Get your nuclear war on. - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Kadath · 05-10-2003, 07:45 PM

Quote:

US Senate committee agrees to lift ban on development of small-scale nukes
WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US Senate Armed Services Committee (news - web sites) has voted to lift a ban on research and development of low-yield nuclear weapons in the United States.
A provision repealing the 10-year-old ban was included in the 2004 national defense authorization bill, which the Senate committee passed Friday.
The bill must still pass through the US House Armed Services Committee, the full House and the Senate and can be amended at each stage. US President George W. Bush (news - web sites), whose administration had requested the repeal, would then have to sign the bill to enact it into law.
But critics of the repeal, who consider the ban a pillar of arms control in the United States, have said that the best place to block it would have been during deliberations by the influential Senate committee.
The 1993 ban, called the Spratt-Furse Amendment, prohibits research and development leading to production of low-yield nuclear weapons, defined as a weapon with an explosive force of less than five kilotonnes, or 5,000 tonnes of TNT.
The atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima was measured at 15 kilotonnes, according to media reports here.
In a statement, the committee said it had "authorized a provision to repeal the ban on research and development of low yield nuclear weapons," and stated that nothing in the repeal shall be construed as "authorizing the testing, acquisition or deployment of a low-yield nuclear weapon."
Proponents say the measure is necessary to counter emerging threats and because countries such as North Korea (news - web sites), India and Pakistan do not observe non-proliferation treaties.
"Without committing to deployment, research on low-yield nuclear warheads is a prudent step to safeguard America from emerging threats and enemies who go deeper and deeper underground," Senator John Warner, chairman of the committee, was quoted as saying in The New York Times.
The panel also approved 15 million dollars for development of Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator, also known as a "bunker-buster" for its ability to penetrate and destroy underground bunkers.
The new bunker-buster would be a redesign of an existing nuclear weapon, and would have yields six times more powerful than the Hiroshima bomb, The Los Angeles Times said.
The Senate committee's version of the bill authorizes 400.5 billion dollars in military spending in fiscal year 2004, including 9.1 billion dollars for ballistic missile defense research, development and procurement, and a 3.7 percent across-the-board pay raise for uniformed service personnel.
The panel also backed a provision requiring the US Energy Department to "achieve and maintain the ability to conduct an underground nuclear test within 18 months, should it become necessary for the president to order such a test."
The committee was sharply divided on the lifting the nuclear ban.
"We have tried for 50-plus years to make these weapons unthinkable," Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island, told The New York Times. "And now we're talking about giving them a tactical application. It's a dangerous departure."

Time to teach the kids again.

ToiletDuck · 05-10-2003, 08:02 PM

Yes we can lie to our kids and tell them a 10 pound desk will stop a 60,000 pound missle from killing them

Lebell · 05-10-2003, 09:49 PM

I'm all for national defense, but even I am leary of this.

From what I've read, the bunker buster would be hell as far as producing fallout. Unfortunately, we are coming to the age we have feared for almost 60 years: Rogue nations having nuclear weapons and blackmailing us with them.

I predict we will see nuclear weapons used again in our lifetimes, either on a terrorist scale or a full war scale.

Dragonlich · 05-10-2003, 10:46 PM

well, although fall-out is a serious problem, technically speaking, one *has* to use nukes to get a certain yield. One only has to look at the size of the new MOAB to see how incredibly huge conventional bombs would be if they had similar yields. A nuke can be much, much smaller, making it much easier to penetrate hundreds of feet into the ground, to destroy a bunker.

Also, they'll only be used in certain essential operations, where conventional bombs aren't good enough; to destroy WMD storage facilities for example. That's a case of "them or us": if you don't destroy those things, the enemy can use them on you, killing many more people...

I'm not saying I like nukes, but they have their uses in today's world; I'd rather not see them at all, but that's rather unrealistic.

reconmike · 05-11-2003, 05:45 AM

Being the strongest nation in the history of the world, and now having to defend itself from rogue nations and the threat of non-conventional enemies the US needs to have a smaller type nuke in its arsenal.

Tactical nukes should be welcomed over a massive air burst which destroy much more and kill many more.

I also think the world would be better off with out them, but as Dragonlich said that is very unrealistic, so if you are going to have them,
have the best and most powerful ones to deter.

james t kirk · 05-11-2003, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
Being the strongest nation in the history of the world, and now having to defend itself from rogue nations and the threat of non-conventional enemies the US needs to have a smaller type nuke in its arsenal.

Ah, the American culture of fear at its finest.

It would seem that there is nothing that can not be justified in terms of military spending with this tired old line.

What, you don't have enough weapons of every form, shape, or type, you need one more? Daisy wheels and MOABs aren't enough?

The idea of using nukes has since ww2 been perceived as almost unthinkable.

Now we have "small nukes" "Bunker buster nukes"

The world needs this like a hole in the head.

splck · 05-11-2003, 06:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
Ah, the American culture of fear at its finest.

"Bunker buster nukes"

The world needs this like a hole in the head.

Agree 100%...sad day when people think this is the way to go.

Dragonlich · 05-11-2003, 10:47 AM

There already were "small nukes" and "bunker buster nukes". And no, the US apparently does not have enough weapons: they have no answer (yet) against many of the nuke-proof underground bunkers that every dictator seems to like so much. If you do not have anything that can destroy those, then you must design something that can. If "bunker buster nukes" are the only answer, I see no problem with the US making them. The US already has several bombs designed to destroy bunkers, but they're either not good enough, too inaccurate, or too unwieldy to use.

The point, as usual, is not to actually *use* them; it's the potential of using them that is the key factor. After all, normal nukes can destroy cities; but what about that nasty leader that knows he'll be safe in his underground lair... If enemies can no longer hide underground for fear of being destroyed there too, they're going to think twice about starting a fight.

Daval · 05-11-2003, 10:55 AM

I'd rather the US develop more massive conventional MOAB type weapons rather than a tactical nuke. Once that door is opened there is never going back.

reconmike · 05-11-2003, 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
Ah, the American culture of fear at its finest.

It would seem that there is nothing that can not be justified in terms of military spending with this tired old line.

The world needs this like a hole in the head.

Let me explain something to you Kirk,

there is no fear here, if you dont know I am a retired US Marine,
20+ years with to many oak leaf clusters on my C.A.R. to count.
There is no fear here. I am 5 foot 10, 220 pounds of a ass whoopin waiting to happen, guess what no one fucks with me, know why? Because of the peace through fire superiority factor, I am bigger, meaner, and better trained than you, so please show me the fear factor.

The world needs the United States to be strong because talking sometimes doesnt work.

james t kirk · 05-11-2003, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
Let me explain something to you Kirk,

there is no fear here, if you dont know I am a retired US Marine,
20+ years with to many oak leaf clusters on my C.A.R. to count.
There is no fear here. I am 5 foot 10, 220 pounds of a ass whoopin waiting to happen, guess what no one fucks with me, know why? Because of the peace through fire superiority factor, I am bigger, meaner, and better trained than you, so please show me the fear factor.

Yawn,

Don't take it personally there mike.

reconmike · 05-11-2003, 01:40 PM

Kirk,
never mind

smooth · 05-12-2003, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kadath
Time to teach the kids again.

My favorite was the commentats this morning regarding the nuclear exercise:

Interviewer: Some people think they should go to the hospital emergency room if they are exposed to a dirty bomb.

Guest: Not true, all they need to do is go home, take their clothes off, and take a nice shower with some Ivory soap.

Guess they should just wait on their couch until they die, too--no nead to contaminate the hospital staff if you've been exposed to radiation, right?!

Pacifier · 05-12-2003, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
The world needs the United States to be strong because talking sometimes doesnt work.

perhaps, but
who watches the watchmen?

Dragonlich · 05-12-2003, 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by smooth
My favorite was the commentats this morning regarding the nuclear exercise:

Interviewer: Some people think they should go to the hospital emergency room if they are exposed to a dirty bomb.

Guest: Not true, all they need to do is go home, take their clothes off, and take a nice shower with some Ivory soap.

Guess they should just wait on their couch until they die, too--no nead to contaminate the hospital staff if you've been exposed to radiation, right?!

They would be exposed to radioactive particles, which can usually be washed off. The hospital can help you by offering you a shower, but not much else... So it's good advice.

A dirty bomb is not nearly as dangerous as people think. A few square miles might become too "dangerous" (because of long-term effects!) to walk around in for a couple of years (mostly because it's too friggin' expensive to remove all the dust). The dead toll would be quite limited, and would only be visible years after the fact, because of (slightly) increased cancer rates in the general area.

There... happy now?

KillerYoda · 05-12-2003, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
there is no fear here, if you dont know I am a retired US Marine,
20+ years with to many oak leaf clusters on my C.A.R. to count.
There is no fear here. I am 5 foot 10, 220 pounds of a ass whoopin waiting to happen, guess what no one fucks with me, know why? Because of the peace through fire superiority factor, I am bigger, meaner, and better trained than you, so please show me the fear factor.

Ummm...

"What is your major malfunction, kirk?"

As far as more small scale nukes, why the hell not? We need more things to blow up other things with. It's the American way.

james t kirk · 05-13-2003, 05:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by KillerYoda
Ummm...

"What is your major malfunction, kirk?"

As far as more small scale nukes, why the hell not? We need more things to blow up other things with. It's the American way.

Thanks killer....

I stand enlightened.

reconmike · 05-13-2003, 03:51 PM

funny stuff, someone has to protect cowards.

MSD · 05-13-2003, 08:03 PM

I'm swaying back and forth on the issue. AS much as I'd like to be able to sit on Las Vegas rooftops and watch the bombs go off at the test range up North, I think that reviving the nuclear testing program would set a dangerous precedent for the testing, and eventual use of nuclear weapons by other countries.

Kadath · 05-13-2003, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by reconmike
funny stuff, someone has to protect cowards.

If only it didn't end up being moronic jerks with inferiority complexes.

Dragonlich · 05-13-2003, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrSelfDestruct
I'm swaying back and forth on the issue. AS much as I'd like to be able to sit on Las Vegas rooftops and watch the bombs go off at the test range up North, I think that reviving the nuclear testing program would set a dangerous precedent for the testing, and eventual use of nuclear weapons by other countries.

Who said anything about nuclear tests???
The US can design and build nukes without testing them, you know.... And if they do need to test, they can do that with computers and mathematical models these days.

Lebell · 05-13-2003, 11:35 PM

This thread has degenerated into a pissing match and is hearby locked.

05-10-2003, 09:49 PM	#3 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I'm all for national defense, but even I am leary of this. From what I've read, the bunker buster would be hell as far as producing fallout. Unfortunately, we are coming to the age we have feared for almost 60 years: Rogue nations having nuclear weapons and blackmailing us with them. I predict we will see nuclear weapons used again in our lifetimes, either on a terrorist scale or a full war scale. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

05-11-2003, 05:45 AM	#5 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Being the strongest nation in the history of the world, and now having to defend itself from rogue nations and the threat of non-conventional enemies the US needs to have a smaller type nuke in its arsenal. Tactical nukes should be welcomed over a massive air burst which destroy much more and kill many more. I also think the world would be better off with out them, but as Dragonlich said that is very unrealistic, so if you are going to have them, have the best and most powerful ones to deter. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

05-11-2003, 10:55 AM	#9 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	I'd rather the US develop more massive conventional MOAB type weapons rather than a tactical nuke. Once that door is opened there is never going back. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill

05-11-2003, 01:40 PM	#12 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	Kirk, never mind __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him? Last edited by reconmike; 05-11-2003 at 01:43 PM..

05-13-2003, 03:51 PM	#18 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	funny stuff, someone has to protect cowards. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

05-10-2003, 08:02 PM	#2 (permalink)
ToiletDuck Insane Location: In beautiful (YOUR AREA)	Yes we can lie to our kids and tell them a 10 pound desk will stop a 60,000 pound missle from killing them

05-10-2003, 10:46 PM	#4 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	well, although fall-out is a serious problem, technically speaking, one has to use nukes to get a certain yield. One only has to look at the size of the new MOAB to see how incredibly huge conventional bombs would be if they had similar yields. A nuke can be much, much smaller, making it much easier to penetrate hundreds of feet into the ground, to destroy a bunker. Also, they'll only be used in certain essential operations, where conventional bombs aren't good enough; to destroy WMD storage facilities for example. That's a case of "them or us": if you don't destroy those things, the enemy can use them on you, killing many more people... I'm not saying I like nukes, but they have their uses in today's world; I'd rather not see them at all, but that's rather unrealistic.

05-11-2003, 10:47 AM	#8 (permalink)
Dragonlich 42, baby! Location: The Netherlands	There already were "small nukes" and "bunker buster nukes". And no, the US apparently does not have enough weapons: they have no answer (yet) against many of the nuke-proof underground bunkers that every dictator seems to like so much. If you do not have anything that can destroy those, then you must design something that can. If "bunker buster nukes" are the only answer, I see no problem with the US making them. The US already has several bombs designed to destroy bunkers, but they're either not good enough, too inaccurate, or too unwieldy to use. The point, as usual, is not to actually use them; it's the potential of using them that is the key factor. After all, normal nukes can destroy cities; but what about that nasty leader that knows he'll be safe in his underground lair... If enemies can no longer hide underground for fear of being destroyed there too, they're going to think twice about starting a fight.

05-13-2003, 08:03 PM	#19 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	I'm swaying back and forth on the issue. AS much as I'd like to be able to sit on Las Vegas rooftops and watch the bombs go off at the test range up North, I think that reviving the nuclear testing program would set a dangerous precedent for the testing, and eventual use of nuclear weapons by other countries.

05-13-2003, 11:35 PM	#22 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	This thread has degenerated into a pissing match and is hearby locked. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!