U.S. reprisal to be 'annihilation'

Washington Times ^ | 9/09/02 | Joyce Howard Price

[kattracks]

Vice President Richard B. Cheney said yesterday that Saddam Hussein is "actively and aggressively" trying to build a nuclear bomb, and two key senators disclosed that U.S. officials have warned the Iraqi dictator that he and his country face "annihilation" if he deploys a weapon of mass destruction.

[Southack]

"You need 10-20 bright, resourcefull people and perhaps 50-100 million bucks. ... Its all about bang for the buck."

Oh please. IF you were correct and it was ALL about bang for the buck, then terrorists would simply be using conventional explosives. Consider: The destructive power of the Daisy Cutter is equal to about 12,600 pounds of TNT. 2,400 Daisy Cutters would get you one Hiroshima-sized blast (14.5KT).

A Daisy Cutter costs $27,000 each. Thus, one could get the same explosion as a nuke for $64.8 Million worth of Daisy Cutters, with ZERO risk that your investment in "research" would fail to fission (which is obviously at risk if one pursues the nuke angle).

And Daisy Cutters can be built by almost every Third World country.

[AdamSelene235]

Oh please. IF you were correct and it was ALL about bang for the buck, then terrorists would simply be using conventional explosives.The destructive power of the Daisy Cutter is equal to about 12,600 pounds of TNT. 2,400 Daisy Cutters would get you one Hiroshima-sized blast (14.5KT).

Somehow, I think we would notice if you tried to smuggle 2,400 Daisy Cutters into NYC.

[Southack]

"Somehow, I think we would notice if you tried to smuggle 2,400 Daisy Cutters into NYC."

And that is why it isn't "all about the bang for the buck"...

[AdamSelene235]

And that is why it isn't "all about the bang for the buck"...

A weapon isn't a weapon unless you can deliver it. Delivery costs bucks. No delivery, no bang, no bang for the buck.

Why are you being deliberately obtuse and playing semantic games?

[cake_crumb]

"Nonsense. Bio's are useless as weapons of war, more complicated to work with than U-235 gun-type nukes, and far less dangerous"

I'm more worried about Saddam's favorite toys, the chemical coctails which he has proven effective on his own citizens. In addition, I cannot help but wonder if he has aquired a fully funtional, "lost" warhead. Even if he can't aquire a nuke, he still has the chemical weapons.

Bios are nonsense, you're right...they are too untrustworthy and can kill the hopeful invador with the same impugnity as they could kill any of us...in addition, there's the problem with wind current, natural immunity, chemically induced immunity, etc.

West Nile, BTW isn't a bioweapon. It WILL kill...but it was a simple importation of a certain desease dure to our habit of global travel, and though a few Islamic nutballs were drooling about the possibility of how it might kill off all the evil infidels of the Great Satan, it mutated into a less virulent form (another reason bios are a bad weapon). Still, it was only brought to this country by chance, not intent. The people who get all panicky about West Nile get on my nerves too....even though I DID come down with a more virulent strain which nearly killed me, though I'm neither particularly old nor weak.

[Southack]

All that I'm doing is debunking your needless fear and panic that you've got yourself overwhelmed by.

Nukes aren't easy to make, and not just any nation can build them. Nukes aren't easy to deliver, and not just everyone is going to be able to get them through our defenses.

Some conventional weapons can be delivered, however, and they can be built by multiple third-world nations. We'll probably see a few of them here before all of the dust settles, simply due to costs, timing, and the low technical abilities of our enemies. Those attacks and a few bio scares will probably cause a few more people to emulate your sky-is-falling attitude, but little more.

[Southack]

"I'm more worried about Saddam's favorite toys, the chemical coctails which he has proven effective on his own citizens."

Considering that our air force rules the world's skies, there is very little chance of chemical weapons being delivered against us in large quantities.

[cake_crumb]

"Considering that our air force rules the world's skies, there is very little chance of chemical weapons being delivered against us in large quantities."

Air isn't the only way to deliver. You are thinking conventionally, which is understandable since you're not a psychopath as far as I can tell. However, you are not thinking low-tech enough. That's a big problem with trying to anticipate and preempt an enemy of this type: when all is said and done, they are a primitive culture, and on top of THAT, they are NOT Western. No matter how Westernized Iraq might become, they will never - CAN never - BE Western. They think differently, and every act of war is steeped in magic. I know it's hard to believe, but it's how these people think.

[Southack]

"They think differently, and every act of war is steeped in magic. I know it's hard to believe, but it's how these people think."

I'm not impressed with how they think. They've invented nothing and contributed nothing to society or technology for centuries. Magic won't win wars or even battles for them, either. If they can't control their own skies, then they can't control ours, and the air is the best way to aerosol-dispurse chemical attacks. All other methods are innefficient.

[AdamSelene235]

All that I'm doing is debunking your needless fear and panic that you've got yourself overwhelmed by.

Tries to experience panic and fear..... Fails.

Nukes aren't easy to make, and not just any nation can build them. Nukes aren't easy to deliver, and not just everyone is going to be able to get them through our defenses.

America was able to make them in the 1940's. Compared to now we were a 3rd world country then. No interstates, 3rd world financial instability, etc.

We are light years from the 1940's now but many other nations are just now reaching that level of technical ability.

[cake_crumb]

"I'm not impressed with how they think."

Heck, me either. That point I was trying to make is that they think in ways alien to us. That is a fact we MUST keep in mind, in order to anticipate and preemt the enemy. I'm not going with the hysteria crowd. My predictions, based upon cultural anthropology and set behavioral patterns, have never been wrong though...I'm not impressed...but I AM on the right track.

I'm logging off for the night. Have a good evening, and know I have always injoyed your posts. You're smart and intuitive.

[Let's Roll]

Iran.

[Southack]

"Compared to now we were a 3rd world country then. No interstates, 3rd world financial instability, etc."

Nonsense. The U.S. had national rail service, a fully-connected telephone and telegraph grid, the planet's leading banking system, the planet's leading cryptographers, computer scientists, nuclear physicists, aeronautical engineers, machinists, commercial farmers, stock market, port system, canal system, research institutions, R&D funding, and overall a great educational system at the collegiate level even back then.

And your craven fear about our banking system collapsing either then or now truly isn't manly or realistic.

What makes you fear the world so much? Didn't Howard Hughes gradually grow ever-more fearful as he withdrew from society? Don't make his mistake.

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

The answer should be annihilation regardless.

[AdamSelene235]

Nonsense. The U.S. had national rail service, a fully-connected telephone and telegraph grid, the planet's leading banking system, the planet's leading cryptographers, computer scientists, nuclear physicists, aeronautical engineers, machinists, commercial farmers, stock market, port system, canal system, research institutions, R&D funding, and overall a great educational system at the collegiate level even back then.

I wasn't comparing the US to the rest of the world at that time, I was contrasting it with modern America.

Let me get this straight, are you arguing that the rest of the developing world will never be able to rival US technology in the 1940's ?

And your craven fear about our banking system collapsing either then or now truly isn't manly or realistic.

There isn't much I fear, Southack, financial turmoil isn't even close to making the list. It does annoy me that there isn't any stability analysis I can do on the world's financial markets. I do think folks like Soros have good points regarding cumulative financial instability in the "system". As an experimentalist, I say you have to shock them to find out.

What makes you fear the world so much? Didn't Howard Hughes gradually grow ever-more fearful as he withdrew from society? Don't make his mistake.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm not living in fear. I'm simply speculating on the future of military technology.

If it was the 19th century, and I was telling you the Africans would one day have Gatling guns, I don't see why I should be considered "fearful".

[Southack]

"Let me get this straight, are you arguing that the rest of the developing world will never be able to rival US technology in the 1940's ?"

Never? No, I wouldn't say that they will "never" reach our 1940's level.

But I don't really see so-called "developing" nations doing any development. A few of them can sell raw minerals and use that cash to buy ready-made devices, but I'm not seeing very many manufacturing or research projects being set up in the Middle-East, South-East Asia, Persia, or Africa.

The levels of disease, poverty, and starvation in the Third-World don't seem to be any better, and in several nations are decidedly worse, than what those same countries had 50 years ago. Going backwards is not going to get them to 1940's era U.S. levels anytime soon, either.

Perhaps someday at least one other nation will rise to the level of technical prowess demonstrated by the U.S. back in 1969 when we landed Men on the Moon, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen anytime soon. Someday, sure. Not never, but not anytime soon.

Likewise, building nukes is achievable by 3rd world nations, but it isn't a gimme and probably won't happen very soon.

Which is good for them. After all, their societies won't survive the response to their first use of such a weapon.

[AdamSelene235]

Likewise, building nukes is achievable by 3rd world nations, but it isn't a gimme and probably won't happen very soon.

Well, we are living in a world where Kazakhstan is in the top 5 when it comes to space and bioweapons technology.

Pity they can't fix their damn railways. Kazak trains are a fate worse than death.

[A Navy Vet]

"...death is an end to the suffering."

Well, that made my day, but thanks for the link.

"The only known countries to possess VX are U.S. France and Russia."

Looks like this needs an update.

[Calamari]

Would'nt Saddam have to test his newly aquired nuke to be sure the device worked? Would we not detect a test blast that worked?

Would we not then act premptively?

[A Navy Vet]

"...air is the best way to aerosol-dispurse chemical attacks."

I just read that VX comes in liquid form also. How would that be disbursed? Maybe you should Freepmail so not to give any ideas?