Terrorism

Originally posted by HiG4s
Spanky, you wouldn't be making this up as you go along would you?:think

Click to expand...

No, I was not "making it up", I was mearly repeating what I was told by my friend, who immigrated here from an Islamic country (he is a Buhddist, by the way, not Islamic). I guess, after reading the posts following mine, however, that I may not be totally accurate, and I probably shouldn't have posted something so controversial without verifying it as fact on my own first.

As for the nukes, I don't think anyone here seriously thinks that we will actually use them (at least I hope not), I think it is more of a Bravado thing. The devastation that would follow the use of nuclear weapons would be far out of proportion to the job at hand.

Originally posted by Okiewan
Whatever came of the "Nutron" ? Spelling?

Click to expand...

The Neutron bomb was shelved without ever actually manufacturing any, I believe, as being far too "dirty". I'm sure someone with military background can shed some light on this.

Okie, you do you mean this?

neu·tron bomb (plural neu·tron bombs) noun
nuclear bomb with low contamination: a nuclear bomb designed to kill all life by a heavy bombardment with neutrons but to cause little blast damage and leave relatively low radioactive contamination

Personally, I think tactical nukes should remain a potential option. They can be delivered in many degress of destructive power. But smaller ones would make incredibly effective attacks into desert terrorist cells. Further, while for years we have been concerned, and still are, about the negative effects of the message that that would send, my thoughts have recently turned to the positive effects that that message would send. We nuked Japan the second time for purely psychological reasons. Not ours (not bravado). Nope, theirs. They couldn't comprehend what had happened, and we believed that they might write it off as a fluke -- something either of nature, or something that even if man did, man couldn't reproduce. We wanted to make sure that they knew that that destruction was man made, was delivered by us, and that we could do it again, and again. I do not think we should be so quickly dismissive of that rationale as reason enough to go the tactical nuke route in the current scenario.

I'm not sure how I'd vote, but I'd make sure this option was discussed at "the table."

Side Note -- talk about resolve -- FDR couldn't be sure, as our scientists weren't sure, that the nuclear reaction would end in Japan. Or if it would spread through all the world's atmosphere.

Here's what's published:

On the average, about 50 percent of the power of an H-bomb results from thermonuclear-fusion reactions and the other 50 percent from fission that occurs in the A-bomb trigger and in the uranium jacket. A clean H-bomb is defined as one in which a significantly smaller proportion than 50 percent of the energy arises from fission. Because fusion does not produce any radioactive products directly, the fallout from a clean weapon is less than that from a normal or average H-bomb of the same total power. If an H-bomb were made with no uranium jacket but with a fission trigger, it would be relatively clean. Perhaps as little as 5 percent of the total explosive force might result from fission; the weapon would thus be 95 percent clean. The enhanced-radiation fusion bomb, also called the neutron bomb, which has been tested by the United States and other nuclear powers, does not release long-lasting radioactive fission products. However, the large number of neutrons released in thermonuclear reactions is known to induce radioactivity in materials, especially earth and water, within a relatively small area around the explosion. Thus the neutron bomb is considered a tactical weapon because it can do serious damage on the battlefield, penetrating tanks and other armored vehicles and causing death or serious injury to exposed individuals, without producing the radioactive fallout that endangers people or structures miles away.

I've been to the Hanford (weapons-grade plutonium production) and Savannah River (weapons-grade tritium production) plants (both use diesel generators for electrical back-up). Some questions that none of the nuclear physicists can agree on the correct answer are:

What is a "safe" distance?
What is a "safe" exposure level?
What is "relatively low" radioactive contamination?

If those Mensa members can't agree on the answers, you have to wonder. :eek:

Originally posted by LongTime
Side Note -- talk about resolve -- FDR couldn't be sure, as our scientists weren't sure, that the nuclear reaction would end in Japan. Or if it would spread through all the world's atmoshphere.

Click to expand...

LT, my good man, it was Harry S Truman that dropped the bomb.:)

I'll forgive that one, due to the stressful time we're in . . .:D

Pakistan has long had an open "bill" with Afghanistan, they are just waiting for their chance to settle it.

Click to expand...

From the pictures I have seen and the news I have read it looks to me like Pakistan is only pretending to care.. and some of them are not even pretending. Check out the picture of the the Pakistani's holding up signs that say 'We will not let America attack Afghan"

News

We need the Pakistani Air Space and their bases to house our own military (Providing we strike Afghanistan) -- But what if we get ambushed by the SOBs that host us? Most of these guys look like they are behind the Taliban and from the way it sounds most of Pakistan's military leaders are as well - but for the good of their own nation they do not speak up.

Pred -- I knew that!! I knew that!! Ack .:silly:

LT, you know that I knew that you knew! :D

JeffK -- as to Pakistan: Pakistan has very different classes. A very politically powerful and rich Westernized group, which must be crapping their pants right about now (a good friend at school belonged to that group and was sent to the US for undergrad and graduate school -- I know a war with the US would be the last thing his group would want -- they know who'd win). And an extreme militant wing, that would indeed like to side with Afghanistan. So it is indeed possible that the Pakistanis who are saying that they'll help us mean it, even though there is a significant portion of their population who hate the decision. Personally, I think this will help us with Pakistan, and them with their dilemna: this gives them an opportunity to actually gain the upper hand with their neighbor, who they fear, and stem the spread of the fundamentalism, without incurring the wrath of all the other Arab countries, and with the aid of the western world. I think for this reason we will find Pakistan to be very helpful.

Woodsrider: the fact that the experts have personally demonstrated to you that they are not exactly sure of the safe-distances from certain Nukes tells me that many years ago, I was right . . . .

We were practicing nuke attack profiles on certain troublesome countries. (The F-18 is (was) a single crew aircraft, so you can imagine there's a lot for the pilot to do to aviate, navigate, communicate, arm, double check, authorize, etc, when it comes to a nuke delivery). Well on this particular day we were working on our nuke delivery profile. You didn't exactly want to drop this bomb the way you'd drop a normal bomb. And close counts with a-bombs (just like horse shoes and hand grenades). So we developed profiles allowing us to deliver the bombs. Ends up if you're going <self edit> . . . Well the profile, obviously, then included a light-your-hair-on-fire-and-get-the-hell-out-of-Dodge-egress.

I remember after briefing, and studying these profiles, mission requirements, etc., asking one of our last flight leaders how fast the blast would spread. Two things concerned me. First, the EMP. Second, the heat. (The Hornet was lovingly referred to as the "Epoxy Rocket.") In sum, we weren't too sure that we could ride out a blast like that, should we fail to outrun it. If it was a one way mission, fine, but just tell us, okay?

Well the poor Major (Navy and Marine aviators train together) just said "Oh, with your head start, you'll be fine." "Well exactly how fast is the blast?" "Oh you'll be fine." "Well can we do the math, compare the distance we originally lob the bomb, our speed of egress, and the blast speed, to come up with how far from the epicenter we'll be? And what we can expect?" "Oh, we don't have to worry about that, the experts did all that figurin', and we'll be fine." Nod nod, wink wink.

We all considered it a 50/50 proposition after that. Not that it was a problem, but it was nice to know.

Longtime - Thank you for the explanation. I hope your friend didn't have to go back after school because it would be a grim home-coming. Here's another look at the same question though - hate to keep bringin up the same question but maybe if I word it differently.

Pakistan has two types of people, we'll call the Good and Evil for lack of better terms - please don't henpeck me to death about the analogy. The Good are nice people that will let us setup camp in their backyard to eradicate the miserable people that live next door. The Evil on the other hand look just like the good and until he has walked in your door and exploded that back pack he is wearing there is no way to tell them apart. My question is this - how are we going to go about normal day to day military operations without fearing the possible terrorist attacks from the Pakistanis that follow the Taliban? I know high levels of security could prevent some of it but we have already found out that these people have nothing to lose.

The limited amount of reading I've recently done, these seem to be the Koran (Qu'ran)'s commandments/precepts:

1) An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. It's OK to kill "infidels" (VERY vague about this) appropriately in retaliation, AS LONG AS YOU HAVEN'T started it. (you know, like kids say :silly: )
2) You shall not instigate violence. According to Islam, Muslims are forbidden to start any conflict with any nation (Heh, heh. THAT is funny!)
3) Islam orders Muslims to forgive and forget if the enemy wants peace!
4) Islam commands the Muslims to offer peace to the enemy, so that the enemy can become a friend. :think Allah Almighty in the Noble Quran commands the Muslims to return the evil that is done to them by others to not only with good, but with best, so that the enemy can become a friend. And, "Repel evil with that which is best"
5) Can't kill ill people (in hospitals) or old people (gomes) :silly:

Briefly, their claims against us are multiple: promoting anti-muslim maneuvers in the middle east, destroying the Muslim motherland during the Gulf War Conflict, killing innocent women and children with Uranium bombs fired directly into civilians (in Iraq). Killing innocent babies and elderly for 5 years during the economic blockade. Therefore, they must consider us "infidels" who have "started it first".

Yeah, in other words, let's just kill the "infidel" SOB's. :D

LT - I could be wrong, but I believe there hasn't been an above ground nuclear weapons test since the 1960's. There's several theories about clean H-bombs based on those tests, but no substantial data. This is why the "experts" can't even agree. Really makes you wonder. :think

LOL...Okie you are quite correct. I let my emotions get in the way of my memory...Yes 155's are what I was reffering to (155's have nukes too). I got a chance to train on an 8" once, but I was most familiar with the 155 Howitzers.
I was stationed in Baumholder, Germany 8th Infantry,HHB 1st Bat/2nd Field Artillery.
We too were placed on alert during the Iran crisis. Although we were called on at the point the hostages were taken. We were full loaded and on the railhead, with no idea what was going on. Not until we were taken off alert did we actually find out what had happened. (20,000 of us were ready to mobilize)

BTW, my battalion commander(who I worked for) offered me a job in the FIST group...I turned it down...too much field! :eek: