Quote:
|
Good post, you pointed out that innocents die in war, showed you know the needs of the US military, know the new bombs won't work, and warn that rogue nations will get these weapons (that don't work) while also complaining that the Bush admin doesn't do enough for homeland security. That’s a lot of ground in only a few sentences.
|
Please, drop the condescending bullshit. Maybe if i talk to you like that, you can talk to me like that, but as it stands, i wasn't talking to you. So don't treat me like you're higher up than me, because your not in any way.
What's your point? How many sentences does it take you to fit your obligatory and oft irrelevant anti-clinton message in to every other thing you post? Don't kill the messenger. We have established that innocents die in war- that was relevant because mr. mojo professed to care for the plights of the innocents and also professed support for the development of new ways of killing that will result in more innocents being deformed and killed. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of that.
The idea that the bombs won't work wasn't mine, it seemed to be the idea of Robert W. Nelson(
http://www.princeton.edu/~rnelson/) who wrote the article for the federation of american scientists, i think he gets more cred than you could ever hope to have on the issue of the viability of nuclear weaponry.
For a nation that seems so intent on keeping wmds out of the hands of those who don't agree with our personal brand of free marketry, it seems rather the result of misplaced priorities to try to develop new wmds. Didn't we give iraq atleast some of the wmds that we have yet to find? What if we follow through and find a way to make these low yield nukes actually work as intended? How long until we give the technology to some other dictator who turns out to not have our interests at heart?
As for knowing the needs of the us military, i really doubt that you know any more than i do. We're just two tools on the internet arguing about decisions we will never get to make. Don't call me on not being an expert when you could hardly be considered an expert yourself.
The bush admin hasn't done enough. How many people snuck boxcutters and bomblike packages onto airplanes this year to prove that point? It only takes one person with bad intentions to get through still lax security to provide us with a sequel to 9/11.
Quote:
|
Lets try this example. Lets say some piss ant nation that was allowed to become a nuclear power thanks to the inept polices of the Clinton administration, lets pretend Korea, decided to threaten the use of nukes against the US. We for some reason decide its better to stop the launches then to give the local authorities more body bags and band aids to 'respond' to the attack. The Korean nukes are lets say in deep hardened bunkers as are the command centers. Now we could try a conventional bomb, which may not be powerful enough, resulting in the loss of say L.A., or we could nuke the crap out of the area with huge H bombs, which will need to be used enmass since they are not designed to damage below ground, or maybe we could have a smaller 'less lethal' nuclear bunker buster to remove the threat.
|
Well, if you read the article from the federation of american scientists, you'd see that currently it seems impossible to develop a delivery system that could penetrate deeply enough into the surface of the earth to actually pose more of a threat to threat to the bunker than the surface. Further, your example seems a little contrived, since if n korea or any other "piss ant nation" was actually intent on nuking us, probably our only warning would be the missles on our radars or the mushroom cloud on the horizon. How usefull is a nuclear bunker buster when the missles have already been fired?
Your "less lethal" nuclear bunker buster is only slightly less lethal. It still results in a huge explosion that will fill the surrounding area with radioactive debris that will damage people for generations.
This idea is just another can of worms.