|
I don't see a problem with it. There is an obvious need for effective weapons to attack heavily fortified bunkers. Current technology isn't doing the job. They've created the conventional MOAB and need more power. That means nukes. Not that I think they should/would be used in a case like Saddam, but we don't know the future and it could reasonably be assumed that we will meet an enemy entrenched in a bunker similar to those used by Saddam and we will have a need to destroy him. Better to know how to do it now, than try to figure it out later.
Waiting till later to figure it out will almost guarantee that we will be forced to use a larger than necessary device. If we HAD to go nuclear, wouldn't it be best to use the smallest device possible to meet the objective?
__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.
|