Americans didn't flock to Canada after Bush win

[Bruzilla]

I still contend that it may not be recognizable as a nuclear weapon. I.e. no mushroom cloud, surface radiation at low enough levels that are not detectable...just a lot of ground shaking.

That ground shaking is the first thing that'll tip off everybody that the nuclear door has been opened. Nukes, even those fired off underground, create specific seismic and radiographic effects, that are detectable from the other side of the World.

 

[vraiblonde]

I still contend that it may not be recognizable as a nuclear weapon.

And who cares anyway? Everyone gets so excited about the word "nuclear", when it's just merely another source of energy. What's the big deal?

 

[Bruzilla]

One could argue that we've already gone nuclear as of 60 years ago. And I really don't think other countries need us to start the ball rolling in terms of nuclear attacks. If they want to do it, they'll do it. If they fear the consequences, they won't.

There's a huge difference between us using a tactical nuke to ferret out enemy headquarters and China using one in order to take over another country. Yes, it's a fine ideological line and not all nations will agree that there is a difference, but they hate us anyway and are looking for any excuse to disparage the US and its methods.

I hope Rumsfeld DOES nuke the #### out of these hellholes. Give the hippies something to REALLY cry about.

Yes, one could argue that we went nuclear 60 years ago, but that doesn't quite apply now as 60 years ago there was no one to answer in kind.

I know you see differences in nuclear engagements, but there really are none. And I don't understand why you would need to use nukes to go after deep bunkers. The problem with underground bunkers is that you have to be able to get out of them. Rather than nukes, we should surveil these sites and determine the enter/egress points, and then shut them off... let those guys die a slow death from suffocation underground.

 

[Bruzilla]

What's the big deal?

About 100 kilotons of explosive force, which is a bit more yield than one finds in a molotov cocktail.

 

[hvp05]

Rather than nukes, we should surveil these sites and determine the enter/egress points, and then shut them off... let those guys die a slow death from suffocation underground.

Considering that they likely have stockpiles of supplies, it may take a while for them all to succumb to such a fate. And, if they have built a true network, we could sit outside door A for a year while they casually mosey out door B. (Isn't that how bin Laden's gang got out of Tora Bora?)

 

[vraiblonde]

About 100 kilotons of explosive force, which is a bit more yield than one finds in a molotov cocktail.

So which is better:

Send in a thousand ground troops and try to do it the old-fashioned way, with x-number of them getting killed or wounded in the process OR

Drop a nuke and let Allah sort out the pieces, with none or very little loss of American lives?

 

[Otter]

The inaccuracy in bunker busters has caused a wide range of question in the use of the weapon. If the bomb is dropped on an area that is not a bunker it will ruin anything in its path. According to Dr. Robert Nelson the mini-nuke would create a huge crater and spread radiation for miles, since it would not be able to enter the earth deep enough to contain it (CDI Terrorism Project). Studies have shown that for a nuclear bomb that is one-third the size of the bomb used in Hiroshima there would need to be a depth of 650 feet reached before explosion to keep the harmful effects contained. As of March 2002, technology has only allowed for depths of penetration of less than 100 feet

 

[Toxick]

I guess I'm happy Republicans and Democrats have found a way to live together in peace and in harmony,"

 

[Toxick]

Drop a nuke and let Allah sort out the pieces, with none or very little loss of American lives?

This initially sounds better.


Except for the long term effects.




And by long term effects, I'm referring to the subsequent shrieking, screeching, shrill whining and badgering that would haunt us from within and from without for the next 500 years.

 

[vraiblonde]

And by long term effects, I'm referring to the subsequent shrieking, screeching, shrill whining and badgering that would haunt us from within and from without for the next 500 years.

They're going to shriek, screech and whine anyway - might as well give them something to shriek about.

 

[Toxick]

They're going to shriek, screech and whine anyway - might as well give them something to shriek about.

Good point.

 

[Bruzilla]

So which is better:

Send in a thousand ground troops and try to do it the old-fashioned way, with x-number of them getting killed or wounded in the process OR

Drop a nuke and let Allah sort out the pieces, with none or very little loss of American lives?

Let me first qualify my statement by saying I'm a veteran with 10 years of service to my record, and a profound understanding of how bad things suck for military members. But... I would rather lose 10,000 or 100,000 troops than launch one nuclear weapon. I feel this way for two reasons. The first is that once we would use a nuclear weapon, regardless of how large or small, it would justify a liberal use of nukes by anybody who has them, for any reason. I think that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were educational experiences of the horrors and excesses of nuclear weapons, which resulted in 50 years of learning from our mistakes and using the threat of nuclear exchanges as a deterrent and not as a means to an end.

Secondly, I am not one who subscribes to the idea that we must strive to fight in combat in such a way as to eliminate/mitigate casualties. Casualties are a part of war, which is why it makes sense to not engage in combat without a good reason, and when you start worrying more about casualties than winning the war, you end up with Vietnam and Iraq... and thinking about the unthinkable - like opening a nuclear Pandora's box. As much as some people complaign about how lousy the pay and benefits of being in the military are, they are pretty good compared to what a majority of Americans get. We make these investments in our forces, not because we expect them to lead worry-free existences, but because we expect them to kill, get wounded, or get killed at the behest of the nation.

 

[vraiblonde]

In my opinion, anything that accomplishes the goal in the quickest manner is the way to go. If dropping a nuke down some hole in the desert will get the bad guys faster and with less American loss, then that's my pick.


And if the Chinese think that gives them license to nuke Taiwan in order to take over, then that's their problem and they'll have to be dealt with. Not that our beloved UN is going to do anything about it - they only disapprove of what the US does.

 

[Bruzilla]

And if the Chinese think that gives them license to nuke Taiwan in order to take over, then that's their problem and they'll have to be dealt with.

And therein lies the rub! How will China be dealt with for using nuclear weapons against Taiwan? Suppose they hit the major bases on the island, followed by a small tactical nuke on Taipei? What will the US do? Would we come to Taiwan's defense by firing some of our small warheads at Chinese bases and cities? If not, then what message would we be sending to Pakistan, India, Israel, etc., if we allowed one of our allies to be attacked with nuclear arms while we sat back and did nothing but protest? And if we do respond with nukes, where would the escalation/retaliation stop... or would it not stop except by the destruction of both sides?

Let's look at how things would likely play out. We legitimize the use of small, tactical, nuclear warheads to achieve a specific goal (taking out bunkers) and in the name of saving American military lives.

The Chinese launch small tactical warheads at military bases on Taiwan, for a specific purpose (to reclaim Taiwan) and to save Chinese military lives. As a result, the conventional forces on Taiwan, which the US had planned on serving as the backbone of the island's defense, are destroyed and now American assets must be used for the counterattack. Also, thousands of Americans on Taiwan get incinerated along with a lot of Taiwanese. We complain, but the World says "Hey... you were the idiots who legitimized the use of tactical nukes, so quit whining."

At this point we launch a nuclear counterstrike against Chinese deployment sites to stem the invasion force until we can get reinforcements to the theater; or we attack the invasion force with what we have and risk more nuclear exchanges; or we turn on our tails and head for home, showing the World that we're a paper tiger of the worst sort.

Two of the options would likely result in escalations that would lead to an all-out nuclear exchange with China, and one would pretty much take us out of the running as a superpower and put China in our spot.

And all of these deaths in the hundreds of thousands or millions occur just so we can prevent 50-100 casualties in Iraq, Pakistan, or Afghanistan? Doesn't sound like very sound military thinking to me.

 

[SamSpade]

And therein lies the rub! How will China be dealt with for using nuclear weapons against Taiwan?

There IS no Taiwan. Thanks to the brave United Nations, one day that will be fact, and not just a concept in the mind of mainland Chinese.

In their perspective, Taiwan is a much a part of China as Alaska or Hawaii would be "part" of the United States if it somehow split off and called itself a separate republic, without any such recognition by the remaining 48. As far as we were concerned - it's still U.S. territory. Therefore, any military incursion we'd field against renegade states would be an internal affair - a civil war. An affair with which we wouldn't tolerate outside intervention.

Yeah, it's been 60 years, but Taiwan is - in proportion to the mainland - a very tiny province. It really would be a lot like us "taking back" Hawaii or Puerto Rico if they just split off from us.

Now, this is the part of the Chinese mindset that I *don't* get - they really only get p!ssed at the Taiwanese when they start telling the world they are independent, when for the past 60 some years, it's obvious to ANYONE they're independent of the mainland. And this is the part I REALLY don't get - Formosa's a fairly pointless ball of rock, and it's clear enough that the Taiwanese will fight to the last man. It's not as though the Chinese were "freeing" the Taiwanese people to choose to join their mainland brethren - they're conquering a people who clearly want to remain free. There's no political justification for it - no philosophical point that makes sense.

Thanks to the brave UN for only recognizing mainland China as the ONLY China - Taiwan can expect NO help from them, not that it's worth a plugged nickel. If they get attacked by China, they can count on us - and that's about it. The rest of the world will pretend it's a civil affair, and those damned Yankees are getting into it all again.

 

[Bruzilla]

Now, this is the part of the Chinese mindset that I *don't* get - they really only get p!ssed at the Taiwanese when they start telling the world they are independent, when for the past 60 some years, it's obvious to ANYONE they're independent of the mainland. And this is the part I REALLY don't get - Formosa's a fairly pointless ball of rock, and it's clear enough that the Taiwanese will fight to the last man. It's not as though the Chinese were "freeing" the Taiwanese people to choose to join their mainland brethren - they're conquering a people who clearly want to remain free. There's no political justification for it - no philosophical point that makes sense.

The situation is a bit different than you show in your comparisons. The China-Taiwan situation would be more like Hawaii breaking away from the United States and claiming to be the new United States government.

When Chiang Kai Shek fled to Formosa, he took the democratic Chinese government with him. So technically, you had a communist China and a democratic China, which is what drives the PROC nuts. The PROC refuses to accept a two-China policy even though Taiwan has as much right to the title China as mainland China does. The other issue that drives the PROC nuts is that they have no control over Taiwan, which makes them look weak especially when Taiwan and its capitalistic society offers so much higher standards of living than what PROC citizens get. It's just more challenges to their authority and they really hate that.

 

[vraiblonde]

It's just more challenges to their authority and they really hate that.

Oh hate hate hate Screw those hippies - Taiwan has been independent for how long now? Time for them Commies to GTFOI and move on.

 

[rraley]

Oh hate hate hate Screw those hippies - Taiwan has been independent for how long now? Time for them Commies to GTFOI and move on.

Taiwan is not recognized by the UN or even the US government (though we will supposedly "defend" them if Mainland China attacks). They are not independent in a legal sense.

 

[czygvtwkr]

I had an idea where we use the moons gravity to accelerate an "asteroid" at any location we so desire, wipe it out and say hey it was an act of God, what did you do to piss him off?

 

[BuddyLee]

Interesting reading here fella's.