Should miniature nukes be used

[FunClown]

I personally think miniature nukes if used or even threatened to be used will lead to some very tight/uneasy times and may lead to disaster.

 

If a country used these against the country where you live or an ally how would you react? Is there really anything good that can come out of these?

 

Interested in hearing your opinions.

[ET Warrior]

No. They should not. EVER be used.

[TheJackal]

I think thats totaly stupid. Just the fact that the US government is spending billions to create "mini nukes" and actually convincing the population that nothing is wrong about it and since it smaller its "better"

 

Plus the fact that it can be used as a "bunker buster" (penetrate the ground deep before exploding) is even worst for the environment. That would make the soil polluted for MUCH longer than ANY surface nuke.

 

Big woop. So now you can devastate a smaller portion of a city. You still shoulndt be able to DO that.

 

I strongly think they should spend the money on the Star Wars and Mini Nukes programs to remove nukes world wide (yes that includes the USA) and spend the rest on social programs (also known as education and health... what is more important for you? killing people from far way making the target unhabitable for a long long long time... or the education and health of your children?)

[wassup]

Anything with "nuke" in it is BAD.

 

And yes I do think the government should use their money more wisely, like trying to revive the economy and helping education systems. Where I live (CA), the budget cuts for education are pretty bad.

[ShockV1.89]

If they can develop it to release virtually no radiation, then I dont see the problem with it. It's just a big artillery shell or bomb then. And I doubt it would be used in cities. Probably remote bunkers that are heavily armored and resistant to penetration.

 

But honestly, it really would be a waste. It's overkill in most situations in which it would probably be used, because the US has bunker busting bombs that can slice through nearly any bunker in the world. Many of the bunkers that have been destroyed by these bombs are nuke proof.

[FunClown]

what is more important for you? killing people from far way making the target unhabitable for a long long long time... or the education and health of your children?

 

The thing is, if they did end up using them, we potentially might not have to worry about the education and health of our children. I'm sure you might agree.

 

***********

 

However, one thing that I'm wondering, is if the US used one these these mini nukes against an ally of a country who had nukes or even a country who is cautious of the USA not involved in any conflict but saw that the US had used one, would you think that there is a great potential of a nuclear capable country pre-emptively sending nukes to the US? As a pre-emptive strike perhaps?

 

Also, I would say to US citizens to watch out for the techno babble you may hear your government/Pentagon using to make these every day language type things. They may use techno terms but remember the objective of these things are to kill people first and foremost. People do bleed.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by FunClown

.....would you think that there is a great potential of a nuclear capable country pre-emptively sending nukes to the US? As a pre-emptive strike perhaps?

 

No. Only the U.S. is allowed to use pre-emptive strikes. Certainly other countries (even the bad guys) realize this. [/sarcasm mode]

 

Also, I would say to US citizens to watch out for the techno babble you may hear your government/Pentagon using to make these every day language type things.

 

Indeed. I recently listened to a gov. official (Ari Fleisher, perhaps) on NPR discuss the use of "bunker busters" in the "limited nuke" context. It all sounded very logical to the lay person, but the problem is that the math literally doesn't add up. For a mini-nuke (we're talking Hiroshima size here, btw) to be effective, it could not be detonated far enough underground to absorb the blast + radiation. Otherwise the heat is wasted.

 

Closer to the surface, and you still get many problems with radiation: water table contamination, arial particulate contamination, locality contamination, etc. Not to mention the margin for error, while very small, is not so small to be unlikely. In other words, one will eventually go astray.

 

I'll have to see if I can dig up the reference to this information if anyone is interested... I recently read it somewhere like Science, Nature, or Scientific American.

[FunClown]

Indeed. I recently listened to a gov. official (Ari Fleisher, perhaps) on NPR discuss the use of "bunker busters" in the "limited nuke" context.

 

Good examples.

 

A nuke is bad, but a limited nuke is ok. Since it is not a full nuke, it can't be that bad.[/sarcasm]

 

Did the government official mention anything about how the nuclear weapon (that's what it is) does its job (its job is to kill)?

 

I'm guessing he/she probably failed to mention those things or made it look like a computer game or technological superiority.

 

SkinWalker, my comments aren't aimed at you, but the people in charge who play us for fools.

 

I wouldn't mind seeing the link of that, but if you don't have it, that's ok.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by FunClown

Did the government official mention anything about how the nuclear weapon (that's what it is) does its job (its job is to kill)?

 

The context was that it's intent (the nuke) was to destroy underground weapons cache (i.e. chem, bio) or hardened command bunkers. The problem is, these things aren't typically buried sufficiently deep to absorb the blast. It would be impossible (at least I think) to develop a fussion bomb/warhead that would not yield radiation. If so, then it couldn't rely on fussion or even fission for its effect.

 

My guess is that the current admin genuinely sees power and might as the answer to world conflicts. I don't believe there is any hidden agenda here. I think it is just what it seems: a way to show the world we are still the most powerful force to be reckoned with. This type of policy is dangerous to any world power, since, throughout history, there have been examples of the powerful nation dominating to a point where the weaker nations coalesce and stand up to the powerful nation they fear.

 

The 2004 election cannot come quick enough.

 

 

Originally posted by FunClown

I wouldn't mind seeing the link of that, but if you don't have it, that's ok.

 

I'll see what I can find.... I've been busy beyond belief lately.

[griff38]

The threat from secret underground bunkers of evil anti americans is ahhhh.................... Microscopic.

 

To use Nuclear weapons to kill people (whoever they are ) hiding underground is idiotic and absurd and has ABSOLUTLEY NOTHING to do with making the world a safer place.

 

The real reason the Bush administration wants to create new types of WMD is to put big money into the pockets of companies that make a living building weapons.

 

Although hardly mentioned by anyone anymore BUSH clearly and with no shame stated that the war with Iraq would deplinish weapons stock and stimulate our economy by the need to produce new ones! Gee Thanks George!

(of course our ecomomy would not need stimulation if 2 digit iq morons like you would stop putting big business before everything else)

 

 

 

 

Small nucs have been tried before, the US military tested and decided against a huge range of tiny nukes in the 50s & 60s.

 

Terrifying to think our leaders & military were more sensible 40 or 50 years ago than they are today.

 

 

Does anybody else notice how hypoctitical it is for a nation that defies the world in an attempt to put an end to WMD while they are thinking up new ones of their own?

 

OH Great! I Am A StormTrooper Now.

[TheJackal]

Oh wow. Great. people are against it. not DO something about it!

 

Contact your neighboorhood community leaders. The local TV station and maybe even the big giant news corporations. Get your voice herd. Make sure the government hears how unhappy you are on this move!

 

Thats the problem with the US Government. They can get away with a LOT of stuff because there isnt a lot of involvement in the public.

[Solbe M'ko]

The only problem with that is you will undoubtedly be accused of being an "anti-american" or a "hippy" by the unwashed hordes of voters who don't care to get the facts, they would rather listen to George Dubya tell them what is really happening. Lobbying the government works on things like bylaws (BTW, it is now legal in my city to trap stray cats with traps provided by the city:rolleyes: ) but for the important issues, I find, unless you have money/political clout/a hell of a lot of people behind you, it's very unlikely that you can do anything about it. Your best bet would be to vote the guy out, and make sure people know why you did.

[ShockV1.89]

Therein lies the real power that the people have over the politicians. Just vote them out! Of course, it's not always so simple as that...

 

Anyway, I think that if the issue was brought to the attention of the American people, most of them would be against it. Keep in mind that this is a nation that has something of a paranoia when it comes to nuclear weapons. They spent the Cold war under the nuclear gun, and have just been through a war to disarm a rogue nation (perhaps deceived, but the intention was there). If they learned that Bush was trying to push mini-nukes, that would be a huge blow to his voter base.

 

But I doubt it's anything to be concerned about now. You think the democrats wouldnt pick up on this? If it was any concern, they would be screaming about it.

[TheJackal]

well think of it in the point of view from a nation who OWNS no nukes and will NEVER own a nuke because we simply dont want to.

 

Sure the States have been in the paranoia game for most of the 20th century. and in my opinion it still is. this time the "enemy" isnt a stable obvious country. its one that the president points out.

 

The Mini nukes debat was brought up on the news for a while, even CNN (the king of cencorship) covered the news. But no big media based discussion/public opinion was herd.

 

In Canada if the navy buys a new submarine the whole country knows about it because we are relunctant to build or buy anything that is war related. we're a peacefull nation, we look for other possible solution than simply building more nukes.

[FunClown]

I still don't see what the point to having them is. Is it trying to make Nuclear warfare on par with conventional warfare?

[TheJackal]

maybe start an other weapons race to boost the economie?

 

Bush is trying the old tacting that has proven to work for ages. wage war. use your weapons/bombs leading to needing more. build more weapons/bombs = more jobs = more government spending = raising economie.

 

the american economie allways grows stronger after any war. the principale behind it is just terribly wrong. it should be reformed.

[MSpencer1313]

If they're small enough, use them! If you can take out a column of a couple thousand tanks where it would take conventional forces a longer time with heavier losses, USE THEM! For god's sake, if circumstances require them the save human life of US or another nation's troops, USE THEM!!!

[TheJackal]

so its okay for other people to die except for those from your country and those that affiliate themselves with your country? is that what your saying?

[SkinWalker]

In my country, the 'good guys' aren't called terrorists, they're called 'counter-insurgents.'

 

The United States has been very adept at using terrorism for many years and mini-nukes are but one more way to do it. Terrorism is the calculated use of violence or the threat of violence to attain political or religious ideological goals through intimidation, coercion, or instilling fear.

 

Usually, we do it slow, as with Nicaragua in the 80's. Occasionally we speed it up a bit, as with the bombing campaign used on Iraq just prior to the first Gulf War. There we hit water treatment plants, pumping stations, dams.. etc. The result was a near-complete breakdown of the fresh water supply that was responsible for killing hundreds, if not thousands (many children), through the diseases that followed expectedly.

 

Now with mini-nukes, we can offer a new, or at least, refurbished threat on other countries that are labled as trouble-makers... such as North Korea and Iran.

 

Mini-nukes could certainly be used for the purpose that we have all been discussing (underground vaporization of chem/bio weapons, bunker busting, etc.), but they can also be used to wipe out entire factions... Hamaas comes to mind. Israel uses this tactic almost weekly... target one Hamaas leader, wait until he's asleep in his apartment, fire one missile, kill him. And his wife. And his daughter. And his son. And his neighbors.

 

Imagine how effective one mini-nuke might be! Target one Hamaas leader, wait until he's asleep, fire one missile, commit an act of genocide.

 

Ever wonder why the U.S. and Israel voted against the U.N. proposal to denounce terrorism and pledge to fight it back in the 1980's? It was because we would have had to agree with the clause that allowed those who were being oppressed racially or ethnically at the time to continue their fights, which were considered "terrorist" by their oppressing regimes. South Africa and Apartheid, in particular. Israel is still oppressing it's ethnic population and commits acts of genocide EVERY WEEK in spite of the so-called 'roadmap' to peace.

 

Mini-Nukes... the hypocrasy of it all.

 

The U.S. Army Field Manual 3-07 STABILITY OPERATIONS AND SUPPORT OPERATIONS defines 'counter-insurgency' in about three pages of information. The irony is, that you can just about use the above definition of 'terrorism' by inferring the meaning on those pages.

[SkinWalker]

Originally posted by MSpencer1313

For god's sake, if circumstances require them the save human life of US or another nation's troops, USE THEM!!!

 

Without regard for immediate civilian casualties or long term effects of the weapon(s)?

 

Without regard of the stigma that their use creates within the world that already views the U.S. as the big bully in the world?

 

Without regard to the long term global-social capital that will be spent in their use?

 

Without regard to the precedent that would be set for other, less judicious nations?

 

Hmmmm....

[FunClown]

If they're small enough, use them! If you can take out a column of a couple thousand tanks where it would take conventional forces a longer time with heavier losses, USE THEM! For god's sake, if circumstances require them the save human life of US or another nation's troops, USE THEM!!!

 

The problem with that is that if one is used, it shows a willingness of the country who fired it at an enemy to use nuclear weapons.

 

The way nuclear war has been avoided is because of the fear of mutually assured destruction. Basically, during the cold war if the US fired a nuke on Russia or vice-versa the destruction of both countries would be mutually assured.

 

I believe the same still applies today. However, there are more nuclear capable countries who are more paranoid. If they see the US use mini nukes they may end up firing on the US as a preemptive strike. I believe this is what North Korea is aiming for. The ability to conduct a preemptive strike on Washington and New York. This was said by a person who is very close to the leader of N.Korea (I can't spell his name).

 

BTW I do agree that in WWII, the atom bomb did save many allied lives including relatives of mine. Have you seen Saving Private Ryan? My greatgrandmother on my mothers side was in this situation. Two of her sons died in Japanese POW camps where only 4 escaped and 3 survived in total. My grandfather however, survived the war.

 

However, today, using a nuclear weapon may end up killing more allied lives from the reasons described above.

 

In my country, the 'good guys' aren't called terrorists, they're called 'counter-insurgents.'

 

That sounds like one of those tech-terms that you see governments and military use. It sounds fancy, but doesn't really tell you much about the purpose or how it does its job.