Freep this Poll - Should American develop Bunker-Busting Nuclear weapons?

The Sun-Sentinel ^ | 6/13/03 | Sun-Sentinel

[prophetic]

POLL President Bush wants to develop nuclear "bunker-buster" bombs and "mini-nukes" that could be unleashed on smaller targets. Is this a good idea?

No. Developing smaller nukes makes it more likely that these horrific weapons will be used again in war. Yes. The U.S. military wouldn't use these weapons except in a desperate situation, but it needs to be prepared.

[prophetic]

So while the terrorists and their patron state sponsors are merrily arming themselves to kill & maim innocent Americans, the debate emerges that we (the good guys) should limit ourselves and NOT develop any sort of weapons (especially not nuclear!!) that can effectively reach into the hiding places that they would prefer to hide in.

Its times like these that we can clearly see how: a) we've become very complacent in our security b) how being 'liberal' means just closing your eyes and thinking 'happy happy thoughts' will make all dangers just disappear. There is no need for a military because we're all one just big happy family of humanity; esp under the "honorable" United Nations flag...

I say make a LOT of them - say at least 20,000 in a minumun of 20KT yield.
Heck, Russia has at least that many tactical nukes and God only know if they have dismantled even 10% of them.

[annyokie]

According to my sources, we already have them.

[Brad’s Gramma]

President Bush wants to develop nuclear "bunker-buster" bombs and "mini-nukes" that could be unleashed on smaller targets. Is this a good idea?

55.0%
No. Developing smaller nukes makes it more likely that these horrific weapons will be used again in war. (979 responses)

45.0%
Yes. The U.S. military wouldn't use these weapons except in a desperate situation, but it needs to be prepared. (800 responses)

1779 total responses

[Mo1]

Voted

[Brad’s Gramma]

Good job.

Now, how DID you vote?




(just kidding)

[genefromjersey]

Since when do we decide policies that might affect our national survival by polls ???

[Wolverine]

Bunkers busters are old news...

 

Tiny Nukes

 

The smallest probably was the 51-pound warhead used on the Davy Crockett, a battlefield bomb launched from a tripod-mounted tube.

The M29 155mm (Heavy) Davy Crockett Launcher is pictured tripod-mounted in the display photo above. The next couple photos are of the M28 120mm (Light) Launcher on it's tripod.

[Mo1]

I went for the nukes .. I like to live dangerously .. LOL

[The Magical Mischief Tour]

Hell Yes!!!

I say we build us a few planet busters while were at it!!!

Never know when those pesky aliens might show up an ruin a perfectly good 4th of July!

TMMT

[Freebird Forever]

54.3%
No (996 responses)

45.7%
Yes (837 responses)

1833 total responses

[Ten Megaton Solution]

What's wrong with using the standard W88 (approx 275 kt, if I remember correctly) on any suspected bunker we want to open? That much energy will usually open most doors. And if the hole it digs isn't deep enough, we just heave another one in. The places we're likely to be using these things are far enough away that we won't be bothered by the fallout.

Why waste taxpayer money developing a rock hammer when we already have a sledge hammer in the tool box?

[Ragtime Cowgirl]

I believe the author is incorrect. SOD Rumsfeld recently went to Capitol Hill to have a legal restriction removed re. nuclear "bunker busters" which sent the press into a careless tizzy. What SOD Rumsfeld said then and the following day was that they simply wanted to be able to study all possible weapons systems - which was prohibited.

The left-wing press knew exactly what they were doing when they printed inflammatory and dishonest stories over the following days.

There ought to be a law. There is NO news - barring imminent danger - to excuse such inaccurate reporting in the mainstream press. Unnamed sources, unverified facts, one reporter parroting the first - careless and destructive - all for a deadline? A byline? Ack.