http://www.ialien.com/politic2.jpg


Bingo...

But it still don't make things right.:glugglug

Thats a good point and something a lot of people are blind to. America is a rich country, and because of that we have enjoyed a much higher standard of living that most countries out there.

A country dosen't get to that point without making aggressive moves. Its like a big porn player. You think they got that way by being a passive choir boy. Nope, by being ruthless and operating on the edge of ethics, sometimes crossing the line.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to live in a 3rd world shit hole. I like have nice living conditions, clean water, electricity, car, etc.

If a lot of people had their way on how this country should be run, it wouldn't be an industrial power, thats for sure.

you all need to concentrate back to porn, forget this shit.... worrying is pointless

Iran massing troops on Iraqi border

good we can kill them easier

yes yes yes, we all know theres money in lolitas.

Wait a minute!

You want us to make the SAME mistake in Iran that we did in Iraq?

How would an attack on Iran be successful when we can't even win the peace in Iraq with overwhelming military superiority?

I thought we were finally LEARNING something about unilaterally invading countries who have not attacked us? (ok..bilateral..Israel will join us..that will really be a hit with the rest of the moslem world! SHEESH!)

Where do we put the radioactive debris and air??

You keyboard warriors do not live in the real world do you?
"Let's nuke them and then get on with our back yard bbq"

Like radiation and problems like that will stay in Iran and atom bombs are so damn smart they'll kill all the militants while leaving the innocents alone?

Come on people..you need to get out more into the REAL world!

Yeh they are. They're fucking with us right now and seem to have forgotten Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

We only take so much bullshit and then the Nukes come out.

Yea...of no comprehension...point out where he used the word "invading" or any derivative...there of.

Oh, I see..we'll "bomb them from afar" insted of invading them.
They won't be upset then eh?


IDIOT CHILD!

good - bomb them back into the stone age, oh wait they still are in the stone age

http://www.ciai-s.net/baghdad-satellite.jpg

The bulk of our troops are in Saddam's old gigs at the green zone.

Dude when the Nukes come out you don't go back to the stone age, you and your whole scumfilled city get fucking vaporized.

The last person...whose ass I kicked...was upset...but there wasn't a fucking thing he could do about it.

I hate to break the news to you but the United States still has a shit load of nuclear weapons ready to rock and roll on a moments notice.

If we didn't ever plan on using them don't you think we'd put them back into storage by now? The cold war is long over.

We also have 150 nukes ready to go at US bases in European countries.



http://www.bullatomsci.org/issues/20...enotechart.gif

Can you verify...your statement? I would be surprised if this were to factually be the case..."tens of thousands"?

That's what's happening now in Iraq eh..and will then happen in Iran?


King..you're just plain stupid some times.

And kicking your dog doesn't count!:1orglaugh

In addition new monies have just recently been approved by the Congress to do R&D for "designer" nukes as small as 1 Kiloton...5 Kilotons etc.

Ah..you're still pushing a military solution to the problem in the middle east. And now you're pushing a nuclear strike at that.

Because we HAVE nuclear weapons doesn't mean that we WILL use them! We had them for 50 years in the cold war and didn't use one and if there was EVER a time they could have been used it was then!

Having & using are TWO different things. The solution to this problem is NOT a military, but a socio/economic one.

How can you even THINK of toasting hundreds of thousands of innocent people and children JUST to try and stop the radical moslems of the world??

it's called a figure of speech

Aaaahhh, lets just invite them all over for a picnic. Maybe we could all just become friends.

What a bunch of flower power hippies some of you guys act like .

Do you understand the objective of the radical Muslim extremists is to fucking destroy the United States?

Do you think turning the rest of the world basically against us is anyhing else but?

Yeah..that's what I and other "hippies" have said..yeah RIGHT!
Your solution is "lets throw some nukes at them..that'll fix things!"

Tell ya what..you live in Florida, right? For starters: Pick some little sleepy burg and drop a low yield atomic bomb right in the middle of town and tell me there will be NO reprecussions from radioactive fallout anywhere else in Florida.

You make it seem so simplistic and easy. Nuke em, and there are no complications. I'm glad you're a damn good webmaster. But you'd make me very nervous if you were the Sec of Defense (though Rummy gives me the chills as it is!) :1orglaugh

Military solutions have...have historically...been viable solutions.

Nukes were considered for use in Korea...Vietnam...the 1st Gulf War...and I am satisfied they were considered for use in the 2nd Gulf War. Just recently the Congress approved new monies to be spent on R&D of "designer" nukes...ranging from 1 kiloton upward to 5 kilotons etc. Nukes are considered to be viable military weapons.

It must be a consideration...unless you prefer Americans and their children being killed.

This is where I'm suppose to say "Better Red than Dead!" eh?
I've heard that scare routine before.

King..you get a hardon (well, mentally at least) at ANYTHING even related to the military.

cant we just give them small pox blankets like we did the Indians?

terrorists need blankets too

To those that say "Kill the moslems.." "Nuke the moslems"..do you
distinguish ANY difference between the common moslem man/woman/child and the extreme radical moslem?

Or are you saying we might as well kill ALL Moslems?

Or, define it down to Iran. Kill ALL Iranians?

If you do differentiate..how the heck are you going to protect the innocents with nuclear attacks?

Two nukes were dropped on Japan...and of course there were "complications" but they were somewhat minimal...and the owerwhelming majority of the Japanese population survived with rather good health and are thriving today.

We detonated many, many, airburst nukes in the United States before moving to detonating many, many more underground tests...and the "complications" were minimal. Nukes...are not "dooms day" devices.

Exactly. If there was no plan to ever use nukes again then you wouldn't see the "football" going everywhere the President goes.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/sy.../football3.jpg

The Football

It follows the President wherever he goes and is never more that a few steps from his side. It is carried by a military officer who must undergo the nation's most rigorous security background check - the "Yankee White".

It contains a secure SATCOM radio and handset, the nuclear launch codes known as the EAM "Gold Codes" and the President's Decision Book - the nuclear playbook that the President would rely on if he would ever have to decide to use nuclear weapons.

In conflicts...historically...as well as within recent history...and history that is currently being made...what you probably are defining as "innocents" are killed...it is virtually unavoidable. This is the real world and there are real consequences in the real world and this has been the case since the beginning of "warfare".

wow we sure do have a shit load of arm chair generals in this thread -

I did like the nuke missle inventory chart that was cool but what that does not include is a the low yeild nukes fired from artillary, tanks etc. we have thousands of smaller yeild nukes that don't hit that list - plus that cruse missle number is way off - what we used in the gulf depleted the stock and I think Bush ordered something like $1 Billion worth of them last year - at what a million per - thats a lot of smart bombs

None

The question should be how many does the USA have when it comes 2 Iran.

A fucking bunch, two off the top of my head
Franch and Germany.

We had all kinds of small nukes in the 1960's had the things mounted on Jeeps, they fired' em from a gun that looked like a 106.
had' em in my unit, had some crazy fuckers on those Davey Crockett teams.

Davey Crockett's if you haven't heard of' em do a search on google

http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/davy6.jpg

http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/davy1.jpg

http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/davy5.jpg

http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/davy3.jpg

The Davy Crockett consisted of an XM-388 projectile launched from either a 120-millimeter (XM-28) or 155-millimeter (XM-29) recoilless rifle (the 120 millimeter version is shown above). This weapon had a maximum range of 1.24 miles (120 millimeter) to 2.49 miles (155 millimeter). The XM-388 casing (including the warhead and fin assembly) weighed 76 pounds, was 30 inches long and measured 11 inches in diameter (at its widest point).

The W54 warhead used on the Davy Crockett weighed just 51 pounds and was the smallest and lightest fission bomb (implosion type) ever deployed by the United States, with a variable explosive yield of 0.01 kilotons (equivalent to 10 tons of TNT, or two to four times as powerful as the ammonium nitrate bomb which destroyed the Alfred P. Murrah federal building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995), or 0.02 kilotons-1 kiloton. A 58.6 pound variant?the B54?was used in the Special Atomic Demolition Munition (SADM), a nuclear land mine deployed in Europe, South Korea, Guam, and the United States from 1964-1989.

Nice!!!

:thumbsup

Until recently...I am aware that we had nukes that could be fired by artillary...and may still have some...but they are in the process of destroying them...if they have not yet destroyed all of them. I think they were fired by the 280 mm artillary piece.

Total number of nuclear missiles built, 1951-present: 67,500

Total number of nuclear bombers built, 1945-present: 4,680

Total number and types of nuclear warheads and bombs built, 1945-1990: more than 70,000/65 types

Number currently in the stockpile (2002): 10,600 (7,982 deployed, 2,700 hedge/contingency stockpile)

Number of nuclear warheads requested by the Army in 1956 and 1957: 151,000

Projected operational U.S. strategic nuclear warheads and bombs after full enactment of the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty in 2012: 1,700-2,200

Largest and smallest nuclear bombs ever deployed: B17/B24 (~42,000 lbs., 10-15 megatons); W54 (51 lbs., .01 kilotons, .02 kilotons-1 kiloton)

States with the largest number of nuclear weapons (in 1999): New Mexico (2,450), Georgia (2,000), Washington (1,685), Nevada (1,350), and North Dakota (1,140)

Total known land area occupied by U.S. nuclear weapons bases and facilities: 15,654 square miles

Number of secret Presidential Emergency Facilities built for use during and after a nuclear war: more than 75

Total number of U.S. nuclear weapons tests, 1945-1992: 1,030 (1,125 nuclear devices detonated; 24 additional joint tests with Great Britain)

Largest U.S. explosion/date: 15 Megatons/March 1, 1954 ("Bravo")

Number of attack (SSN) and ballistic missile (SSBN) submarines (2002): 53 SSNs and 18 SSBNs

Number of designated targets for U.S. weapons in the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) in 1976, 1986, and 1995: 25,000 (1976), 16,000 (1986) and 2,500 (1995)

Number of U.S. nuclear bombs lost in accidents and never recovered: 11

Source: The Brookings Institute

The Davey Crockett team was across the hall from me, use 2 party with them, as a matter of fact the 1st weed I ever smoked one of them gave it 2 me. :1orglaugh

Was in contact with one of them about 2 months ago.

I look back and wonder what the Army was thinking giving a bunch of crazy troopers Nukes. :Graucho

Yeh, looking at those pics its hard to believe the security was so light with nuclear weapons on jeeps that someone could have easily driven off with.

Crazy toopers is a good description. AIRBORNE!!

All the way

This would've been a job for PERSHING!

56th 1/41st FA :thumbsup

KRL...I am surprised to learn that 11 nukes were not recovered. I am aware that nukes have been lost due to accident but I thought they all had been recovered. If I recall correctly several nukes have "fell" out over the US...and also into the Ocean...and I believe over Spain...among others.

regardless of who has how many weapons / nukes.. this is one war that cannot be won by conventional means.

All the talk about arm chair generals, there is far more arm chair politicians on this board that have no clue how politics work.:glugglug

That figure astonished me also. Although I imagine losing a nuke is not something the govt. would want publicized.

reasons for using nukes:

a)u just got yer ass handed to you
b)your too pussy to go fight and prefer pressing a button

i dont see why the us should use em yet..although bush can relate to B, so it wouldnt surprise me if he does do it. Which makes me wonder why bush was so keen on the missile defence system a while ago. I guess he knew what was coming.

A lot of you guys have a misunderstanding about nuclear weapons. It won't be the end of the world if the US deploys a few.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/do...8-9/fig3-I.gif

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/do...8-9/tab3-I.gif

Blast damage from a nuclear weapon comes from the overpressure in the air and from winds which result from the pressures. For a 10 kiloton blast at the height where it would produce the most damage, severe damage to frame houses would occur out to 1.6 km and moderate damage to 2.4 km. For a 10 megaton blast, 1000 times as powerful, the severe damage would extend out about ten times as far, to 17.7 km. (Figures from Microsoft Encarta). A 10 kiloton blast would produce a fireball of about 300 m diameter and would cause moderate flash burns (second degree) at a range of about 2.4 km. A 10 megaton blash would create a fireball about 4.8 km and moderate flash burns to 32 km. Accompanying the blast is a burst of neutrons and gamma rays, as well as lingering residual radiation from radioactive fallout.

This is what the city of Hiroshima looked like after the blast.

http://www.ettnet.se/~stefan-a/hiroshima/mini003.jpg

http://www.ettnet.se/~stefan-a/hiroshima/mini007.jpg