-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
U.S. threatens to nuke Iraq if they use "WMD"
- Thread starter ArmenK
- Start date
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Well based on the timing, it looks like "When we invade, if you defend yourself with chemical or biological weapons, we may choose to nuke you.
Grasshopper27
Banned
Not at all... We're the good guys, they are the bad guys, thus we're able to take the high ground...
In any case, what about that surprises you? If someone attacks New York with WMD, or our soldiers in the field with them, do you expect us to NOT respond with nukes?
🙂
Grasshopper
Grasshopper27
Banned
North Korea should take note of what we do to Iraq in the next six months...
Hayabusa Rider
Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
There would be nothing cold about this war. Hate to think what the world would be like in a year if this sad scenario happened.
UltraQuiet
Banned
There's that legendary intelligence. Way to go, Scott. Very insightful.
guyver01
Lifer
They'd probably not use conventional strategic nuclear missiles... but rather, Tactical Nuclear Weapons. (note the red tip is nuclear).
A string of calls to consider the use of TNWs in Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States focused attention on proposals, many of which had been publicized years earlier, to develop new, low-yield nuclear weapons for a limited range of military contingencies--in particular, to destroy deeply buried, hardened bunkers (caves, in the case of Afghanistan). During a briefing on the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review on January 9, 2002, Assistant Secretary of Defense J. D. Crouch told that ?no recommendations? had been made in the report with regard to development of a new type of nuclear weapons, adding, ?We are trying to look at a number of initiatives,? one of which ?would be to modify an existing weapon to give it greater capability against deep or hard targets.?
Low-yield TNWs are sometimes seen as less destructive and thus more usable than other classes of nuclear weapons.
TNW yields range from relatively low (0.1 kiloton (KT)) to higher than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (10-15 KT, upwards to 1 megaton). Even a very low-yield atomic blast would create highly damaging effects, above and beyond what a conventional explosion of the same size could produce.
A string of calls to consider the use of TNWs in Afghanistan following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States focused attention on proposals, many of which had been publicized years earlier, to develop new, low-yield nuclear weapons for a limited range of military contingencies--in particular, to destroy deeply buried, hardened bunkers (caves, in the case of Afghanistan). During a briefing on the 2002 Nuclear Posture Review on January 9, 2002, Assistant Secretary of Defense J. D. Crouch told that ?no recommendations? had been made in the report with regard to development of a new type of nuclear weapons, adding, ?We are trying to look at a number of initiatives,? one of which ?would be to modify an existing weapon to give it greater capability against deep or hard targets.?
Low-yield TNWs are sometimes seen as less destructive and thus more usable than other classes of nuclear weapons.
TNW yields range from relatively low (0.1 kiloton (KT)) to higher than the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki (10-15 KT, upwards to 1 megaton). Even a very low-yield atomic blast would create highly damaging effects, above and beyond what a conventional explosion of the same size could produce.
UltraQuiet
Banned
So point out the double standard in this thread and the related links, Mr .Wizard.
This really isn't new. A similar threat of the use of nuclear weapons was well understood by the Iraqis during the Gulf War. Saddam seemed to have gotten the message then and did not use wmd for fear of retaliaton, which is why the current arguments against him as a threat due to WMD are somewhat laughable.
AlienCraft
Lifer
No , not really when you consider we are the only country to USE our nuclear weapons. Anyone who doesn't think that we would've used them during The Gulf War isn't paying attention.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
