no. the nuclear weapons will cause problems long after the war. winds can blow the radiation towards civilians. water can seep through deep underground and spread radiation for horrible long term effects even if it does not immediately reach the air. more importantly, this opens a door that should never be opened making the size of a justifable nuclear blast an objective matter.

this is totally unacceptable.

if a bunker can not be destroyed by bombs and is not currently launching missiles, in which case it's too late anyhow, there needs to be a way in and out of it. that means that even though there is no way to destroy it from the sky, there is a way to destroy it from inside. making "mini-nukes" is an act of extreme desperation, something that I hope we are not at. passing such a law would show that our forces are incapable of ground combat when necessary or we are simply cowards who have no fear of repercussions of our actions in foreign soil.

this can also be used for other nations to justify nuclear attacks against us. it is something that must never be passed.

"But it's ok if they're just small nukes!"?

Just what we need to do is be firing off nuclear devices in the name of terrorism.

Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator That will haunt my dreams for a while.
We really need this nut case out of the office...

Case in point: Do a bit of searching on google for the "Davey Crocket". Or, here, I've done the work for you.

Sure, research into a low payload tactical nuke to use as a bunker buster is, in my opinion, asinine. However, it is not TEOTWAWKI, like some of you guys are making it out to be. Chances are, money will be thrown at the project, it will be deemed infeasible, and a new, conventional weapon will be designed, or an existing one modified.

Edited for literacy.

[ 11-26-2003: Message edited by: Arttemis ]

I'm just saying. Disarm the nuclear arsenal to a point still isn't disarming it, heh.

quote:

---

Quoth diadem:
http://www.nypost.com/news/worldnews/11763.htm

no. the nuclear weapons will cause problems long after the war. winds can blow the radiation towards civilians. water can seep through deep underground and spread radiation for horrible long term effects even if it does not immediately reach the air. more importantly, this opens a door that should never be opened making the size of a justifable nuclear blast an objective matter.

this is totally unacceptable.

if a bunker can not be destroyed by bombs and is not currently launching missiles, in which case it's too late anyhow, there needs to be a way in and out of it. that means that even though there is no way to destroy it from the sky, there is a way to destroy it from inside. making "mini-nukes" is an act of extreme desperation, something that I hope we are not at. passing such a law would show that our forces are incapable of ground combat when necessary or we are simply cowards who have no fear of repercussions of our actions in foreign soil.

this can also be used for other nations to justify nuclear attacks against us. it is something that must never be passed.

---

Catch a clue. Jeebus.

It's fairly obvious you've swallowed anti-nuke propaganda hook, line, and sinker. . .and are working your way farther to deep-throat the fisherman.

First, you have none of your facts straight with regard to the effects or the means by which radioactive material is spread. If what you say is true, most of the western United States would be uninhabitable due to the extensive underground nuclear testing that went on over a period of decades.

Second, if there's one thing nuclear weapons have shown us, it's that a weapon doesn't have to be used to be effective. For a conventional example, we canceled the XB-70 program after the Soviets fielded the MiG-25, because their new weapon rendered ours untenable. Our "Star Wars" system in the '80s--or the threat of it, at least--notionally rendered the Soviet nuclear arsenal pointless, not only bringing them around to negotiate, but bankrupting their defense industry looking for a counter.

Currently, hard and deeply buried targets are safe from attack, which encourages bad guys to build them for nefarious uses from command and control bunkers to weapon storage to launch facilities. These facilities are extremely expensive, tough to engineer, and hard to maintain. They are only cost-effective because of the absolute security they provide. Building--or perhaps simply researching--small-yield penetrating nukes will make these facilities worthless, in that they will provide no more protection than any other building, but will cost a zillion times as much.

I won't even touch your description of soldiers and leaders as cowards because they aren't willing to throw lives away in futile assaults on nearly impossible targets. Your ignorance is probably punishment enough.

You've shown all the subtle political analysis of a new KKK convert, here. "Onos! Nukes bad!" If you're going to disagree on policy, why not take the time and brain cells to do it on an intellectual rather than an emotional basis? Reasonable people may disagree on a lot of issues, after all. But turning ignorant visceral reactions into political dialogue puts you firmly in the KKK's ballpark.

This is the second time you trolled my post. I'm not sure if you are still pissed for me saying you were bating people on a few threads back and are trying to get some sort of vengeance to stroke your ego, am trying to bait me now, or genuinely believe what you are saying, but most of your post, going all the way to equating what I said to the KKK, is a little far fetched. I can only assume you are doing this to get a rise out of me. I'd ask you to behave, but I know you won't. You'll probably flame this post too, and I suppose I’ll probably just put you on ignore afterwards if you do and be done with it. If you reply dissecting my post with a response such as "since we basically control the UN we can convince other counties to agree with it as terrorism can hurt them as much as it hurts us" without going on some sort of tangent, then I will continue to reply normally.

edit: As for the underground testing not going Love Canal (or at least Land Mine Problem) on us, do you have any sources stating that there were no long term ill effects for those living around the test sites?

[ 11-27-2003: Message edited by: diadem ]

quote:

---

From the book of Mr. Parcelan, chapter 3, verse 16:
*nukes diadem*

---

*has his skin melted off from stage one, heat*
*is torn apart to almost nothing by stage two, blast*
*has most of his loved ones die from radation cancer over a period of years from stage three, radation*
*respawns in grobb to find it populated by froglocks and enters death cycle in stage four, mass suckage*

[ 11-27-2003: Message edited by: diadem ]

quote:

---

Maradon!'s account was hax0red to write:
Bloodsage didn't troll, Diadem. He merely owned you and all the other hippie anti-nuke propagandists in this thread.

---

But nucular weapons are wrong we shouldn't kill people because that will make them hate us. And if we kill people with nukes we kill the planet and every1 wants to kill us so we should all just get rid of all the nukes and guns so everyone will be friends and hold hands and have bunnies.

1. I realize that the number of bunker locations the Afghanis had was probably overstated, but if it takes an insane amount of money to make hardened bunkers, how did the Afghanis do it?

2. How many more Iraq-style situations does the United States realistically have to have to plan on handling? Right now things are relatively quiet, save for Iraq, Afghanistan, and likely North Korea. In Iraq, our standard buster missiles more than did the job. And that was one of the richer problem nations.

3. How would you argue against the point that using nuclear warheads in a conventional military arsenal doesn't in fact blur the line between conventional and nuclear war?

4. I realize that nuclear warheads are the option of choice because we have them ready for conversion, but is a nuclear option really the best in the long term? Couldn't we design some other system? I mean we're the United States of America, and we have the most technologically advanced military in the world. Surely there must be some sort of option better than nukes, right? Logistically, I mean?

quote:

---

Maradon! had this to say about pies:
Bloodsage didn't troll, Diadem. He merely owned you and all the other hippie anti-nuke propagandists in this thread.

---

Ah, that's right; those populated islands irradiated by nuclear tests were acceptable losses. How were we supposed to know that the blast would be so devastating it would change the trade winds and cause fallout where we didn't expect it, anyhow. Anyone who has a problem with that is a hippie! In fact, let’s pretend all the mishaps never happened.

quote:

---

Sakkra was naked while typing this:
But nucular weapons are wrong we shouldn't kill people because that will make them hate us. And if we kill people with nukes we kill the planet and every1 wants to kill us so we should all just get rid of all the nukes and guns so everyone will be friends and hold hands and have bunnies.

---

Yeah, because they are just like conventional weapons. They don't have lasting effects after the war. We've never seen problems like this before, like with landmines killing civilians long after a war's over.

And for what you are saying! So true.. a country would never retaliate with a nuclear of weapon after being nuked themselves. I mean hell, we wouldn’t.

Also, history doesn’t exist. I mean there wasn’t a country in the mideast who’s leader wanted his scientists to create nuclear weapons to attack his enemies but they didn’t make them because they knew they would be used and didn’t want retaliation against their country either. If they did exist, they must be a bunch of towelhead hippies too!

edit: Most importnatly, it is important to include insults in your post so that simple minded followers will jump on a bandwagon. It makes you feel good and really makes your argument that much more valid. Remember, intentioanly trying to turn a normal thread into a flame war isn't trolling if you can get away with it.

[ 11-28-2003: Message edited by: diadem ]

quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael obviously shouldn't have said:
While I largely agree with Arttemis and Bloodsage (that these things will probably never show up in an arsenal, and that the threat of them would run up costs), I have a few questions to ask...

---

I understand what Arttemis and Bloodsage are saying about the weapon being used mainly as a threat, but I must point out that the tactics of terrorists can not be fairly compared to the arms race. This is not two countries racing for technological advancement, rather a desperate group doing whatever it can to attack the enemy and one country racing for technological advancement.

Fortified bunkers will not cease to exist because of the existence of this weapon, and it is already stated that such bunkers already exist. More importantly, it describes how some of these fortifications are nothing more than a complex series of caves. What it boils down to that the threat of this weapon is not enough to stop the bunkers, so it can not be fairly compared to those scenarios. The bill shows that it is being considered as being an option of destroying these otherwise impenetrable bunkers that currently exist, and if the current course of action is following it may be, in fact, used.

edit: I hope art is right and a conventional weapon takes its place

[ 11-28-2003: Message edited by: diadem ]

Seems like most of the technology is out there already. We already use satellites and deep space probes to do penetrating scans of surface area, we already have precision-guided and computer-assisted-targetting systems for our bombs. We know how to set explosives to maximum penetrative effect for minimum cost and materials use after decades of heavy mining. I don't see why bringing together the technologies couldn't work. It's smarter than "let's just drop a bigger, nastier bomb", and you don't have to involve questionable matters regarding the handling, care, and deployment of nuclear weapons.

[ 11-28-2003: Message edited by: Tarquinn ]

quote:

---

And now, we sprinkle diadem liberally with Old Spice!
edit: I hope art is right and a conventional weapon takes its place

---

There is no such possible weapon. A convential weapon with a five kiloton yield would have to weigh just that...five thousand tons. Nuclear weapons are so destructive they border on the realm of the fantastic. On the average, a nuclear weapon will be one million times stronger than conventional bomb of comparable size. The only materials with greater energy density than your typical fissile nuclear bomb would be a fusion bomb, which is about 8 times more destructive, and matter-antimatter annihilation, which is about 1000 times more destructive. Chemical reactions cannot hold a candle to nuclear reactions in any way.

quote:

---

This one time, at Karnaj camp:
There is no such possible weapon. A convential weapon with a five kiloton yield would have to weigh just that...five thousand tons. Nuclear weapons are so destructive they border on the realm of the fantastic. On the average, a nuclear weapon will be one million times stronger than conventional bomb of comparable size. The only materials with greater energy density than your typical fissile nuclear bomb would be a fusion bomb, which is about 8 times more destructive, and matter-antimatter annihilation, which is about 1000 times more destructive. Chemical reactions cannot hold a candle to nuclear reactions in any way.

---

God called. He said they should replace nukes with your ass, which is just as deadly.

quote:

---

Mr. Parcelan had this to say about John Romero:
God called. He said they should replace nukes with your ass, which is just as deadly.

---

Parce wins the thread.

quote:

---

Mr. Parcelan put down Tada! magazine long enough to type:
God called. He said they should replace nukes with your ass, which is just as deadly.

---

Yeah, but by the AKAPT (Anti-Karnaj Ass Proliferation Treaty), my ass is not allowed to be used in any form of strategic warfare, only for research purpose.

I'm afraid, though, that until I die, we will never truly be free of weapons of ass destruction.

quote:

---

Karnaj Model 2000 was programmed to say:
I'm afraid, though, that until I die, we will never truly be free of weapons of ass destruction.

---

Don't even count on that. I've grown leery of you recruiting Vorbis as your "apprentice."

The GBU-28 is a 4000 pound bomb that is designed to penetrate hardened targets before exploding. The Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) is a special weapon developed for penetrating hardened Iraqi command centers located deep underground. This 5000 lb bunker buster was required for special targets during the Desert Storm conflict and was designed, fabricated and loaded in record time. The GBU-28 is a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munition that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead. The bombs are modified Army artillery tubes, weigh 4,637 pounds, and contain 630 pounds of high explosives. They are fitted with GBU-27 LGB kits, 14.5 inches in diameter and almost 19 feet long. The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and then the munition guides to a spot of laser energy reflected from the target.

A sled test proved that the bomb could penetrate over 20 feet of concrete, while an earlier flight test had demonstrated the bomb's ability to penetrate more than 100 feet of earth.

then there is the MOAB tested here in florida http://science.howstuffworks.com/moab.htm

dont need nukes really .....its more of a scare tactic IMO

quote:

---

Quoth Somthor:
there is conventional weapons that can be used for "hardened targets"
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/gbu-28.htm

The GBU-28 is a 4000 pound bomb that is designed to penetrate hardened targets before exploding. The Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) is a special weapon developed for penetrating hardened Iraqi command centers located deep underground. This 5000 lb bunker buster was required for special targets during the Desert Storm conflict and was designed, fabricated and loaded in record time. The GBU-28 is a 5,000-pound laser-guided conventional munition that uses a 4,400-pound penetrating warhead. The bombs are modified Army artillery tubes, weigh 4,637 pounds, and contain 630 pounds of high explosives. They are fitted with GBU-27 LGB kits, 14.5 inches in diameter and almost 19 feet long. The operator illuminates a target with a laser designator and then the munition guides to a spot of laser energy reflected from the target.

A sled test proved that the bomb could penetrate over 20 feet of concrete, while an earlier flight test had demonstrated the bomb's ability to penetrate more than 100 feet of earth.

then there is the MOAB tested here in florida http://science.howstuffworks.com/moab.htm

dont need nukes really .....its more of a scare tactic IMO

---

Hey, dude: with all your weaponeering skill, will you come work for me? I'm always desperately short of people who can weaponeer without being hindered by such pesky details as design specs and physics.

Jeebus

We're not talking about 20' of concrete; we're talking about hard and deeply buried targets. We're talking hundreds of feet of earth and concrete and empty spaces that act as shock absorbers.

As much as you armchair generals and politicians refuse to admit it, the folks running the country are neither stupid nor involved in grand conspiracies to defraud people of their god-given right to steal music. They wouldn't be researching small penetrating nukes if your standard GBU-28 did the trick. Honestly: if you sitting there in your house, without the slightest clue, can do a web search and pull up info on penetrating weapons, don't you think the people whose job it is to know such things have already considered existing capability before asking for something new?

Further, the MOAB is in no way a penetrating weapon. The weapon it replaces, the BLU-82 "daisy cutter" was designed simply as an overpressure weapon to clear LZs in the jungle. While such weapons, lately dubbed "thermobaric," have their uses against cave complexes, they have nothing at all to do with hard and deeply buried targets.

The fact is, with current technology, nothing but a nuclear warhead can affect a properly-built, hardened, deeply buried bunker. And the fact is that more and more governments are catching on to that datum.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael gently hums:
Seems to me (and admittedly I am not a master of any of the doctrines needed to realize what I'm about to describe) you could work something out where a plane flies by (or a satellite), and does a penetrating scan of a target area, looking for likely cavern hives. Then you deploy the strike bomber, which drops not one but a series of heavy-concussion bombs in a spread designed (and assisted by computer planning) to hit in a precision pattern to set up something like a resonance effect. The "lots of smaller bombs building up a shockwave, rather than one big bomb with nasty implications" sort of scenario.

Seems like most of the technology is out there already. We already use satellites and deep space probes to do penetrating scans of surface area, we already have precision-guided and computer-assisted-targetting systems for our bombs. We know how to set explosives to maximum penetrative effect for minimum cost and materials use after decades of heavy mining. I don't see why bringing together the technologies couldn't work. It's smarter than "let's just drop a bigger, nastier bomb", and you don't have to involve questionable matters regarding the handling, care, and deployment of nuclear weapons.

---

First, we have to distinguish between cavern complexes and hard and deeply buried targets. The former can sometimes qualify as a subset of the latter, but they are not interchangeable--and penetrating nukes are needed for the latter. Many cave complexes can be handled via existing technology.

Not sure what you mean by "penetrating scan," though. Radar, as a rule, doesn't penetrate very far into rock ( ), and seismic sensors require control of the ground (and aren't that cosmic, really).

Cave complexes are a totally separate discussion, really.

the GBU-28 can do better than a mere 20 ft btw its actualy potential is atm unknown. (to me anyhow) there are simular versions that penetrate 100 ft then a second blast clears the rubble and are in fact desgned (if need be) to be used to chain blast their way down. with percison smart bombs you can do that.

im not sure of the particular weapon but another is jsut desgined to suck all the air out of a region sufficating the occupants.

Im not a arm chair general btw being ex Navy doenst make me a expert but at least i been in the field as it were. I wasnt aware that in order to make a passing coment here you needed to research the topic do a theis and make sure you had your damn foot notes.

IMO is jsut that we dont need a nuke bunker buster per sec we have means to do it conventaly. its more of scare tatic....

quote:

---

Ja'Deth Issar Ka'bael startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
While I largely agree with Arttemis and Bloodsage (that these things will probably never show up in an arsenal, and that the threat of them would run up costs), I have a few questions to ask...

1. I realize that the number of bunker locations the Afghanis had was probably overstated, but if it takes an insane amount of money to make hardened bunkers, how did the Afghanis do it?

Short answer: they didn't. As I said above, cave complexes are really a different problem set with certain overlapping areas. There are some situations where these weapons would be useful, and others where they wouldn't be. These weapons aren't meant to be terrorist-hunting weapons, but to keep hostile governments at bay, and out of the business of producing and storing WMD.

2. How many more Iraq-style situations does the United States realistically have to have to plan on handling? Right now things are relatively quiet, save for Iraq, Afghanistan, and likely North Korea. In Iraq, our standard buster missiles more than did the job. And that was one of the richer problem nations.

There are any number. Many second- and third-rate nations have realized that their ticket to national security lies with the ability to inflict mass casualties upon their neighbors. In essence, we're seeing a replay of Cold War nuclear doctrine in the third world, but with chemical and biological weapons instead of nukes.

3. How would you argue against the point that using nuclear warheads in a conventional military arsenal doesn't in fact blur the line between conventional and nuclear war?

There is no real difference between "conventional" and "nuclear" war. During Desert Storm, we used CALCMs (Conventional Air Launched Cruise Missiles) for the first time. Up until that time, the entire ALCM inventory was nuclear; the conventional ones were fielded on short notice specifically for the conflict. Basically, until impact, no one could tell we weren't launching nukes. The "OMG nuclear war!" sentiment is a product of the Cold War, where were really were talking about the destruction of large areas of the planet. Critters who don't want to go the way of the dinosaurs, however, reevaluate their survival strategies when major changes in the global security environment occur. That's all we're talking about: a paradigm shift

4. I realize that nuclear warheads are the option of choice because we have them ready for conversion, but is a nuclear option really the best in the long term? Couldn't we design some other system? I mean we're the United States of America, and we have the most technologically advanced military in the world. Surely there must be some sort of option better than nukes, right? Logistically, I mean?

Physics, as Karanj obliquely pointed out, is the limiting factor. Some problems, in short, simply require a bigger hammer. We're not researching penetrating nukes because they're easy; we're researching them because they're the best weapon for the job. The military has known of the problem--and the answer--for quite some time. In the past, the security environment made such a program destabilizing due to the Cold War and other factors. Now, with a clear threat, it is time to act.

---

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Somthor gently hums:
i'll agree the MOAB isnt in the ture sense a pnetrater but it can colapse and seal off many underground complexes.

the GBU-28 can do better than a mere 20 ft btw its actualy potential is atm unknown. (to me anyhow) there are simular versions that penetrate 100 ft then a second blast clears the rubble and are in fact desgned (if need be) to be used to chain blast their way down. with percison smart bombs you can do that.

im not sure of the particular weapon but another is jsut desgined to suck all the air out of a region sufficating the occupants.

Im not a arm chair general btw being ex Navy doenst make me a expert but at least i been in the field as it were. I wasnt aware that in order to make a passing coment here you needed to research the topic do a theis and make sure you had your damn foot notes.

IMO is jsut that we dont need a nuke bunker buster per sec we have means to do it conventaly. its more of scare tatic....

---

I'll give you the fact that you don't have to be well-informed or do any research to have an opinion. To have an opinion that means anything, on the other hand, does indeed require more than buzzword recognition with respect to the subject under discussion.

And, before you go any further out of your way to impress us all with your "knowledge" let me assure you I'm quite familiar with the entire GBU- series of weapons.

The bottom line: there are no conventional weapons that can do the job for which this new weapon is designed.

Thankfully, more informed people than you plan to do something about the very real threat of hard and deeply buried targets.

P.S. Typing like Mog doesn't help your credibility if your intent is to engage in intelligent discussion.

{edit: forgot a plural}

[ 11-29-2003: Message edited by: Bloodsage ]

Maybe I'm clueless. I did minimal reading on the bomb when it was first tested and debuted, but that's what I remember seeing.

1. I don't troll.

On the other hand, if someone says something stupid, I don't feel any particular obligation to pretend it was simply intelligent but misguided.

2. The KKK analogy is perfectly valid. You've actually proven my point by getting upset rather than analyzing the comment. Hell, it's almost as if someone had said, "Nuke!"

Isn't the power of emotionally-charged rhetoric with little basis in fact interesting?

3. I wasn't talking about Bikini Atoll; I was talking about the American southwest. The very fact that you can't distinguish between the effects of various delivery methods proves you aren't qualified to be having this conversation. The effects of nuclear explosions are quite different between air-, ground-, and underground detonations.

Thanks for playing.

4. Caves are not hardened, deeply buried bunkers. Some of them might do in a pinch as a poor-man's substitute, but cave complexes represent an entirely different tactical problem. In some instances, the new weapon would be appropriate; in others, not.

But, please, let's stick to a single topic. You keep mixing terms, tactical problem sets, and various weapon effects like it's all the same thing. It isn't. Hence the need for a new weapon.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Suddar gently hums:
I was under the impression that the MOAB's design makes it a terrible "bunker buster" type bomb. Was it the MOAB or something else that was made to detonate while in the air, so that the force of the explosion isn't lost to the ground (which is exactly what you'd want to attack bunkers)?

Maybe I'm clueless. I did minimal reading on the bomb when it was first tested and debuted, but that's what I remember seeing.

---

You're pretty much right. You're thinking of the BLU-82 "daisy cutter" the MOAB is designed to replace. In theory, such a weapon is useful against caves, because the huge overpressure generated by such a weapon detonated at the opening would be deadly to anything in a confined space.

Bernoulli, you know.

hi.

quote:

---

This one time, at Bloodsage camp:
P.S. Typing like Mog doesn't help your credibility if your intent is to engage in intelligent discussion.

---

HEY!, I ressent that, everyone knows I am a very creddiba source of never inteding
inteligent discusions! =p

quote:

---

Bloodsage spewed forth this undeniable truth:
3. I wasn't talking about Bikini Atoll; I was talking about the American southwest.

---

White Sands Missile Range aka Trinity test center, test site for the first and subsequent nuclear bombs?

Safe to visit today.

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while KaLourin gently hums:
Sage used pink! FLAEM FLAEM FLAEM

hi.

---

It's not pink! It's light red!

Hi.