Death in Iraq.

[Arthus]

I agree with what Nuke is saying. nuking Iran would play right into the terrorists ahnds by turning millions of people to their cause. Seriously, if you think that someone is going to nuke your country is they dont like what ur doing what would u do? try to destroy them. the U.S. is turning more into the world judge, jury and executioner.

[Ruddertail]

To have a history of nuking them without provocation will just screw us over once they have them. For evidence that they will eventually aquire nukes I simply point to other military technolgoies that were top secret, only one nation had it, type of thing. Subs, missiles, guns, rockets, cannons, gunpowder, blow darts, bows, muskets, machine guns, planes, jets, blimps, rockets, bombs, chemical weapons, biological weapons, radar, torpedos, mines, tanks etc...

There is a difference between nukes, bio, and chem weapons and the rest of the items on the that list. For example, take guns. Sure, the enemy has them. But that doesn't mean that they have the power to all of a sudden whipe out entire cities of ours.

There has always been a defense against every weapon. Either it was a weapon to arm troops with, in which case you already had your defense against it (more troops/better trained troops with the same weapon) or there was some means of counter (cannons were countered by better fortifications. Bombers were countered with intercepting fighters and AA guns/missiles. Etc. Etc.

It was always a weapon that would enable the enemy's army to be more effective. In no case was it a weapon that could instantly wipe out cities, and, in believeable quantities, the world.

As far as the civilian population knows, there is no counter against nukes. If we had a 99.9% successful system to shoot down incoming nukes, I wouldn't give two hoots who had nukes. However, if Iran obtains nukes, they could quite possibley whipe out entire cities with the push of a button. The only way to stop it would be to take them out before they pushed that button, because once in flight there's no really effective way to knock it out. Sure, SDI, but last I heard that was only running at about a 50% success rate. A coin flip if 4 million people live or die? Not my kind of odds, thank you much.

A further danger is the fact that I see no proof that we could trust the Iranians to behave in a logical manner. The (former) USSR, China, and even N. Korea see the danger in nuking somebody - namely, the US has just as many, or more, nukes then they do. They'll get the worst of it if they try anything. On the other hand, the Iranians are of the same groups that conduct suicide bombings. I don't know for sure if Hizbollah (Iranian backed) conducts suicide bombings, or if they merely fight guerrilla style, but I do remember hearing a news report of Iranians lining up to be suicide bombers for a certain conflict.

I don't know whether this would carry over with nukes, but I don't feel it wise to trust nukes to a culture that seems so enthusiastic about killing themselves so long as they kill their enemies as well. They say they'll go to heaven. People who believe in heaven will do whatever it takes to get into heaven, and if they believed nuking the US would get them into heaven... Well, who can say?

Mutually insured destruction is no sure deterent with those who want to die while killing their enemies.

[Freenhult]

Quite frankly, I don't see anything instricntly immoral about nukes. Nuking a major population center would be wrong - but so would firebombing it, or killing all those people with other conventional explosives.

Your right Nuke. It isn't the best or most popular option. But not like the US has to be the only one dropping nukes here. No reason why NATO can't be the big kids on the street and all do it. No matter what we do, the terrorists will win. The next major war won't be country vs. country. We're building up to Islam vs. Everything. There will be a major war again. Its unavoidable at this point. And I don't see what we could do to lessen it.

And... I seriously doubt that N. Korea would use their nukes. They want things...and nuking isn't going to help them any. Me and Rudder were talking about this last night. He doubt they ever would.

Mutually insured destruction is no sure deterent with those who want to die while killing their enemies.

Good point...

[Arthus]

they might if the U.S. backs them into a corner. Desperate people do desperate things.

[Gen. Volkov]

Wow... a discussion on the Iraq body count turns to nuking Iran. Good to see I'm not the only person who thinks Iraq has been blown all out of proportion though.

Afghanistan's recent developments are troubling, but overall I think the situation there is under control. The Taliban certainly hasn't toppled the new Afghani government yet. And it's a different Taliban than the one we knocked out of power. Plus, we have the Afghani's themselves helping us out. About opium, well what else are you going to export? It's not like Afghanistan is blessed with natural resources.

Personally I would like to see the Iran nuclear issue resolved peacefully, and if that can't be done I'd like to see convential strikes on their nuclear production sites, and only if those fail would I support a tactical nuclear strike. Nuclear weapons are not to be used lightly, if at all. They are, bar none, the most terrible weapons ever devised by the human mind. Not just for their horrifying destructive power(which is nowadays well past destroying cities, a big bomb can take out whole states), but for the aftereffects. The Iranians don't even have to build a nuclear weapon to hurt us, the residues from weapons grade uranium production is enough to make an entire city radioactive for decades. All they have to do is get a chunk of plastic explosive, encase it in radioactive material, and you have a dirty bomb that could kill several million people. A nuclear Iran is a very bad thing. So in short, I hope I live my whole life never seeing a nuclear weapon detonated in anger.

N.Korea would probably not use their nukes unless they had no other option. (if they even have any, which is still debatable, given that the only evidence we have is their claim)

You all have made very cogent points though, this is just my two cents.

[Ruddertail]

Meh, just to be clear, I'm not advocating nukes as the first option, or anything. Peaceful solution > Conventional attack > Nuclear attack.

However, if the only way to stop Iran from nuking us was to nuke them, I'd do it. If it were the only way to stop Iran from acquireing nukes, I'd seriously consider it.

Yes, I doubt N. Korea would do anything. They, like the majority of the world, don't seem to enjoy dying whether their enemies die or not. So long as they have another option, I doubt they'll actually launch a nuke strike.

If, indeed, they have one. I wouldn't necessarilly take their word for it.

[Arthus]

Yes, they wouldn't attack with nukes unless maybe, iunno, the U.S. declares war on them. that might maybe push them into it. And along the lines of them having nuclear weapons, its quite possible. the U.S. said in a speech that it considered Iraq and North korea part of the circle of darkness or something to that effect, dont quote me on the exact words used but the meaning is the same. they then procceeded in invading Iraq, N.K. has a damn good reason for being scared of getting invaded. the U.S. isnt exactly being very diplomatic.

[Ruddertail]

I strongly disagree. If they wouldn't use nukes unless invaded, I don't think people would be worrying half as much as they are.

But the problem is, they seem to want us dead. Their leader says they don't, but, meh, I'm sure Hitler wasn't exactly open about plans to invade Europe, either.

They sponsor terrorism. They want to whipe Isreal off the face of the planet, and it seems they're more then happy to take the US with it. What's the chance that, if they have nukes, the won't either nuke us or give the stuff to Hezbollah or some other terrorist group? Not very high, in my opinion. Not high enough that I'm willing to chance it.

[Gen. Volkov]

I think you two are now talking about 2 different countries...

[The Beatles]

Such a load of bollocks in this thread.

1. On nukes as different from other weapons. I don't see how. There's little effective defences against a cruise missile too (though they can be damaged by fire), so your argument collapses, Rudder. There is nothing inherently different about nuclear weapons, they're just a big physics and bio package rolled into a small device.

2. There are tons of ways to destroy nuclear installations. A rather attractive one is the "hammer" method, in which you drop a tungsten rod on a target from orbit. The great acceleration causes a nuke-like explosion. Or you just bomb it conventionally. Hell, the Brits had the Grand Slam bomb in 1944, IIRC. Nothing more required.

3. It wouldn't be the US bombing Iran anyway, but probably Israel.

4. Do you really think NATO would back the US in a tactical nuclear strike when the US has thumbed its nose at the UN and grumbled about NATO?

5. A nuke is a PR suicide (as well it should be). People remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and always will. As Nuke said, that's about the worst thing that could be done. Even with the best intentions, it can be twisted. Hell, half the US doesn't have confidence in their own president, and his approval rating outside the US is terrible. There is always a solution using conventional weapons. It may be expensive, but a nuke strike is more expensive in the long run with the PR implications. It's a simple calculation.

6. Star Wars was never finished because there was no need for it. You bet that if the need arises it will be developed. But there are other, more proactive defences, which for example Israel is pursuing.

I may have missed some points here and there, pardon me.

[Gen. Volkov]

1. But a cruise missile can't obliterate who cities, let alone states, like a nuke can. You are right that a nuke is just big bomb with harmful biological properties other than the explosion itself, but considering that there is no other bomb that does that, I don't see how you can say that the nuke is not different from any other weapon. If it wasn't different, then there should be a) nothing wrong with using it and no reason to make a distinction between a nuclear strike and a conventional one. As to the little effective defenses argument.. that was a little weak, but he had a point, the progress of weapons and defense against them has been pretty even up until the invention of the nuclear bomb. The only way to effectively defend against one is to shoot it down in flight, or shoot down the bomber carrying it. Cruise missiles where orginally developed as a method of delivering nuclear weapons. Once again, the only effective defense is to shoot it down in mid flight. You simply can't shield against a nuclear blast. Cheyenne Mountain was obsolete before it was even completed. (But cruise missiles can be shot down in flight, the F-14 Tomcat and the Pheonix missile were developed specifically to counter this threat.)

2. Unless the nuclear installations are buried underground in hardened bunkers. The Grand Slam might not be effective against them, and the tungsten rod method is impractical at best. The acceleration would be the same as it would be for any other falling body, once it hit the atmosphere. By the time it impacted the ground, it would hardly be carrying enough energy to penetrate more than a few feet. Now if you could somehow direct an asteroid (small one, like the size of a dump truck) to land on that spot, it would be carrying orbital velocities and a large mass, which might be enough, but just dropping a tungsten rod from orbit would do very little. You'd need some sort of hyperaccelerator to get the effect you are talking about.

3. You mean like the Iraq strike? Maybe, but I wouldn't discount the US from the strike picture, it has a bunch of F-18's station on and island in the Gulf, and at least one aircraft carrier in the vicinity at all times.

4. No. You are perfectly correct here, though NATO is helping out in Afghanistan, them backing a nuclear strike is not gonna happen.

5. Once again, you are correct, which is what I pointed out above, I would support a nuclear strike only if all other options had been exhausted (And all convential weapons had failed) and the Iranians were within days of getting their first nuclear weapon.

6. Star Wars is still being developed, just alot more quietly this time. The reason for all the hoopla with the first run at Star Wars was to impress the Soviet Union, and goad them into spending even more money on their military. By the time they collapsed, fully 40% of their national budget went to military endeavours. It was one of the largest contributing factors to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Ruddertail]

Oh, yeah. I guess Arty was talking about N. Korea... For some reason, I thought he meant Iran. Oh, well...

Meh, I'd reply point by point to what Beatles said, but I'd basically just be copying Volkov's points, so I won't bother.

[The Beatles]

1. Yes, there is. Stick some anthrax in a Grand Slam and bingo. The only difference, which does exist, is the one of public perception. Hence my points.

2. Wrong about the tungsten rods. Read up on them on the internet. I forget the name, maybe "Hammer of Thor" or something. It is actually feasible. Trick is that a rod has very little air drag.

(AGREED) 3. Precisely. Well, the US supplied Israel with the materiel for most of its army and air force anyway, so of course they'd be the part. Just not overtly, which is all that matters in the PR war.

(AGREED) 4. Is the UN helping in Afghanistan as well? Because they did agree with that IIRC. Just curious.

(AGREED) 5.-6. As you said.

Great that we agree on most points. Just the first two to work out. =D

[Gen. Volkov]

1. Well more like stick anthrax in a MOAB, since the Grand Slam was built to penetrate the ground and set up earthquake-like shock waves. But even a very large explosion releasing chemical or biological agents would just not be as bad a large nuke. Say someone detonates a 25 megaton device somewhere. The total obliteration part of the blast pattern's radius would reach to 6.7 miles. The next level down still sees bascially everything destroyed, and that has a radius of 10.7 miles, the heavy destruction, say comparable to an f5 tornado, has a radius of 20 miles. The last ring is comparable to an f2 tornado, and it stretches to 30.4 miles in radius. And that's only 1/8 of the size of the biggest nukes. The biggest known nukes ever built were in the range of 200 megatons. That would have a blast pattern encompassing most of Illinois, alot of Indiana, some of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa, if dropped on Chicago. That's a death toll in the tens of millions. Compared to maybe a million people getting sick, max from an anthrax bomb, and of those not all would die. The intial blast itself would kill more than everyone who died in the anthrax attack, let's not forget the fallout and secondary radiation effects. Nuclear weapons are MUCH MUCH worse than biological ones, but biological ones are easier to employ, and can have an effect all out of proportion to the actual death toll. Besides, these are both WMD's both of which are classified differently from convential weapons.

2. Ah, I see, looked it up, still doesn't look very feasible to me to send an indeterminate number of big, 1 foot diameter, 20 foot long heavy as hell rods up into space. And I don't see where they are getting 36,000 feet per second from, they would enter at orbital velocity, which is like 17,000 feet per second or so. It might actually work if they are aerodynamically shaped and have little air resistance, but the practicalities of the system don't seem very good at the moment, especially in the absence of a heavy lift vehicle that can lift that many tons of tungsten.

[bjornredtail]

Large bombs are simply not pactaical. Ane the largest was designed to yeild 100 Megatons, not 200. In testing it did only 50 megatons. http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Russia/TsarBomba.html