this ? is for Amp and the other vets on the board - GoFuckYourself.com

nap · 03-24-2003, 09:53 PM

in the eyes of a soldier when is it ok to use tactical nukes or nukes? how would that affect the soldiers on the ground? wouldn't the nuclear fallout be almost worst than chemical weapons?

Manny The Tranny · 03-24-2003, 09:54 PM

Tala · 03-24-2003, 09:58 PM

Don't use nukes while your men are there. Pull 'em outta there PDQ, then drop nukes if you're determined to do so.

Personally, I wouldn't use them at all unless it becomes absiolutely necessary...and I can't really think of a stiuation where it's actually okay to use them. Just my

Wizzo · 03-24-2003, 10:04 PM

Yea, just a little worse than chemical weapons... that's why they have only been used once... Well 2 bombs...1 war...

PhotoShopGuy · 03-25-2003, 04:07 AM

Its pretty much US policy to not use WMD unless attacked with WMD first.

I know for a fact that we have chlorine, mustard, blood agent (cyanide gas) and a few forms of nerve agent in artillery rounds because i have seen the ammo myself when I was in the army.

We also have nuclear artillery rounds that can be fired out of a M198 155mm howitzer, danger zone with three nuclear bands is 20 miles, what sucks is it can only be fired 18 miles. I forgot the danger zone area with less bands being used, but the area can be relatively small blast/kill zone or very large.

You wont see a nuke in this war, but i cant guess as to whether some other stuff will be used or not.

03-24-2003, 09:53 PM	#1
nap Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: midwest Posts: 2,765	this ? is for Amp and the other vets on the board in the eyes of a soldier when is it ok to use tactical nukes or nukes? how would that affect the soldiers on the ground? wouldn't the nuclear fallout be almost worst than chemical weapons?

03-24-2003, 09:58 PM	#3
Tala Fucked if I know Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Do you have a flag? Posts: 23,368	Don't use nukes while your men are there. Pull 'em outta there PDQ, then drop nukes if you're determined to do so. Personally, I wouldn't use them at all unless it becomes absiolutely necessary...and I can't really think of a stiuation where it's actually okay to use them. Just my __________________ ICQ: 11120676 \| Google: mindcrime \| Skype: suitemindcrime\|E-Mail: mindcrime AT gmail.com\|PR girl with great writing skills for hire!!!! Contact me to work for YOU!\|TECHIEMEDIA? 24/7 support from some of the best techs in the biz. Tell Jim that I sent you.

03-24-2003, 10:04 PM	#4
Wizzo 2011 GFY Hall of Fame! Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2000 Location: Back in Texas! Posts: 15,224	Yea, just a little worse than chemical weapons... that's why they have only been used once... Well 2 bombs...1 war... __________________ Looking for Opportunity!

03-24-2003, 09:54 PM	#2
Manny The Tranny Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 133

03-25-2003, 04:07 AM	#5
PhotoShopGuy So Fucking Banned Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Outside your bedroom window Posts: 222	Its pretty much US policy to not use WMD unless attacked with WMD first. I know for a fact that we have chlorine, mustard, blood agent (cyanide gas) and a few forms of nerve agent in artillery rounds because i have seen the ammo myself when I was in the army. We also have nuclear artillery rounds that can be fired out of a M198 155mm howitzer, danger zone with three nuclear bands is 20 miles, what sucks is it can only be fired 18 miles. I forgot the danger zone area with less bands being used, but the area can be relatively small blast/kill zone or very large. You wont see a nuke in this war, but i cant guess as to whether some other stuff will be used or not.