Nuclear Proliferation OK for Some

[BOBDN]

IHypocrisy Bush style.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Profound

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So much for the moral high ground.

 

[Zebo]

Los Alamos and Livermore need work too dude. whats wrong with you.


Theres way more politics incvlved here you guys don't know. We aleady have weapons that can do what Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons are proposed to do namly the GBU-37..

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Los Alamos and Livermore need work too dude. whats wrong with you.

You're right. With unemployment still rising during our economic "recovery" I should be less critical of job opportunities for nuclear weapons designers in the USA. But not in North Korea or Iran.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Zebo
Los Alamos and Livermore need work too dude. whats wrong with you.


Theres way more politics incvlved here you guys don't know. We aleady have weapons that can do what Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons are proposed to do namly the GBU-37..

The bomb you refer to is a 5000 lb bomb with a 650 lb warhead. The "tactical nuke" is 5 kiloton. Hardly the same.

Nukes should be used for deterrence or response in kind. At least until they're all gone. We took the tactical nukes out of the field years ago, took the TLAM-N off of our ships/subs. The .mil will always want new better/weapons. The SecDef and President should have never proposed it, Congress shouldn't fund it.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Zebo
Los Alamos and Livermore need work too dude. whats wrong with you.

You're right. With unemployment still rising during our economic "recovery" I should be less critical of job opportunities for nuclear weapons designers in the USA. But not in North Korea or Iran.

The calls for this come almost entirly from the weapons labs.. There has been talk of shuting them down since the test ban treaty....Keeping your nuclear scientists employed by doing maintanece is rather difficult...Need new stuff.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Zebo
Los Alamos and Livermore need work too dude. whats wrong with you.


Theres way more politics incvlved here you guys don't know. We aleady have weapons that can do what Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons are proposed to do namly the GBU-37..

The bomb you refer to is a 5000 lb bomb with a 650 lb warhead. The "tactical nuke" is 5 kiloton. Hardly the same.

Nukes should be used for deterrence or response in kind. At least until they're all gone. We took the tactical nukes out of the field years ago, took the TLAM-N off of our ships/subs. The .mil will always want new better/weapons. The SecDef and President should have never proposed it, Congress shouldn't fund it.

But they did propose it and Congress did fund it while at the same time the Bush administration rails against the spread of nuclear weapons. What hypocrites.

 

[Matt2]

Better they develop nuclear weapons for us, than become unemployed and freelance for N. Korea or Iran.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Ultra Quiet

Originally posted by: Zebo
Los Alamos and Livermore need work too dude. whats wrong with you.


Theres way more politics incvlved here you guys don't know. We aleady have weapons that can do what Low-Yield Earth-Penetrating Nuclear Weapons are proposed to do namly the GBU-37..

The bomb you refer to is a 5000 lb bomb with a 650 lb warhead. The "tactical nuke" is 5 kiloton. Hardly the same.

Nukes should be used for deterrence or response in kind. At least until they're all gone. We took the tactical nukes out of the field years ago, took the TLAM-N off of our ships/subs. The .mil will always want new better/weapons. The SecDef and President should have never proposed it, Congress shouldn't fund it.

If you want a wider hole and contamination that's great..But depth has to do with "long rod penetration" which is entirely dependant on the casing and impact velocity not the charge. Also the electronics in nukes severly limit impact velocities unlike the GBU.. Use more bombs.

 

[JellyBaby]

Do the current crop of conventional bunker busters fail to bust certain types of bunkers? If so can more effective conventional penetrators be developed and delivered in leui of nukes?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Now the question (to which I don't have an answer) is how this is covered by the nuclear nonproliferation treaty? Or is it?

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
Now the question (to which I don't have an answer) is how this is covered by the nuclear nonproliferation treaty? Or is it?

Their development is not. Their use against non-nuclear states is. Not that any treaty is gonna be worth a sh!t if any nuke ever flies again.

 

[Matt2]

I think the point is to destroy bunkers holding WMD.

In that case, you want blast radius and as much damage as possible over a wide area. This will reduce the need for pinpoint intelligence on the exact location of the weapons and eliminate the need for multiple weapons.

A 5 kiloton nuke that goes off underground is far less dangerous than a 5 kiloton nuke going off on the surface.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Matt2
I think the point is to destroy bunkers holding WMD.

In that case, you want blast radius and as much damage as possible over a wide area. This will reduce the need for pinpoint intelligence on the exact location of the weapons and eliminate the need for multiple weapons.

A 5 kiloton nuke that goes off underground is far less dangerous than a 5 kiloton nuke going off on the surface.

Good point. The Bush neo-cons can just start dropping these things everywhere in their rush to "liberate" foreign nations.

America the beautiful.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Matt2
I think the point is to destroy bunkers holding WMD.

In that case, you want blast radius and as much damage as possible over a wide area. This will reduce the need for pinpoint intelligence on the exact location of the weapons and eliminate the need for multiple weapons.

A 5 kiloton nuke that goes off underground is far less dangerous than a 5 kiloton nuke going off on the surface.

The penetration would have to be fairly significant to make it "far less dangerous". As Zebo pointed out, sort of, the problem is acheiving that penetration, generating the required velocity, protecting the payload in a deliverable package.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Do the current crop of conventional bunker busters fail to bust certain types of bunkers? If so can more effective conventional penetrators be developed and delivered in leui of nukes?

Of course if target goes deep enough... granite... wet.. etc all matter too.. In respose to your second question depends if you ask the guys at the labs or the guys who make the conventional bombs. I'm cynical says moonie so I tend to think someone wants to keep working either way...need third party.

 

[JellyBaby]

I think the point is to destroy bunkers holding WMD.

Elusive beasts, these WMD bunkers. Given our track record in Iraq, the funds may be better spent on finding these WMD bunkers first don't you think?

Is the inclusion of the term "WMD" here supposed to make us feel the use of nuclear weapons is justified in this case? Or is there a reason why they'd be best-suited for this purpose? Would the yield all but guarantee any chemical/biologicals present would be vaporized?

 

[Matt2]

These would form a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons which can be designed to bore deep underground before exploding, destroying hardened bunkers that might contain weapons of mass destruction.

That was straight from the text, so I did not throw in the "WMD word" on my own.

First of all, these weapons would not be used on anything except the bunkers, so no we will not "start dropping these things everywhere"

Please, lets not forget the fact that these weapons are designed to destroy underground complexes, not to be randomly dropped in downtown baghdad.

 

[SuperTool]

So we are going to be calling nukes WMD's with one side of our mouth, and advocate their tactical use with the other.
I think we need to draw the line on nukes and not advocate their casual use for bunker busting and such.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Matt2

These would form a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons which can be designed to bore deep underground before exploding, destroying hardened bunkers that might contain weapons of mass destruction.

That was straight from the text, so I did not throw in the "WMD word" on my own.

First of all, these weapons would not be used on anything except the bunkers, so no we will not "start dropping these things everywhere"

Please, lets not forget the fact that these weapons are designed to destroy underground complexes, not to be randomly dropped in downtown baghdad.

Uh.....................the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq included dropping two bunker busters in downtown Baghdad, in the Monsour(?) district I believe where the US had more "intelligence" (what an ironic choice of a word) had Saddam Hussein dining. Several civilians were killed but Saddam Hussein was not.

 

[Matt2]

We're not going to be casually using these weapons, please people.

Scenario A: Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden are hiding in a bunker complex in Iraq. US blasts site with conventional bunker busters. Complex is far too large and deep for the bombs to have any major effect. US drops bunker buster tactical nuke, goodbye bad guys. entire complex collapses, mission accomplished.

Scenario B: US finds Iraq's WMDs. they are hidden deep underground. US knows there is no chance to recover WMDs intact. Bunker Buster Tactical Nuke is deployed. Goodbye WMDs.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Matt2

These would form a new generation of low-yield nuclear weapons which can be designed to bore deep underground before exploding, destroying hardened bunkers that might contain weapons of mass destruction.

That was straight from the text, so I did not throw in the "WMD word" on my own.

First of all, these weapons would not be used on anything except the bunkers, so no we will not "start dropping these things everywhere"

Please, lets not forget the fact that these weapons are designed to destroy underground complexes, not to be randomly dropped in downtown baghdad.

Uh.....................the Bush administration's invasion of Iraq included dropping two bunker busters in downtown Baghdad, in the Monsour(?) district I believe where the US had more "intelligence" (what an ironic choice of a word) had Saddam Hussein dining. Several civilians were killed but Saddam Hussein was not.

uhh...................... big difference between using a conventional bunker buster in downtown baghdad compared to using a nuke in downtown baghdad, use your brain for crying out loud.

Besides, those bombs did not penetrate underground, thats why the blast killed several people.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Matt2We're not going to be casually using these weapons, please people.

How can you say that while we are at this very moment occupying a nation we pre-emptively attacked. And used every weapon short of nuclear to conquer that nation?

Short of nuclear. Which the Bush administration is now planning on designing a new class of to test and deploy for tactical use?

 

[Zebo]

Besides, those bombs did not penetrate underground, thats why the blast killed several people.

That's not why, you're a chemist to be don't forget about entropy..PV=NrT and all that good stuff about path of least resistance