Pentagon doesn't know what else to do with their nukes

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 6:54 pm

[ Community -> Article ]

<a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/me.asp?service ... cording</a> to Washington Post, Pentagon drafted a new policy on the nuclear strike conditions, one that would allow to conduct preemptive
nuclear strikes against the enemies of United States and its allies.
This isn't news as such, because figureheads in the government and the
military circles have long since been speaking out in support of
keeping the "nuclear" option open in the "War on Terrorism". But it
seems that these were not just idle threats and innuendos aimed at the
wretched terrorist types, but the part of the actual future policy of
the United States military.
The new age of nuclear weapons dawns.
So, are we still slated to nuke Iran in 2008? Spotted @ <a href="http://www.aljazeera.com/">Al-Jazeera</a>

Post by **King of Creation** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:00 pm

We should have taken out Iran so long ago.

vx trauma · Post by **vx trauma** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:10 pm

After all those billions and billions spent on nukes, I think it would be a shame to sweep them to history without having a good go with em. There is also oil to recover so why not. DROP THE BOMB. EXTERMINATE THEM ALL.

A_M · Post by **A_M** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:19 pm

vx trauma wrote:After all those billions and billions spent on nukes, I think it would be a shame to sweep them to history without having a good go with em. There is also oil to recover so why not. DROP THE BOMB. EXTERMINATE THEM ALL.

And then wait hundreds of years for the radiation to fade. It's theoreticaly a short time for so much oil , yes?

Post by **King of Creation** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:20 pm

All the new bombs are clean. Radiation is extraordinarily limited, if at all, and fades very quickly.

johnnygothisgun · Post by **johnnygothisgun** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:35 pm

Your army isn't working up to it's full potential if it can't sweep through after dropping the bomb.

On pre-emptive strikes, I can see it happening sometime in the near future provided we're hit first, which is altogether likely. How many Russian nuclear weapons are unaccounted for? What's to stop one from drifting in on one of many thousands of unchecked shipping crates brought into American port cities, every day? If one is set off in, say, Baltimore, I can see the United States making Syria, Jordan, and Libya disappear just for the hell of it.

Post by **King of Creation** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:41 pm

The US wouldn't even need to use high yield nuclear weapons. If we freaking used an actual portion of our army instead of the small force in Iraq, we could take out Iran in a matter of weeks. Iraq would have only lasted 6 weeks if we used the amount of troops that the military requested. But no, Rumsfeld had to be a fucking moron.

If we went into Iran, which I believe we should definitely do, then what you'd probably see are the new nuclear bunker busters, nuclear grenades, and things of that sort. Obviously, the grenades are rocket propelled. All of these things, and many more, have already been developed. If this Iraq mess heats up any more, we're probably going to see the stuff there too.

Hell, we might even see full scale nukes being used in the middle east. Bush didn't refit and upgrade the nuclear testing facilities in the mid west for nothing.

A_M · Post by **A_M** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 7:56 pm

King of Creation wrote:All the new bombs are clean. Radiation is extraordinarily limited, if at all, and fades very quickly.

Hmm didn't knew that. Thx.

As for playing with nuclear thingies in Iran - you think the US would really do it ? I mean ,that the Us goverment always talks stuff like "Disarm your nukes. We will keep ours just in case, but you HAVE to disarm your's for a better tomorrow" ect. ect. So if they used all the stuff (and killed lot's of civilians btw), what do you think would the whole arabic population do? Yes, life would be fucked up because of em

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:06 pm

ApTyp wrote:conduct preemptive nuclear strikes against the enemies of United States and its allies.

Lovely construction. So, I can expect a newkular Christmas present, then ? Hurray !

Few things irritate me as much as mediocre journalism.

Just another depressing sliver. Nuclear cataclysm has no sense of aesthetic or pacing.

Redeye · Post by **Redeye** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:22 pm

A_M wrote:
vx trauma wrote:After all those billions and billions spent on nukes, I think it would be a shame to sweep them to history without having a good go with em. There is also oil to recover so why not. DROP THE BOMB. EXTERMINATE THEM ALL.
And then wait hundreds of years for the radiation to fade. It's theoreticaly a short time for so much oil , yes?

The hard rads fade in days/weeks. Its the low level stuff that sticks around and gets into everything. The bigger problem, even from a "clean" bomb, is all the toxic debris kicked up by the blast. What is in all of the ashes from a city? The non-radioactive fallout might even be worse than the radioactive fallout (over time).
Think of the New Orleans toxic sludge, but airborne.

I'm also suspicious about the so-called "clean bombs" of the US arsenal.
The term "clean" is relative. Some techniques in shrinking a nuke involve beryllium &/or polonium being used to reduce the amount of plutonium required, perhaps by ramping up the neutron concentrations and creating a "virtual criticality" with less than an actual critical mass. This still would not be particularly clean. A real Clean Bomb would have to be fusion. How to do that? Laser ignition? A laser does not have to be a beam, so maybe some kind of spherical laser matrix built into a honeycomb of helium3/various hydrogen isotopes? Shaped charges compressing hydrogen? Some kind of Molecular Polarization Effect that incorporates the previous two concepts.(Piezoluminar Thermonuke?)

Also, I wonder how many of the old systems have the new nukes. I doubt that ANY of them do. Just guessing, but the new ones are probably just a select mini-arsenal of custom made warheads.
Maybe a SLEP for the old systems could have been sneaked in, substituting some kind of stable/long storage component for something in the old bombs that would wear out in a few years.

Just build a MoonFerry out of the next shuttle that gets fucked up in space and can't land on Earth.

There Are Boulders On The Moon.

Post by **King of Creation** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:22 pm

A_M wrote:As for playing with nuclear thingies in Iran - you think the US would really do it ? I mean ,that the Us goverment always talks stuff like "Disarm your nukes. We will keep ours just in case, but you HAVE to disarm your's for a better tomorrow" ect. ect. So if they used all the stuff (and killed lot's of civilians btw), what do you think would the whole arabic population do? Yes, life would be fucked up because of em

Well, I doubt we'd use full scale nuclear weapons in the Middle East. There really isn't all that much reason to. The nuclear grenades and things are very plausible and effective and Should be used. There's not really much the rest of the Middle East can do. I mean really. Is Sudan going to fire some ICBMs at us? The US military is to strong. It's why we're the Unipol. If every single state in the world joined in a coalition against the US, the US would not lose.

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:39 pm

King of Creation wrote:If every single state in the world joined in a coalition against the US, the US would not lose.

Tall claim. In such an event the world would probably end as so much glass. 'Lose' is an open term.

Inin · Post by **Inin** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:59 pm

For Fuck's Sake, King of Creation, could you be any more a Fox News mouthpiece?

Sweet Jesus man. Give the standard issue party line a rest. You sound like those idiots on CNN and/or FOX:

"America will triumph over all!"

--"Do you have any evidence at all to back your claim, sir?"

"What are you? A Terrorist Sympathizer!?"

You know how the rest goes.

-Inin

Redeye · Post by **Redeye** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:08 pm

Inin wrote:For Fuck's Sake, King of Creation, could you be any more a Fox News mouthpiece?

Sweet Jesus man. Give the standard issue party line a rest. You sound like those idiots on CNN and/or FOX:

"America will triumph over all!"

--"Do you have any evidence at all to back your claim, sir?"

"What are you? A Terrorist Sympathizer!?"

You know how the rest goes.

-Inin

Oh, but it is FUN to do a bit of jingo-trolling!
The point is moot, because:
The US will kill itself, slowly cooking in its own fat.
Like a star-spangled chimichanga.

ApTyp · Post by **ApTyp** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:08 pm

You shut your fucking mouth, Osama!

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:13 pm

Why would you go to Iran? Are they an actual threat to America?

vx trauma · Post by **vx trauma** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:15 pm

Good excuse for nuclear winter. And oil. And human rights.

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:18 pm

Redeye wrote:The US will kill itself, slowly cooking in its own fat.

I find it amusing that certain individuals react so poorly to a reminder of the natural order.

Post by **King of Creation** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 9:49 pm

Blargh wrote:Tall claim. In such an event the world would probably end as so much glass. 'Lose' is an open term.

Right. I didn't say we would win. But we definitely wouldn't lose.

Inin wrote:For Fuck's Sake, King of Creation, could you be any more a Fox News mouthpiece?

Sweet Jesus man. Give the standard issue party line a rest. You sound like those idiots on CNN and/or FOX:

"America will triumph over all!"

--"Do you have any evidence at all to back your claim, sir?"

"What are you? A Terrorist Sympathizer!?"

You know how the rest goes.

-Inin

The problem is that there is plenty of evidence to support the claim that the US would win any war that it devoted it's full attention to. Iraq and Vietnam were mistakes. They were mistakes because we didn't devote enough resources. The united States has the most technologically advanced military in the world. We might not have the biggest military in terms of man power, but we have the ability to outfit them with whatever it takes to win. Not to mention the 6000 or so nukes that we have. I'm looking at this from a very Realist point of view. There is no way the United States could lose a war that it devoted its full attention to. Which is something that must happen in Iran. And then North Korea. And then Sudan, and so on until democratic governments are set up in every single state in the world. There's no point in arguing with this, because all opposition to this viewpoint is baseless. Go ahead...try it.

S4ur0n27 wrote:Why would you go to Iran? Are they an actual threat to America?

Not just to American, but to every State in the world. If Iran develops nuclear weapons, then the middle east is screwed.

Not to mention how screwed the Iranian people already are by their own "leaders."

vx trauma wrote:Good excuse for nuclear winter. And oil. And human rights.

Nuclear winter isn't something that happens anymore. Not with "clean" hydrogen bombs.

Inin · Post by **Inin** » Mon Sep 12, 2005 10:16 pm

You just proved my last post 100% correct.

YAY!! for you.

-Inin

Duck and Cover

Pentagon doesn't know what else to do with their nukes

Pentagon doesn't know what else to do with their nukes

Re: Pentagon doesn't know what else to do with their nukes