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

100 suicide missions :BangBang:

To those (With the exception of kingie, who is certifiable) who are suggesting that we NUKE Iran (and anyone else that gives us any lip), I can only hope you are MOSTLY kidding.

There was a reason we negotiated very hard for a nuclear test ban treaty so that we did not put any more radioactive waste into the air, or pollute our waters, our land, even our children.

Radioactive fallout knows no boundaries. Even if you are saying "but it's low yield!". And even if we have 10,000 tons of ebola virus that could kill EVERYONE in Iran (or any other country), any SANE scientist/high level military personnel/politician would tell you that to attack with any of the above would be pure folly and would not obtain the goal of stopping terrorism.

If we followed the lead of those advocating escalating war beyond conventional means, then we are just as guilty as the terrorists we hate because then WE would be killing innocent men, women, and children. The very people were are railing about being killed now.

Do you even have a clue as to what the half life is of strontium 90? The poison in the air that would circle the globe for decades?

"Strontium-90 is a radioactive isotope of strontium that is produced in nuclear fission. It is a low energy emitter with a physical half-life of approximately 28 years. In the environment, it is accompanied by its decay product, yttrium-90, also a emitter."

"Oral intake at high levels of activity results in irradiation of target organs and nearby tissues. At high exposures, death results from radiation-induced hemorrhagic syndrome; at lower exposures, death results from destruction of the bone marrow. As survival times increase at lower administered activities, these effects are accompanied by neoplasms."

http://risk.lsd.ornl.gov/tox/profile..._90_c_V1.shtml

Possible Scenario:

Iraq has no military power to speak of. Iran which has 12 Million men capable of military service invades Iraq after the handover to seize southern oil fields and then pushes into Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Syrian troops enter Iraq from the North to seize northern oil fields.

Israel see's its chance to be a hero and take out Iran's nuclear facilities and launches military action against Iran and also Syrian forces in the North.

Iran launches a nuclear missle into Tel Aviv. Israel and the US retaliate and fire nukes into Iran.

Armageddon has begun.

yes please nuke iran and all your problems will go away

Centurion: you're right about the fallout of nuclear weapons - this is the sad truth about WMD's, they're so indiscriminate..

I watched a documentary about the large number of mutated children / cancer cases in vietnam as a result of agent orange, and having been there myself as well and seen a lot of this stuff first hand, it's heartbreaking to see the next generation paying for a war that ended over 30 years ago. :2 cents:

Let me just state it one more time for the non believers, there is no way in hell Israel and the US are going allow Iran to become a nuclear power.

There IS going to be a war between the US, Israel and Iran.

:sleep

And this is GOOD??

War is horrible. I'm not in favor of war. But sometimes you have no choice if you wish to preserve your way of life.

I'm very suprised by a couple of people who are being so cavalier about using nuclear weapons "A few won't hurt very many."

I know it's quite popular in chat rooms to use the phrase "nuke them! Turn them into glass"..but when I see some of the more, um..intelligent members on here backing a nuclear strike or two, I just shake my head and wonder what happened to some simple common sense when it comes to the use of VERY powerful weapons.

And if you were leading the charge against Iran, you would strike with nuclear weapons?

slight modification to your text....

Only if they fired first or used some form of WMD's that caused mass casulaties on our military forces.

I am not convinced that you come even CLOSE to proving to me or others that Iran is currently threatening "our way of life"

What you are saying is eerily familiar:
"Iraq poses a clear and imminent danger to the United States!"

What country do you live in df?

I have never personally "suggested"...the use of nukes...against any country...at any time. It is your reading comprehension problem that misleads you in virtually every thing you read. I do view...just as does our military...nukes to be actionable viable weapons...in certain scenarios. You need someone that can comprehend...by your side...anytime you read anything and just possibly you would not make such an ass out of yourself.

Now that is a BIG difference from how the thread started. The thread started with 10,000 suicide bombers being trained in Iran.

NOW, you are saying that if WsMD are used (against troops in Iraq, or against the U.S.? BIG difference there!), you would launch nuclear weapons?

And what the heck does "Only if they fired first" mean??

Believe it or not, there ARE military options SHORT of nuclear weapons.

yes there is 24 hour sorties

http://www.feetfantasys.com/b52.jpg

LOOK IN THE MIRROR FOR THE ASS!
You are just a footnote in any half way decent discussion of world events. And that's just for spelling errors!
:1orglaugh