice place, why film the troops out there when you can do so from the cafe you're sat at instead

war still happens outside of cities, don't watch 5 mins of TV news and forget everything else please (and yes, I know the world started on 9/11, but please)

and as for bombs 'killing everyone' look at your own figures, when it says '50% casualties do you know what that means? not 100% dead, not even 50% dead, a war casualty is when a trooper is wounded to the point that they can no longer fight. that might mean just knocked out, or a bullet wound that they need a few weeks to recover from, it goes all the way up to death, about 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 'casualties are deaths (depending on a whole number of environmental, tactical and operational matters) so a hit that does 50% casualties only actually KILLS around 13% of the people it hits, the rest might not be happy, but they'll be alive

that might make it sound like a crappy weapon, but a live casualty is more of a drain of army resources than a death, evacuation and medical facilities etc, one reason that many armies like small bullets and little anti personnel mines is that they tend to wound, not kill to keep that 3/4 figure as high as possible, a nuclear bomb would be like any other bomb, you get in close and you die, further out and you're so badly injured that you're tying up resources for weeks, moths even back at base camp, I a long war efficient killing isn't wanted, efficient wounding is, we're bombing them into the stoneage, not fighting like we're from the stoneage

the problem with deploying small but obviously nuclear weapons in the future is that people who have no clue about them will go off on one, not realising we're basically using them now with DU, you can try to educate people about it, but sometimes it isn't easy to do so as they just shout about how it only takes one nuke to blow up the universe and ignore you

and as for the most horrific weapons ever developed, you like bio weapons more i take it? a nuke is a bang and a buzz, bio attacks can go on killing and deforming with full lethality for generations, and they can spread without any kind of high tech delivery system, they'r ethe cheapest WMD around, nukes are NICE compaired to them

I await your reply.

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 21, 2003 10:36 pm 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
I would like to point out that from a PR standpoint, the press going berserk about nuclear weapons being used would cause the politicians who make these decisions have ulcers. You can get away with DU rounds in the minds of the public because you get to say depleted, and the public thinks "Oh, just like heavy lead" You set off a nuclear explosion and the bleeding hearts are making a new home up your ass.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 3:22 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
how about a red mercury isomer decay bomb then? there's no nuclear fission so while it's made of nuclear material it's, like DU, technically not a nuclear bomb but it does have most of the effects

but anyway, while the public and the politicians are the ones who make too many of the important decisions in democracies, both can be told what to think and say if you really want as few of either group actually have an clue of what's going on other than what they're told, so, like in the above example, say it's not a nuke and get some scientists to back you up and what can they say? tell them it's the only way to fight terror and get results or somesuch and you'll be able to do it, I mean, Japan was nuked, twice.

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 4:00 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
When we nuked Japan, we were in the middle of a real, declared war with a comparably powerful enemy, also we hadn't even realized that there WAS such a thing as radioactive fallout.

I agree, if you could get some pet scientists to back you on a line about it not being a nuke, then you could neuter the violent reaction among the unwashed masses. The press does pretty much what it's told anyhow.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 4:27 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
Japan was nothing when it was nuked, the bomb was dropped so that the above 'lives and planes were spared from long bombing missions' reason was one of the biggest for a pair of nukes rather than a few more months of conventional strikes and groundwar to bring it to it's inevitable conclusion. also the very political fact that if America detonates the biggest, newest bomb ever then the world (i.e. the Soviets) have to answer to them when the war's over and the world's re-divided

the second bomb was then dropped to show that America has more than just one of these things, watch out (though at the time they in reality did only had the two they used, but quickly made more soon afterwards)

anyway, the war on terror is about as active as it can get, the number of bombings that have happened in this week alone should point that out, conventional weapons are only of limited use in an unconventional war, so it might be time to use some slightly more unconventional ones again

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 5:37 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 01, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2885
Location: San Antonio
OK, so who do we use these mini-nukes on Ollie? The French? If I was in charge we'd have invaded France already, wiped out Paris and gone home, but I don't think we will.

NK? With China backing them? No.

Iraq is over with from the standpoint of everything but policing.

Japan again? Just for kicks? I don't see a useful enemy to attack. Syria, maybe, if we go to war with them.

_________________
We used to play for silver, Now we play for life.
One's for sport and one's for blood
At the point of a knife, Now the die is shaken
Now the die must fall,
There ain't a winner in this game
Who don't go home with all, Not with all...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 8:29 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
Afghanistan's still pretty hot, for the best use of them you'll want it to be away from populated areas to minimise all friendly and non-combatant exposure so the small amount of fallout, and you;ll either hit large concentrations of troops and equipment or hard to destroy bunker complexes

i.e. remote 'terrorist training camps' and the Tora Bora cave complexes, in goes a Tomahawk or Stormshadow with a small nuke and blam, these missiles (especially the tomahawk) were designed around nuclear payloads, using them with conventional HE is a terrible waste of resources, it's like give the world's best sniper a Nerf gun, he'll hit every time, but damage? hardly anything. Even out in Iraq they could be used to the same degree, keep them out of cities and you'll be fine, unless you've really got something against the people you're bombing (i.e. with Japan)

North |Korea would be a perfect target for eth troop/equipment concentration hitting role, but China is to their back, even though relations with the West are more important at the moment that supporting a frankly insane NK leadership, nuking might be a step too far though, china are in a far more powerful position now than they were in the last war, but they're also far more pro-Western, so a heavy handed approach is less likely

Chairman Mao was the only Cold War superpower leader who actually thought he could win a nuclear war by the way, he didn't believe in MAD, perhaps having 1/3 of the world's population he had a point...

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 10:20 am 
Offline
Tourist
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 16, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 42
Location: Philadelphia
You nuke North Korea with anything less than a bomb big enough to take out the entire DMZ artillery range they have set up, and Seoul gets pounded into nothingness by a very conventional shelling.

With the Tora Bora caves: The bomb still has to be dropped in the right place; either inside the cave entrance or outside the entrance. The actual blast, in order to collapse the cave systems, would still have to be in the right place. I would even go so far as to say, because the Tora Bora caves covered such a large area of land, it would require multiple low yield nuke hits: If you start using enough of the things to get the job done, you have to take into account that radiation and fallout stack.

Mountains, being made of granite, are the best bunkers possible to withstand a nuclear assault. Hence, SAC is under one.

I'll admit I am mistaken about the latent nuclear lethality. However, the immediate area would still have greatly increased radiation levels, which over the course of a year might cause health problems for people living there.

How many B52s have been shot down in Afghanistan, Iraq? None. When we start losing 'multimillion dollar planes and their crews', it will be an issue. The only thing that could even hit a B52 today would be a Soviet/Russian SAM launcher, and the military is intelligent enough to get rid of those first.

Finally: No, nuclear war is the -end- of conventional war. If you have two nuclear nations fighting against each other, why the fuck would they use 0.2KT bombs? Why worry about spreading out your forces when you are already going to use nuclear weapons; keep your troops at home and just launched a few 1MT nukes. No country left to fight.

With nuclear armed country vs. non nuclear armed country, the side without nukes is moving slowly and in small units? WTF? That means a force that moves swiftly and in strength would sweep away all opposition with ease - nukes are not even an issue.

_________________
--
Aerk


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Nov 22, 2003 11:28 am 
Offline
Addict
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 17, 2002 5:00 pm
Posts: 2242
Location: http://the-expatriates.com/
escalation, if you use battlefield nukes and make it clear that's as high as you're going then there's no need for the other side to step it up a notch, note the it the Korean war the nukes were aimed at the Chinese troops in NK, *not* at China itself, that would have been a whole different matter *politically* even if it would be as effective on a man for man enemy casualties term

for instance, Saddam had chemical weapons which he used against the dissident population of Iraq, in one instance they fired chemical rounds at a village by the Iranian border and the people fled in such numbers that the jumpy border guards though it was another Iraqi invasion and called down artillery on them, but they didn't use them on the coalition forces when they pushed the Iraqi forces out of Kuwait, why? they didn't want to take the hit that they'd get it they did, you gas some GIs and you've passed a big line in the sand

there have been rumours that chemical weapons were used in at least one case, resulting in some of the 'gulf war syndrome' cases, but that's very much been unverified, perhaps to justify the lack of response the first time around, WMDs *can* be an excuse to escalate your forces/targets, but only if you feel like you need an excuse, if you don't want to spark off a possible MAD exchange then you back down or respond with more conventional forces instead

the cave complexes in Afghanistan were B52 bombed on the offchance that they'd hit one, very much hit and miss, some of the best results came form British and US special forces firing anti-tank rockets into them from the ground, still, the 'area denial' effect of a radioactive fallout would also make the caves hard to use an a base even if you don't get a direct hit, and in areas like that, what else is the place used for if not criminal/terrorist actions/, it's not like you're causing any damage to places that will revert back to a peaceful role after the bad guys have been flushed out

B52s were shot down in Vietnam due to well hidden and professionally trained SAM crews, in Iraq for instance, scores of SAMs of various size and age have been fired at aircraft in the last few months, today one finally hit. destroying SAM and early warning radar bases is the first stage of a convention war as it gives heavy bombers free reign over the country afterwards, if you use nukes then you don't need to have that stage, again saving men, helicopters and planes from the danger of going on SAM hunting raids in the first place, the nature of a standoff attack is that you don't need to getinto harms way to deliver it

_________________
ollie.
---------------
now your tears are worth it


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Forum locked This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group