Nuclear Proliferation OK for Some

[tnitsuj]

Developing these weapons would probably end up with the US violating the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, although it will not violate the NPT as long as we don't give them to anyone else.

 

[Matt2]

Holy sh1t. Do u really believe what you just said. Despite your reservations about GWB, and believe me, I have some of my own....

He's not hellbent on bringing the world to the apocolypse as you people believe.

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Matt2
Holy sh1t. Do u really believe what you just said. Despite your reservations about GWB, and believe me, I have some of my own....

He's not hellbent on bringing the world to the apocolypse as you people believe.

But what is to stop the Chinese from building these, or Pakistan, or Israel etc.? Once we develop and use them, others will and they may not have this vaunted restraint. Pandoras Box.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: 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

The point was, it was for the most part a surface explosion. The bombs did not penetrate hundreds of feet underground before exploding like they are designed to do.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: 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.

Why develop them if they aren't going to be used?

 

[tnitsuj]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: 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

The point was, it was for the most part a surface explosion. The bombs did not penetrate hundreds of feet underground before exploding like they are designed to do.

I don't think any bomb can penetrate hundreds of feet underground.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: 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

Let me get this straight. You have no problem with people lobbing these things around on planet earth in 2003?

You are insane.

 

[Matt2]

"The president has no intention of testing nuclear weapons. We have no need to and we have been consistent for some time on that issue," he said.

"We can't rule out forever... we have no plans to test, so I don't expect that to be a subject of discussion."

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: 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.

Just wondering Matt2 about 2 things. If these 4,000 pound bombs which use hardened shells (hardened with depleted uranuim BTW but don't let depleted fool you this stuff still has a half life of thousands of years) didn't work wouldn't they use the new and improved model?

Willing to risk watching the eagles fly?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Matt2

"The president has no intention of testing nuclear weapons. We have no need to and we have been consistent for some time on that issue," he said.

"We can't rule out forever... we have no plans to test, so I don't expect that to be a subject of discussion."

Is that a quote from Colin Powell?

Yeah, he's really in the loop.

 

[Matt2]

Why develop them if they aren't going to be used?

Same reason why we have Minuteman III ICBMs armed with a warhead that measures in the hundreds of megatons. Do u expect those to be used?

Matt2

Let me get this straight. You have no problem with people lobbing these things around on planet earth in 2003?

You are insane.

No, you've got me all wrong. My point is, this is not the end of the world. Far more powerful weapons have been developed . You think I like the idea of throwing nukes around underground or not? No. But this issue is not something to become hysterical about. If you hate our govt so much, the constitution gives you the right to change it. So go start your campaign.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: 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.

Just wondering Matt2 about 2 things. If these 4,000 pound bombs which use hardened shells (hardened with depleted uranuim BTW but don't let depleted fool you this stuff still has a half life of thousands of years) didn't work wouldn't they use the new and improved model?

Willing to risk watching the eagles fly?

No, your logic is flawed. Saddam was believed to be dining in a restaurant, not underground, so why would we use a nuke bunkerbuster when he was above ground?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: 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.

Just wondering Matt2 about 2 things. If these 4,000 pound bombs which use hardened shells (hardened with depleted uranuim BTW but don't let depleted fool you this stuff still has a half life of thousands of years) didn't work wouldn't they use the new and improved model?

Willing to risk watching the eagles fly?

No, your logic is flawed. Saddam was believed to be dining in a restaurant, not underground, so why would we use a nuke bunkerbuster when he was above ground?

Well, there was a crater where the restaurant stood. With the bodies of innocent civilians in it.

You didn't answer much there.

Still OK with the development and use of tactical nuclear weapons, madman?

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Why develop them if they aren't going to be used?

Same reason why we have Minuteman III ICBMs armed with a warhead that measures in the hundreds of megatons. Do u expect those to be used?

Matt2

Let me get this straight. You have no problem with people lobbing these things around on planet earth in 2003?

You are insane.

No, you've got me all wrong. My point is, this is not the end of the world. Far more powerful weapons have been developed . You think I like the idea of throwing nukes around underground or not? No. But this issue is not something to become hysterical about. If you hate our govt so much, the constitution gives you the right to change it. So go start your campaign.

You're confused. I don't hate our government. That's the conservative Republican strategy.

I hate Bush.

 

[Matt2]

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: 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.

Just wondering Matt2 about 2 things. If these 4,000 pound bombs which use hardened shells (hardened with depleted uranuim BTW but don't let depleted fool you this stuff still has a half life of thousands of years) didn't work wouldn't they use the new and improved model?

Willing to risk watching the eagles fly?

No, your logic is flawed. Saddam was believed to be dining in a restaurant, not underground, so why would we use a nuke bunkerbuster when he was above ground?

Well, there was a crater where the restaurant stood. With the bodies of innocent civilians in it.

You didn't answer much there.

Still OK with the development and use of tactical nuclear weapons, madman?

10,000lbs worth of explosives was dropped on a single building, of course there is going to be a crater.

No, I am not ok with R&D or use of nuclear weapons. Better we have it than our enemies though. How do u know these weapons will ever be used? Has Bush got in front of the nation and said "American people, I am gonna nuke the sh1t out of the dirt underground"??? No.

Why arent you lobbying for the destruction of the above mentioned Minuteman III ICBMs which are 1000x more powerful??

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: Matt2

Originally posted by: BOBDN

Originally posted by: 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.

Just wondering Matt2 about 2 things. If these 4,000 pound bombs which use hardened shells (hardened with depleted uranuim BTW but don't let depleted fool you this stuff still has a half life of thousands of years) didn't work wouldn't they use the new and improved model?

Willing to risk watching the eagles fly?

No, your logic is flawed. Saddam was believed to be dining in a restaurant, not underground, so why would we use a nuke bunkerbuster when he was above ground?

Well, there was a crater where the restaurant stood. With the bodies of innocent civilians in it.

You didn't answer much there.

Still OK with the development and use of tactical nuclear weapons, madman?

10,000lbs worth of explosives was dropped on a single building, of course there is going to be a crater.

No, I am not ok with R&D or use of nuclear weapons. Better we have it than our enemies though. How do u know these weapons will ever be used? Has Bush got in front of the nation and said "American people, I am gonna nuke the sh1t out of the dirt underground"??? No.

Why arent you lobbying for the destruction of the above mentioned Minuteman III ICBMs which are 1000x more powerful??

Don't be so naive. If they build them, they will use them.

They'll sell it to the American people just like they sold the current invasion. Lies and flags and explanations.

Then everyone forgets.

And what makes you think I don't lobby for the destructions of WMD?

 

[BOBDN]

And we'd be the ones breaking the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and escalating the development of nuclear weapons. Not our "enemies." We're the nation intending to develop these. No one else.

 

[Matt2]

Ok, I'm obviously not getting through.

You're right, bush will use all these weapons and turn the earth into a huge fireball.

That of course is right after he signs the executive order to activate skynet.

Please.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Matt2
Ok, I'm obviously not getting through.

You're right, bush will use all these weapons and turn the earth into a huge fireball.

That of course is right after he signs the executive order to activate skynet.

Please.

Look. You're the one spouting the apocalyptic BS.

I'm saying these are the same people who premptively attacked and are currently occupying (at a huge cost in lives, credibility, as well as billions of dollars per month), the people who recently set up a terrorism casino for god's sake, and I believe they will use tactical nuclear weapons if they decide to develop them.

Everyone had better lobby for the destruction of nuclear weapons.
The terrorism futures market was stopped. Better call those representatives and let them know how you feel about the Bush administration's ideas for developing boutique nukes too.

 

[Matt2]

Are you forgetting that the US already has tactical nuclear weapons? TNWs are not new, only their use underground is a new concept.

Dont you think if Bush was really hellbent on nuking something he already would have using say... a B-61 tactical nuclear weapon??? Or how about a TLAM-N???

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Matt2
Are you forgetting that the US already has tactical nuclear weapons? TNWs are not new, only their use underground is a new concept.

Dont you think if Bush was really hellbent on nuking something he already would have using say... a B-61 tactical nuclear weapon??? Or how about a TLAM-N???

That's real nice. You know all the names of the nukes. When we were kids we used to memorize all the names of cars. Must be the same sort of thing.

I'll have to Google some too.

This is truly amazing. Even our resident military guru, UQ, is against this.

You are insane.

 

[BOBDN]

Link

Why develop them if not for use? Is there a tactical nuke gap?

 

[Matt2]

ok, so the nukes we have right now are not good enough, so GWB has to have a new class of TNW developed just so he can push a button.

It's one thing to be against the development of the weapon, it's a totally different story to be convinced that our leader is going to use them no matter what.

 

[BOBDN]

Link

Read the link. This is a "new generation" of nukes. "Mini-nukes." How cute. Maybe they can make models of them we can assemble. I'm sure they'll be as popular as the George Bush doll Bowfinger posted on the forum.

Mini-nukes. This is what we get when we have a draft dodging, AWOL, selected resident in the White House.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: Matt2
ok, so the nukes we have right now are not good enough, so GWB has to have a new class of TNW developed just so he can push a button.

It's one thing to be against the development of the weapon, it's a totally different story to be convinced that our leader is going to use them no matter what.

Then why go through all the trouble of breaking the Nuclear Test Ban treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty, and any other treaty on nukes you can think of?

Why not Google them and see?

If they build them they will use them. You are living proof they can sell anything to the American people they want to.