Posted on 08/03/2016 7:57:25 AM PDT by DCBryan1
I’ll disagree on one point: I think the expertise could be reconstituted in a decade. The knowledge that a thing has been done is powerful. But it would be expensive, and would require great political support from both the President and a majority in Congress.
Hayden lied to the Congress right on TV, what makes anyone think he’s not lying now?
“Not sure how “simple” the MOAB or bunker buster is”
Bunker Buster is a perpetrator, it is not a surface detonation device. Most people think of the “bunker buster” as the GBU-28, which we have and it is, but the most recent bunker buster is the GBU-57. . . amazing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WlaIl9J14H4
MOAB is not a perpetrator, it is an area surface detonation device and is filled with an explosive compound, not a “poof” flash-burn FA or napalm mixture.
Both are relatively simple when compared to nukes, but they are simply not even close to the smallest nuke when it comes to blast effects.
I agree. Mr. Trump is our only hope in this election, and he needs to keep his image blameless.
The only thing he needs to do is expose his opponent as the reason for problems in the middle east, creation of ISIS, crony capitalist who wrecked the economy and middle class all for gross personal gain.
He’s got to watch his mouth and message.
He would do well to emulate Reagan and Putin when it comes to presidential style - Be Strong, stay on message, be discrete, subtle humor and tone.
Three months to go...
RE: “Not the smartest thing to say in a close election, IMHO. I don’t disagree with the question, but most of the voters will have visions of Hiroshima & Nagasaki in their heads.”
Yes. . .upon reflection, agree.
I’m thinking that was James Clapper, no?
I’m not remembering the Hayden incident.
I suspect the “unnamed source” is going to be very busy commenting on Trump “unfitness to serve as POS”.
WHich is funny, and sad at the same time, when you consider ibama’s and shillary’s fitness to be anything other than professional sh*t disturbers.
[ Good question. Why can’t we use low yield nukes? 1-10kt neutron bombs would be great on ISIS strongholds. I’m surprised the Russians didn’t use any of their micro nukes in Syria. They probably didn’t because their thermo baric bombs are so big and effective. ]
I think we could easily use nukes and strike fear into the dark heart of ISIS if Russia and US got together and said, I’m okay if you use a nuke within this area here, and we used the damned things and blew them ISIS punks to holy hell.
Use ONE really Big one, a “cleaner” H-bomb with minimal fallout, but with such power that it leaves a nice big crater.
The short answer is that unless you are fighting an imminent threat to national survival, or the cost in human lives of not using them greatly exceeds the cost of using them, there is a general and unwritten agreement among nations to keep that particular Pandors’s Box closed.
If you nuke a city without ample justification, you alienate potential allies, and create enemies you don’t need. Whatever your objective was, you probably now will not achieve it.
US use in WWII was justified in that the likely casualties in taking the Home Islands of Japan were much more that the killed and wounded from the two atomic strikes.
Unless you confront the imminent threat of mass death from an enemy (bio, chem, or nuke). There is no moral or rational reason to use them. We deter our enemies to keep from killing millions.
ISIS/ISIL for all the threat they pose, can be defeated with conventional forces. Our issue is that the current administration lacks the will to do so.
Can’t Trump have a PRIVATE conversation with anyone?
If they do, then they have no concept of modern fusion weapons. The Hiroshima & Nagasaki bombs were tiny compared to the explosive force of modern fusion bombs.
“I PAID for them Use them”
I have been saying this for many damn years. I paid for those aircraft carriers, smart bombs, F-15 etc. Use those mofos or dont make them at all. Destroy our enemies and get it over with.
False premise. City-busting is not, and need not be, under discussion. That's a very 1950s argument.
See, Trump can’t win. If he doesn’t ask questions, he’s “stupid” and “has no inquisitive mind.” If he does ask, he’s “dangerous.”
The fundamental question is EXACTLY correct: if we have them, why? If they are not ever to be used, why have them? Under what circumstances DO we use them?
It’s a perfectly reasonable question.
Why do we have, and pay for weapons that can’t be used? One might question why the Obama administration just authorized the upgrade of our existing oldest B61 atomic weapons at a cost of upward of $1T. Why are we paying for weapons we can’t use? Why provide a fat contract to upgrade them? A Trillion dollars buys a lot of conventional weapons.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-08-02/us-begins-upgrading-its-nuclear-bomb-arsenal
Good afternoon.
Slightly off topic...
I posted to this forum on 9/12/2012:
We should nuke Mecca, Medina and Qom.
If we had done so, there would be no ISIS, al-queda, al-nassaria, etc. today.
5.56mm
Exactly.
Thanks!
The first thing I took a close look at and admired, at least 4 Schooners!
Wish I was aboard any one of them.
***I PAID for them Use them***
Exactly. And I can’t think of anyone more deserving than Isis, and the home of all Sunni terrorists, Saudi Arabia.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.