quote:
When the babel fish was in place, it was apparent Bloodsage said:
It's not pink! It's light red!Hi.
its pink u faggot 
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
I'd be around more, but I barely have 5 minutes to myself these days.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I believe all opions have merit (some more than others). I am commenting on this thread, I did not personaly attack you but you seem slightly annoyed that I put in my 2 cents. my "knowledge" wasnt ment to impress you, in fact i said somewhere im no expert.
Im not against nuke weapons. I stated what I belive to be fact (wrong or right) this weapons program is more scare tactics than a viable platform) there are conventional weapons that can get the job done as presented openly in this forum. could they get it done as fast or as completly as a nuke tiped speicaly desgined weapon? no they can not. but they can do it cheaper, safer and with less eviromental risk.
If you have no other option and time is of the essence go ahead nuke them.
My bad spelling and grammer are my own. Depending how strongly I feel about a topic and how much time I spend on the response is a varible of how many errors I might make. And the time I may spend to try to correct them. [ 11-29-2003: Message edited by: Somthor ]
quote:
Somthor scribbled:
My bad spelling and grammer are my own. dependting how strongly i feel about a topic and how much time i spend on the response is a varible of how many errors I might make. and the time i may spend to try to correct them.
If you don't believe strongly enough in your opinions to present them properly, why do you think anyone else should give them any serious consideration, since you obviously didn't?
On the plus side, at least you didn't give the more common excuse of 'I type so fast I make mistakes'.
The problem with a message board is that it promotes knee jerk responses on topics that either have a emotional or intellectial interest to the person who created or responds to them. Often they are not completely well thought out or researched to the fullest. Its more of a snapshot of the persons frame of mind when it was posted.
Im guilty more than most to simply blurting out whatever it is, then having to go back and try to clean up the mess i just made. Still If there is a reasonable and well thought out response to it, I'll try to argue for or against whatever the topic is based on my personal view.
Genarly without resorting to name calling or insults.
quote:
Drysart's fortune cookie read:
On the plus side, at least you didn't give the more common excuse of 'I type so fast I make mistakes'.
An horrible ex-guildmember in EQ used this as an explanation for his terrible spelling and general bullshit:" Itsb ecause i can tpyy ftaser than I can tihkn!".
Somehow, it made sense.
quote:
Check out the big brain on Somthor!
Nahh i posted else where the why of my bad grammer and spelling.The problem with a message board is that it promotes knee jerk responses on topics that either have a emotional or intellectial interest to the person who created or responds to them. Often they are not completely well thought out or researched to the fullest. Its more of a snapshot of the persons frame of mind when it was posted.
Im guilty more than most to simply blurting out whatever it is, then having to go back and try to clean up the mess i just made. Still If there is a reasonable and well thought out response to it, I'll try to argue for or against whatever the topic is based on my personal view.
Genarly without resorting to name calling or insults.
So whenever you spell something wrong, just discount what you're saying.
Check.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Somthor absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
Mr Blood Sage...That's Bloodsage. When writing people's names, it's always a good technique, if possible, to notice how they spell them so you don't look stupid.
I believe all opions have merit (some more than others). I am commenting on this thread, I did not personaly attack you but you seem slightly annoyed that I put in my 2 cents. my "knowledge" wasnt ment to impress you, in fact i said somewhere im no expert.Believing something doesn't make it true. All opinions do not have merit. Demonstrably so. You, like so many before you, don't seem able to distinguish between matters of faith, in which belief is appropriate, and matters of opinion, in which those pesky rules of logic and fact apply. I'm not annoyed you voiced your opinion, but rather that it has no basis in fact, is based upon mere uninformed supposition, and keeps being reasserted after being debunked by as close to an expert in the field as you're likely to meet.
Im not against nuke weapons. I stated what I belive to be fact (wrong or right) this weapons program is more scare tactics than a viable platform) there are conventional weapons that can get the job done as presented openly in this forum. could they get it done as fast or as completly as a nuke tiped speicaly desgined weapon? no they can not. but they can do it cheaper, safer and with less eviromental risk.
There's that belief word again. Belief and fact have nothing to do with each other; the former is only appropriate in the absence of the latter. That the "fact" you believe is flat-out incorrect doesn't seem to phase you--a bad sign by all accounts.
How many times do you need to be told that there aren't any conventional weapons that can do the job in question? Hence the need for a new weapon.
If you have no other option and time is of the essence go ahead nuke them.
My bad spelling and grammer are my own. Depending how strongly I feel about a topic and how much time I spend on the response is a varible of how many errors I might make. And the time I may spend to try to correct them.
Drysart already took care of this one, but I didn't want you to feel slighted that I didn't reply to one of your thoughts.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Somthor gently hums:
Nahh i posted else where the why of my bad grammer and spelling.The problem with a message board is that it promotes knee jerk responses on topics that either have a emotional or intellectial interest to the person who created or responds to them. Often they are not completely well thought out or researched to the fullest. Its more of a snapshot of the persons frame of mind when it was posted.
Im guilty more than most to simply blurting out whatever it is, then having to go back and try to clean up the mess i just made. Still If there is a reasonable and well thought out response to it, I'll try to argue for or against whatever the topic is based on my personal view.
Genarly without resorting to name calling or insults.
So, are you accusing the rest of us, or are you simply trying to explain your foibles instead of correcting them?
Sounds to me like you've just admitted you don't have the foggiest notion what you're talking about, but didn't want to be left out of the discussion.
{edit: the DAOC tag made no sense at all!} [ 11-29-2003: Message edited by: Bloodsage ]
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Just for the record, "phase" should be "faze"--guess my tongue got tangled up in my eyeteeth, and I couldn't see what I was saying.
{And pwned by UBB as an added bonus!} [ 11-29-2003: Message edited by: Bloodsage ]
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I'm never shy to admit to being wrong, after being proven so.
I have a notion about this topic it may be foggy but I know a bit about it, likly not as much as you but enought to post semi coherent thoughts about it.
quote:
From the book of Somthor, chapter 3, verse 16:
convince me that the job in question cant possibly be done with conventional weapons given time and the will do do so and I'll whole heartly agree with you. Til you do so I'll keep stateing that I belive that they can.I'm never shy to admit to being wrong, after being proven so.
I have a notion about this topic it may be foggy but I know a bit about it, likly not as much as you but enought to post semi coherent thoughts about it.
LMAO Does anyone else find humor in the fact that this guy is trying to argue with Bloodsage about the thing that Sage has trained to do for most of his adult life?
quote:
Check out the big brain on Azizza!
LMAO Does anyone else find humor in the fact that this guy is trying to argue with Bloodsage about the thing that Sage has trained to do for most of his adult life?
I find humor in the fact that it's more like watching Sage wearing a tophat and monocle beat a beggar child with a cane while shouting: "Great bloody bollocks, you're wrong!"
But that's just funny imagery.
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Somthor absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
convince me that the job in question cant possibly be done with conventional weapons given time and the will do do so and I'll whole heartly agree with you. Til you do so I'll keep stateing that I belive that they can.I'm never shy to admit to being wrong, after being proven so.
I have a notion about this topic it may be foggy but I know a bit about it, likly not as much as you but enought to post semi coherent thoughts about it.
What do you want, a diagram?
I'm telling you right now, speaking as a bona fide Air Force strategist, that you're talking nonsense. You don't have the faintest clue what you're saying.
Further, you've just violated every rule of logic known to humanity: one doesn't simply make assertions then vow that they're correct unless proven otherwise. What is it that makes you think conventional weapons will work against hard and deeply buried targets?
It's not that belief thing again, is it? You do realize that a visceral reaction to a problem in no way validates a given answer, don't you?
Please don't tell me you're actually so naive you think it's just a matter of repeat deliveries to the same spot to dig an ever-deeper hole. Unless you can show us a weapon/delivery combination using current munitions that solves the problem of hard and deeply buried targets, I'm afraid you should concede the point.
And, no, GBU-28 isn't the answer.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Channeling the spirit of Sherlock Holmes, Mr. Parcelan absently fondled Watson and proclaimed:
I find humor in the fact that it's more like watching Sage wearing a tophat and monocle beat a beggar child with a cane while shouting: "Great bloody bollocks, you're wrong!"But that's just funny imagery.
Yeah, sometimes someone says something that's so far out in left field there's really no good way to answer other than with a swift kick. Reminds me of those nimwits on Whineplay who kept saying space travel was impossible.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Tron:
Yeah, sometimes someone says something that's so far out in left field there's really no good way to answer other than with a swift kick. Reminds me of those nimwits on Whineplay who kept saying space travel was impossible.
I dunno. As a wealthy individual myself, I just like beating people with canes and talking funny.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Naimah startled the peaceful upland Gorillas by blurting:
Would there be any way to convert the MOAB in some way to make it more penetrating? Make it have a directional blast of some sort instead of just doing the general blow up everything around it thing. Or does the compound it uses not lend itself well to that effect.
It's X-Box huge LOL, so there really isn't a way to make it penetrating, quite apart from the chemistry of the bomb itself.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage was listening to Cher while typing:
There is definitely that sort of aesthetic enjoyment to the process, quite apart from the mundane business of making the world a better place.
Why don't you ever say "Great bloody bollocks!"
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about Duck Tales:
It's X-Box huge LOL, so there really isn't a way to make it penetrating, quite apart from the chemistry of the bomb itself.
They could sharpen the tip!
quote:
Somthor had this to say about pies:
I believe all opions have merit (some more than others). I am commenting on this thread, I did not personaly attack you but you seem slightly annoyed that I put in my 2 cents. my "knowledge" wasnt ment to impress you, in fact i said somewhere im no expert.
Whoever invented this notion should be stabbed in the face till they die, then they should be stabbed in the face till they die again.
Not all opinions have merit. For instance, your opinion on this has no merit. Shut up. You have been proven wrong repeatedly by a USAF officer who has to do with this for a living. There is no more to it. You did not put in your two cents because that is simply not worth two cents.
quote:
Quoth Naimah:
I know the blast rating of the MOAB is 20 kilotons but what is the liftweight. My dad and I were having an argument as to if the blast rating and the physical weight of the device had any relation. Though I'm fairly certain that explosive power is in relation to weight of TNT.
Weapons are assigned classes based on the amount of explosive in them--a 500lb bomb, for instance, has about 500lb of explosives in it, plus a couple hundred pounds of other stuff (case, fins, fuze, etc).
Blast rating doesn't really have much to do with the explosive weight, as most bombs are configurable based on the desired target. Especially with the kind of weapon you're discussing. The BLU-82 got its blast, if I remember right, by atomizing its explosive contents over a wide area, then detonating it--the whole point was to flatten everything in the area. Not penetrating, and doesn't really have any uses against anything other than trees and troops in the open.
And I hadn't heard the 20 kiloton thing. Interesting. It must refer just to the shockwave, though--nukes have all sorts of other cool features not found with conventional explosives (not counting the radiation).
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Naimah gently hums:
I'll research a little and make sure that I am remembering the power of the MOAB correctly.
You could be right--it's an experimental weapon, so I haven't kept up with it.
I think it has more media appeal than military use, but that's just me.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
I believe that the MOAB has an aproximate power of 21,000lbs. of TNT. This was done by extrapilation from information provided in the second link. It turns out that this is around curb weight of the bomb.
I learned a little at least.
let me take a moment to make sure we understand what im argueing ok? I say that there are conventional methods of destroying bunkers or rendering them non functional. and so nuclear bunker busters are not really needed and thus is more of a scare tactic than a neccesity.
that is my argument. I belive Mr BloodSage's arguement is that Nuclear bunker busters are needed becuse conventional bombs cant do the job.
I guess my limited knowledge in the field (80's cold war) forces me to just armchair cut and paste arguements made by others (and assumed factual) to support my position which I base on my current understanding of the arguement above.
_____________________________________________________ Ready? _____________
Arms-control advocates are disturbed by earth-penetrating nuclear weapons, saying they are unneeded and will only encourage other countries, such as North Korea or Iran, to build their own nuclear weapons as fast as possible. They say such weapons are unnecessary because buried bunkers can be destroyed with conventional bombs or by sending in troops to attack entrances, air shafts and communications cables.
According to a variety of participants, impetus for a renewed interest in battlefield nuclear weapons comes primarily from civilian Pentagon officials such as Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his second-in-command, Paul Wolfowitz, rather than uniformed generals and admirals.
``I've talked to the military extensively, and I don't know anybody in the military who thinks they need a nuclear weapon to accomplish this,'' said U.S. Rep. Ellen Tauscher, a Walnut Creek Democrat whose district includes Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.
``If you can find somebody in a uniform in the Defense Department who can talk about a new need'' for nuclear bunker busters ``without laughing, I'll buy him a cup of coffee,'' said Robert Peurifoy, a retired vice president of Sandia National Laboratory. The New Mexico lab fashions the outer casings and other non-nuclear aspects of nuclear weapons and will play a role in the project.
Celec said. ``You're going to have to match the target with the weapon with the intelligence you've got on it.''
Some skeptical military officers say they do not want to send their soldiers into a radioactive environment that may also contain biological or chemical agents scattered by the bomb. Moreover, once a nuclear weapon has been used, the enemy may retaliate with any weapons of mass destruction it still possesses, said a Marine colonel who asked not to be identified.
The earth-penetrator program is also motivated by a policy of providing the scientists at nuclear labs with challenging problems that lead to a finished product. A decade after the end of U.S. nuclear testing, there is fear in some quarters that scientists may become bored and find jobs elsewhere.
Peurifoy, the retired Sandia official, opposes the drive for more nuclear weapons. ``It's outlandish. It's stupid,'' he said from his home in Texas. ``It is an effort to maintain a payroll'' at the weapons labs.
taken from a article by Dan Stober at dstober@mercurynews.com or (650) 688-7536. in part.
___________________________________________________________________________
BLU-118/B Thermobaric Weapon
The US used the bombs to attack targets near Gardez
Rushed through testing following the 11 September attacks, it is intended to penetrate and destroy deeply buried targets - exactly what US forces are encountering in the cave complexes of Afghanistan.
As the name implies, it works on a combination of heat and pressure applying lessons that have been widely learnt from coal mine explosions or other industrial accidents. These are often created by clouds of gas or fine particles erupting into flame.
The thermobaric weapon reproduces this situation to order, distributing a very fine cloud of explosive material throughout the target which is then ignited.
The heat and pressure effects are formidable - soldiers caught in the blast could have the air sucked from their bodies and even their internal organs catastrophically destroyed.
Thermobaric weapons are closely related to so-called fuel-air explosives - where the explosive cloud is provided by a volatile gas or liquid.
taken from http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/blu-118.htm
_______________________________________________________________________________
GBU-28 "Bunker-buster" bomb
DESCRIPTION: This is a 5,000-pound laser-guided bomb that can be dropped by an F-15E. It's designed to penetrate 100 feet of earth and 22 feet of reinforced concrete.
_______From CNN ___________________________________________________________
Other critics contend that conventional "bunker buster" bombs could effectively neutralize many underground targets. For example, the 5,000-pound GBU-28, used in Iraq during the Gulf War and more recently on caves in Afghanistan, has a new, steel cap that allows it to penetrate as deep or deeper than the B61-11.
Such conventional bombs could be used to seal the entrances of such complexes, entombing them, says Steve Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. "If we see them digging it out, we bomb it again," he says.
One major obstacle to both of these strategies whether conventional or nuclear is that US intelligence can't fully track the growing number of sophisticated underground facilities, many in so-called "rogue states," US military officials acknowledge.
Camouflaged and buried beneath the equivalent of from 70 to 300 feet of reinforced concrete, the facilities are built using either conventional drill-and-blast tunneling or more advanced mining technology, according to a Pentagon report to Congress last year.
"The challenges of hard and deeply buried targets [require] a much greater fidelity in intelligence than we currently possess," Adm. James Ellis told a Senate committee in March
including this becuse it talks about both types
_______________________________________________________________
AGM-86B (non nuke) um i cant find the info on this i was looking for, but its this or a simular one that can blast 30ft of rock or 100ft of soil CLEAR away from a target. in that articale which i sincerly wish i could find it spoke of how it was desgined to tunnel by chain blasting to its eventual target. IE target is 300 ft below ground you fire a staggered set of 3 to reach target... Due to the internal GPS and laser guidence accracy is such that this is possible where in dumb bombs you wouldnt be able to do so
_____________________________________________________________________________
Saddam's bunker is modeled on one built for Marshal Tito, the late Yugoslav dictator, under a mountain in southern Bosnia, which was part of the former Yugoslavia. Tito's bunker is now maintained by the Bosnian Army.
When Saddam visited Yugoslavia in 1976 he was Iraq's vice president at the time Tito bragged to him about his luxuriously appointed bunker, which was built to house 500 people and survive a nuclear attack.
Saddam became president in 1979, and during the 1980s Tito sent the same engineers who built his bunker to build a smaller version for the Iraqi leader near the Republican Palace and the 14 July Bridge in central Baghdad. The engineer who spoke to ABCNEWS was a lead member of the design and construction teams on both projects.
"They both have the same degree of protection," he said. "They could survive a direct hit from 2,000 kilograms of TNT or a nuclear bomb from two kilometers away."
Protected by 16 Feet of Concrete
Tito's bunker has the natural protection of between 60 meters and 250 meters (200 feet and 800 feet) of Bosnian mountain granite above its chambers, but in the sandy plain on which Baghdad stands, the only option was to build a protective shell of reinforced concrete, according to the engineer.
Because of Iraqi security concerns, the Yugoslavs started by building a 16-foot-thick concrete roof. "We built the roof and raised it, and then under the shadow of that roof, all the contents inside were built," he said. "When you took an aerial picture, all you saw was 50 by 90 meters of concrete roof."
Another difference is that Saddam's bunker has only two emergency exits making it dangerously inferior to Tito's, the engineer said. "At Tito's bunker we had five emergency exits with five separate routes across the mountain.... It will be much easier to bury Saddam Hussein. If you hit one exit directly, then the other, he's got just 90 hours to live inside."
Saddam's bunker was completed in 1990, the engineer said.
Vulnerable to 'Bunker-Busters'
If the United States and its allies go to war with Iraq again, the engineer does not believe they would succeed in destroying Saddam's bunker with the kind of conventional ordnance that NATO forces dropped on Serbia in 1999 during the Kosovo conflict.
But he believes that specialized "bunker-buster" weapons might have a chance. In the dozen years since cruise missiles first failed to destroy Saddam's hideout, a top priority for U.S. military research and development has been to develop shells hardened with depleted uranium and equipped with time-delay fuses. The weapons are designed to smash through a bunker's concrete shell, then explode inside.
The engineer who helped build Saddam's bunker believes that the new weapons might have a chance of breaking through the 16-foot concrete shell and destroying what is inside. "Three laser-guided bombs, one after another? Case closed. Kaput," he says.
____________from ABC News__________________
The predicted air assault on Iraq will be supported by the highly classified Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM). The JASSM is a "stealthy" cruise missile bunker-buster that has been undergoing test flights for more than a year. It has a range of more than 200 miles and can be fired from most US attack aircraft. The British JASSM, Storm Shadow, which will be carried by Tornado fighter-bombers, will also make its debut.
One of the greatest challenges facing US and British forces will be to seek out and destroy chemical and biological weapon sites without contaminating the local environment. US military scientists have already developed a special high-temperature "thermo-corrosive" filling for two of its 2,000lb bombs. The bomb detonates at low pressure so that it does not disperse chemical or biological agents; its incendiary filling then burns at 1,000C, destroying harmful substances.
______________________________________________________________
JDam is the joint direct attack munition: an ordinary 1,000 lb or 2,000 lb bomb made "smart" by the strapping on of a tail kit.
The kit gives the bomb manoeuvring fins controlled by satellite and inertial guidance systems.
This turns it from a flying lump of high explosive into a precision weapon with an accuracy of 40 feet or better.
JDams and other precision weapons gave mission planners two great advantages: reduced risk of hitting the area around the intended target - the feared "collateral damage" the ability to use far fewer bombs to be sure of destroying a given location. Colonel James Kowalski, commander of the 405th Air Expeditionary Wing of B-1B bombers, called JDams "our weapon of choice".
"It's an all-weather weapon. It has proven reliability and it packs a big punch.
"And when you mate it up with a B-1 that can carry 24 of them and then basically range across Iraq, you can hold at risk just about any target in the country."
___________________from the BBC ______________________
ok so there is a few conventional alternitives and a example of a few bunkers. Lets call Mr Tito's bunker a extreme example of a well made bunker and Saddams a typical bunker. (cant prove it but i think the hardest bunker ever made ( concrete only) was a WW II sub pen with 32 (36?) ft of hardened concrete with 2 different shells)
with smart and even dumb bombs with attached JDam modules accuracy is such that the efficacy of conventional bunker busting could be used against either of these type of bunkers (IMO) in the Saddam type 3 or 4 smart bombs or a staggered payload of improved dumb ones could take it out with Mr Tito's (200 feet and 800 feet) of Bosnian mountain granite above its chambers a combination of thermobaric weapons and a few smart bombs at the entrances should do the trick.
Bunkers that are Camouflaged and buried beneath the equivalent of from 70 to 300 feet of reinforced concrete are tougher but assuming that the current conventional bombs can penetrate and clear away 30ft of reenforced concrete or 100ft of earth we need about 10 of them in most cases to destroy them in a staggered strike. Now that sounds to me that thats doable as one B-2 Stealth Bomber has a total payload capacity of 40,000 lb thats eight 5k lb GBU-28's or twenty 2k Jdam's more than sufficient for most bunker-busting tasks.
Dont want to use a bomber? A Peacekeeper MX missile could deliver a "bunker buster" JDAM/BLU-113 warhead to anywhere in the world on short notice (circa 8,000 lbs). Using the "DAMASK" upgraded JDAM guidance systems they would have an accuracy of 3 meters. Thus, they could be able to destroy hardened targets on nearly any point on the globe within one or two hours notice (assuming a bit of overhead for decision making and authorization et al). That, I think, is an impressive and potentially useful capability. However, at $70 million per warhead the target would have to be very valuable militarily. Though arguably the cost is alternatively negligable because we already paid for the missiles and a fair number of them could be consider "surplus" at this point.
[ 11-29-2003: Message edited by: Somthor ]
hopefully this bolsters my current viewpoint. pardon its length and any errors it may contain gramatical or otherwise.
How it works. [ 11-29-2003: Message edited by: Naimah ]
you might remember pictures of bomb craters.
Your needed infomation regarding the AGM-86C.
It is a cruise missle, we used it to much succes in hitting office buildings in the first throwdown at Iraq. 2,000-3,000lbs cruise missle is going to to jack and crap against a hardend target, try again. [ 11-29-2003: Message edited by: Naimah ]
next weapon penetrates deeper until target destroyed assuming the shockwave hasnt already done the job.
"AGM-86B (non nuke) um i cant find the info on this i was looking for, but its this or a simular one that can blast 30ft of rock or 100ft of soil CLEAR away from a target. in that articale which i sincerly wish i could find it spoke of how it was desgined to tunnel by chain blasting to its eventual target. IE target is 300 ft below ground you fire a staggered set of 3 to reach target... Due to the internal GPS and laser guidence accracy is such that this is possible where in dumb bombs you wouldnt be able to do so"
your link doenst have the info on this weapon or its varient that descripes the ability I read about, as stated above.
you need to understand ( I assume you do but dont belive I do) that a hardened structure is desgined to withstand surface explosions. what makes the weapons I mentioned work is the fact they (in one varient at least) can penetrate the surface of the hardend structure prior to exploding.
thus all of these in some form work. they either penetrate a known door(exit) becuse of smart bomb tech and then explode inside or they work their way down from the top.
thus all of these in some form work. they either penetrate a known door(exit) becuse of smart bomb tech and then explode inside or they work their way down from the top.
nice video shows a bunker buster burrowing through some soil then the concrete cap and into the bunker then exploding persumably killing everyone in it and rendering it non functional.
ever see how people blast mine? 
that used to be a mountain
you seem to labour under the belief that soil and other debris doesnt get displaced in a explosion. that repeated and rapid shockwaves wont have a collective effect.
Add: You conviently ignored my distinction between soil and reinforced concrete. [ 11-30-2003: Message edited by: Naimah ]
quote:
Naimah said this about your mom:
I'm under the belief that there are people that the government allows to spend millions of dollars to build weapons for a reason. Not merely because it is cool to have depleated uranium tipped missles.Add: You conviently ignored my distinction between soil and reinforced concrete.
these people seem to feel otherwise
Some skeptical military officers say they do not want to send their soldiers into a radioactive environment that may also contain biological or chemical agents scattered by the bomb. Moreover, once a nuclear weapon has been used, the enemy may retaliate with any weapons of mass destruction it still possesses, said a Marine colonel who asked not to be identified.
The earth-penetrator program is also motivated by a policy of providing the scientists at nuclear labs with challenging problems that lead to a finished product. A decade after the end of U.S. nuclear testing, there is fear in some quarters that scientists may become bored and find jobs elsewhere.
Peurifoy, the retired Sandia official, opposes the drive for more nuclear weapons. ``It's outlandish. It's stupid,'' he said from his home in Texas. ``It is an effort to maintain a payroll'' at the weapons labs.
taken from a article by Dan Stober at dstober@mercurynews.com
were we not talking about nuclear bunker busters over conventional ones? (which includes depleated uranium tipped missles)
Depleated uranium is considered conventional. It is, and has been used, in conflicts today.
We were talking about nuclear bunker busters compared with conventional weapons but you claim that the nuclear alternatives are not required. It is being asserted that they are indeed required to achieve the goals taht need to be acheived.
