How about a controversial thread?
#821
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by cordycord' date='Feb 1 2005, 03:22 PM
If it actually did stop the hostilities, I'd say it was worth it.
#822
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by cordycord' date='Feb 1 2005, 01:54 PM
This may be one of those "urban myths", but I heard from a Marine buddy of mine that in the waning days of the Gulf War, we were working on one of the original "bunker buster" bombs. It was built from the barrel of a huge artillery gun, had depleted uranium at the front, and weighed some obscene amount despite its long, slender profile.
It was dropped from a B-52, and when it hit, the delayed fuse didn't detonate until it was 10 stories underground. It was meant to get Saddam in his deep bunkers, and the day it hit was supposed to be the day that Saddam surrendered.
Anyone else heard this?
It was dropped from a B-52, and when it hit, the delayed fuse didn't detonate until it was 10 stories underground. It was meant to get Saddam in his deep bunkers, and the day it hit was supposed to be the day that Saddam surrendered.
Anyone else heard this?
I'm confused. Are you talking about Desert Storm and the first Gulf War or are you talking about our actions in Iraq?
I thought that the bomb that you are talking about was used in Afganistan.
#823
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by valentine' date='Feb 1 2005, 05:02 PM
Was the US thinking of bombing Germany 20 years ago? I thought the military bases at Fulda Gap were bases for peaceful activities. (Ulrich, please correct me if I'm wrong).
Not sayng that the US would have used them first , but look who the other nuclear power in the neighborhood was/is and what range their missiles have/had.
#824
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ralper' date='Feb 1 2005, 06:51 PM
I thought that the bomb that you are talking about was used in Afganistan.
#825
Registered User
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 4,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The bomb I'm referring to was supposed to be dropped at the end of Desert Storm, under Bush senior. It was a true Bunker Buster.
The Daisy Cutter is detonated above ground. It was detonated at the entrance to tunnels where suspected Al Qaida hideouts. The bomb superheated the surrounding air (making it unbreathable), and as the explosion rose upwards, it sucked all the air out of the tunnels. The concussion took care of everthing else.
You know (of course) about depleted uranium tank shells--they were only about an inch wide, but also went through the Russian tanks that the Iraqi's had, and the resulting vacuum literally SUCKED whoever was inside of the tank out the 1" hole. True.
And how about my last story for the night--my friend (who was in Desert Storm) had a hand in the leaflet loading.
--A large group of Iraqi soldiers who were "dug in" had leaflets rain down on them:
--Pray to Allah, for you will meet him in three days
--next day, "Pray to Allah, for you will meet him in two days"
--next day, "Pray to Allah, for you will meet him tomorrow"
The next day, anyone who was left got a good old fashioned B-52 carpet bombing. My friend said that they could hear & see the explosions 60 miles away.
The Daisy Cutter is detonated above ground. It was detonated at the entrance to tunnels where suspected Al Qaida hideouts. The bomb superheated the surrounding air (making it unbreathable), and as the explosion rose upwards, it sucked all the air out of the tunnels. The concussion took care of everthing else.
You know (of course) about depleted uranium tank shells--they were only about an inch wide, but also went through the Russian tanks that the Iraqi's had, and the resulting vacuum literally SUCKED whoever was inside of the tank out the 1" hole. True.
And how about my last story for the night--my friend (who was in Desert Storm) had a hand in the leaflet loading.
--A large group of Iraqi soldiers who were "dug in" had leaflets rain down on them:
--Pray to Allah, for you will meet him in three days
--next day, "Pray to Allah, for you will meet him in two days"
--next day, "Pray to Allah, for you will meet him tomorrow"
The next day, anyone who was left got a good old fashioned B-52 carpet bombing. My friend said that they could hear & see the explosions 60 miles away.
#826
Registered User
Originally Posted by cordycord' date='Feb 1 2005, 10:00 AM
I'm going to guess that the Rummy knows something that we don't, and that a super bunker-buster is not being made for some mythical future target.
Okay, this is what he is thinking: what if Al Qaeda had managed to smuggle in a nuke, perhaps purchased from North Korea? What if instead of a regular truck bomb in the basement of the World Trade Center in 1993, it had been a nuclear weapon? After all, the primitive bombs we dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have fit in that truck. What if we had lost not just the World Trade Center, but the entire southern half of Manhattan? Maybe a couple million people, instead of the couple of thousand we lost later on?
Would we be willing to use a nuclear bunker buster against Mr. Bin Laden's mountain retreat in that situation, to prevent a recurrence in another city? I would.
I would certainly hope that such a weapon wasn't ever necessary, and I'm sure Rumsfeld hopes so too. But for 1/4 the price of a single Stealth bomber, it seems like pretty cheap insurance to me.
I wouldn't mind a bit if Russia and China had them too. Bunker busters don't kill lots of people, they kill a few very important people. For that reason, they would probably make it less likely, not more likely, that major nations would use nuclear weapons against each other. After all, the few very important people leading those major nations would know they could be hit with such a bunker buster.
#827
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 2,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tactical nuke is a tactical nuke. Call it what you want, it still is. They can design it for one purpose, and in the heat of battle they will use it for something else. The availabilit of such a weapon will lower the psychological barrier to use nukes in a war.
Again, a big thumbs-down from me.
Again, a big thumbs-down from me.
#829
Registered User
Originally Posted by PWRMKR' date='Feb 2 2005, 04:45 AM
I think the U.S. should put all countries on notices to verifiably remove and destroy all nuclear weapons and nuclear weapons capabilities, or face being nuked back into the Stone Age. Once it's all done, we do the same. Fair?
#830
Originally Posted by Ulrich' date='Feb 2 2005, 01:53 AM
A tactical nuke is a tactical nuke. Call it what you want, it still is. They can design it for one purpose, and in the heat of battle they will use it for something else. The availabilit of such a weapon will lower the psychological barrier to use nukes in a war.
Again, a big thumbs-down from me.
Again, a big thumbs-down from me.
The question "should we use it?" is a good one to keep asking though. Keep in mind that since Hiroshima and Nagasaki, not a single nuke was ever fired in aggression. I think that's a testimony to sanity, despite the fear that "some radical element" would use such a weapon.
The developed countries need to research these weapons and then guard them fanatically.
Just my opinion, of course.