[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by Sarge

I agree with the above statement. I also agree that Obamas mouth smells like tough actin' tinactin (even though I beleive I understand why he said it). He knows when he was being totally honest with his first response that people would criticize and he started making a second response, well it was too late for all of that.
BUT do all of you nuclear supporters honestly believe that just because we have nuclear bombs that stops us from being attacked by islamist terrorist (IT)? I say IT because that was the question posed at Obama. What happens when Iran gets its nukes, what then? How will we deal with Syria lets say or even worse, with Iran? Middle East policy will change dramatically Im sure.

So if I may ask this one question..in what situation would any of you be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden?

I would have been willing and prepared to use nuclear weapons against him when he was back in the mountains. (may still be, don't know) Civilian casualties would have been minimal, if any. I'd never be willing to use them specifically for bin Laden in any sort of populated area. As far as the mountains go, a nuclear bomb could be dropped and no one would ever know about it.

Now that I answered your question, let me throw you a theory. This may seem far fetched, but I really think it's possible. What if we already captured bin Laden? What if we captured him, and it just hasn't been released because of the ensuing uproar from his followers. Just a thought.

Edited for typos

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by Sarge

With or without the permission of our allies?

Tack this on to my last post...without permission from our allies...except maybe Britain. It would have to be completely covert.

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Bunker busters do not produce fallout or visible destruction. They are designed to break bunkers underground that would otherwise be impregnable.

Imrippinit-

You aren't entirely correct here. Bunker busters do produce visible destruction. The amount of said visible destruction varies. If the target is deep underground, the visible destruction is minimal. But the more shallow, the more visible. It also depends on the substance through which the bomb enters...e.g. sand or concrete.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by ckphilli

I would have been willing and prepared to use nuclear weapons against him when he was back in the mountains. (may still be, don't know) Civilian casualties would have been minimal, if any. I'd never be willing to use them specifically for bin Laden in any sort of populated area. As far as the mountains go, a nuclear bomb could be dropped and no one would ever know about it.

A nuclear bomb dropped in a country surrounded by Iran, China, Pakistan and India and No one would know about it?

Originally Posted by ckphilli

Now that I answered your question, let me throw you a theory. This may seem far fetched, but I really think it's possible. What if we already captured bin Laden? What if we captured him, and it just hasn't been released because of the ensuing uproar from his followers. Just a thought.

Edited for typos

Ummmm yeah, thats your theory.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by ckphilli

Tack this on to my last post...without permission from our allies...except maybe Britain. It would have to be completely covert.

A covert Nuke? Do those exist? I mean, can we use a nuclear bomb and have no one know about it? Is that even possible?

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by Sarge

A nuclear bomb dropped in a country surrounded by Iran, China, Pakistan and India and No one would know about it?


Ummmm yeah, thats your theory.

It could be done, not easily, but it could be done.

And I don't honestly believe that theory, so you can save the sarcasm. Just throwing it out there for discussion.

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by Sarge

A covert Nuke? Do those exist? I mean, can we use a nuclear bomb and have no one know about it? Is that even possible?

They might. I don't know all the ins and outs. But I do think a lot of folks have a misconception that all nuclear bombs produce the same devastation as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Again, I don't know. Maybe I shouldn't have even brought this up because I can't back it in any way.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by ckphilli

It could be done, not easily, but it could be done.

And I don't honestly believe that theory, so you can save the sarcasm. Just throwing it out there for discussion.

lol...my bad, I just couldnt resist.

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by Sarge

lol...my bad, I just couldnt resist.

No big, it is pretty absurd when you think about it. I mean, G.W. couldn't possibly keep the secret.

[Wino]

Originally Posted by ckphilli

No big, it is pretty absurd when you think about it. I mean, G.W. couldn't possibly keep the secret.

No fear............Cheney would never tell him.

Run a sub up the Ganges, launch a nuke into Pakistan. Blame it on the Indians. Pakistan retaliates. USA kills three birds with one stone. Taliban/Osama, Pakistan & India (no more out sourcing there.) Wouldn't surprise me if Rove/Cheney haven't already proposed this.

[ckphilli]

Originally Posted by Wino

No fear............Cheney would never tell him.

Run a sub up the Ganges, launch a nuke into Pakistan. Blame it on the Indians. Pakistan retaliates. USA kills three birds with one stone. Taliban/Osama, Pakistan & India (no more out sourcing there.) Wouldn't surprise me if Rove/Cheney haven't already proposed this.

I wouldn't be surprised either. Scary thought...

[bassetman]

Originally Posted by LANMaster

Pakistan Criticizes Obama on Comments



More

D'OH!

If Bush had done it, you'd be applauding it!

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by Sarge

Yes but the original question involved Nuclear weapons. Assuming conventional NW. Im simply posing the same question to TSG members as the one that was asked to Obama. Id like to read some of the responses. So far you are the only one who responded. Where are all of the members with all the "right" answers?

Most would agree that tactical nuclear bunker busters are nuclear weapons. Obama said nuclear weapons. That is part of the problem with his statement. No president should ever say that nuclear weapons, without any qualification, are off the table. That's stupid.

[imrippinit]

Originally Posted by ckphilli

Imrippinit-

You aren't entirely correct here. Bunker busters do produce visible destruction. The amount of said visible destruction varies. If the target is deep underground, the visible destruction is minimal. But the more shallow, the more visible. It also depends on the substance through which the bomb enters...e.g. sand or concrete.

I will back up a little and say that tactical nuclear bunker busters may only cause limited visible damage without any fallout. Depending on their size and how deep they are used there may be no visible damage.

[Sarge]

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Most would agree that tactical nuclear bunker busters are nuclear weapons. Obama said nuclear weapons. That is part of the problem with his statement. No president should ever say that nuclear weapons, without any qualification, are off the table. That's stupid.

There were no specifics to the question about the nukes. You had a couple of days to think about it and respond and even your answer sounds, well...

Originally Posted by imrippinit

That's stupid.

Question: Would you be prepared or willing to use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan to defeat terrorism and al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden?
Answer by imrippinit:

I would use nuclear weapons in Afghanistan and Pakistan only for...

Originally Posted by imrippinit

Tactical destruction of deep caves or hardened bunkers.

but of course

Originally Posted by imrippinit

I would say that it is very important that the allies of countries where bunker busters were to be used be on board, publicly or privately.

and we most

Originally Posted by imrippinit

likely need to remain as quiet as possible..

about the entire operation.


Come on guy. Think about that.