[Psycho_Bunny]

"physicist and public policy professor at the University of Maryland who worked in the Defense Department under Clinton."

"Princeton University physicist and arms-control specialist"

Ya.....credible sources.

What a stupid article. Nukes could take out most of the worlds bunkers. Only places built like Colorado Springs could survive direct nuclear arms.

And comparing a man-made, super-reinforced bunker to a cave is flat-asinine. The author's a liberal shill.

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

Not trying to pick on you, but do you have expertise in this area (physics, geology and weaponry), or are you simply an arm chair expert?

[Dan Day]

What a stupid article. Nukes could take out most of the worlds bunkers. Only places built like Colorado Springs could survive direct nuclear arms.

Now wait a minute... The article was clearly discussing how effective nuclear weapons would be in Iraq *given certain constraints* which are likely to be the case.

Sure, you can crack just about anything by repeated application of 50 megaton H-bombs... But the side-effects are going to be a bitch (like giving most of Turkey radiation sickness).

The point of the article is that if we *did* use nukes as bunker-busters in Iraq, they'd have to be smallish ones, and they'd have to be applied deep enough underground to minimize long-range fallout. Given the reality of our situation there (we're interested in keeping civilian casualties to a minimum), that's understandable.