[FastCoyote]

"Well now. Such weapons would be used only after a nuclear attack on the US. They are meant to deter by telling Kim Jong Il and the Iranian mullahs that they can't shoot and then hide -- they WILL be incinerated in their bunkers."

Actually, you would use nuke bunker busters preemptively on buried wmd (nuke, bio, and chem).Since these are below-ground detonations, fallout would be minimal or nil, taking them out of the category of being genocidal or environmentally disruptive. In other words, they are defensive pure war weapons which do not affect civilian populations and are therefore "moral" weapons.

Kerry's position on bunker busters is bizarre and he should be hammered over the head with this one. Even if Bush lost the debate (I think draw), this issue was well worth it.

[jimbo123]

What about Kerry's plan to send nuclear fuel to the mullahs in Iran?

[Lee Shore]

Actually, you would use nuke bunker busters preemptively on buried wmd (nuke, bio, and chem).

Realistically, Coyote, no president would EVER use nukes except in retaliation for a nuclear attack on us or our closest allies. It just wouldn't be done.