Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
If you don't understand the immediate and long term effects of a nuclear blast including radioactivity, then at least do your homework before making any silly commentsI never made such a claim. I simply asked; why is one considered worse than the other. Care to answer that question?
They would have to outweigh the harm of a continued fire bombing campaign against Japanese cities and the pending invasion of the Japanese home islands to be the worse option.If you don't understand the immediate and long term effects of a nuclear blast including radioactivity, then at least do your homework before making any silly comments
What makes you think I don’t know about any of those things? All bombs have radiation; as far as long term effects, just weeks after the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, US military personal were in the city to inspect the damage the bombs caused and they were not wearing protective suites.If you don't understand the immediate and long term effects of a nuclear blast including radioactivity, then at least do your homework before making any silly comments
Do you remember the neutron bomb? The term “neutron bomb” first appeared in 1959 in US News & World Report, which called it a “death ray” that would kill man with streams of poisonous radiation, while leaving machines and buildings undamaged.
Well, the thing actually was a low yield tactical atomic bomb with limited blast range and extended radiation range. Property within the blast range would take damage but, post-blast, no radioactive fallout occurred. The attacked area would be radiation free within hours. A good weapon to have especially if the battlefield is on your own turf. The things exists and are in arsenals around the world.
A better weapon for mass killing w/o mass destruction maybe ... COVID-XX. Assuming, of course, you also have the vaccines safely hidden away in a vault.
If 1 nuclear bomb has the same explosive power of 1000 conventional bombs, would it make a difference if a country got rid of all of their nuclear bombs, but replaced each of them with 1000 conventional bombs and proclaimed themselves nuclear disarmed?
Considering today's technology that would not use B-29's to deliver the warheads, how is it different?Yes, it does. The difference between the 1,000-plane B-17 raids staged for years over Europe compared to the single B-29 that dropped one bomb over Hiroshima is considerable.
I never made such a claim. I simply asked; why is one considered worse than the other. Care to answer that question?
What makes you think I don’t know about any of those things? All bombs have radiation;
as far as long term effects, just weeks after the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, US military personal were in the city to inspect the damage the bombs caused and they were not wearing protective suites.
Would clean nuclear bombs with less radiation be acceptable to you? Or do you just have a problem with the blast? If just the blast, how is that different than an equal blast from conventional weapons?
Not according to published reports. The DoD wanted and got 700 such weapons in 1981 under Reagan. However, political blow-back from NATO allies -- "not in our backyard" -- canceled deployment.Actually, the DoD rejected the "neutron bomb" as a useful battlefield weapon.
Not according to published reports. The DoD wanted and got 700 such weapons in 1981 under Reagan. However, political blow-back from NATO allies -- "not in our backyard" -- canceled deployment.
Neutron Bomb / Enhanced Radiation Weapons
In 1981, President Ronald Reagan ordered 700 neutron warheads built to oppose Soviet tank forces in Europe. ... But deployment to the North Atlantic alliance was canceled after a storm of antinuclear protests across Europe. President George Bush ordered the stockpile scrapped.
Third generation nuclear weapons are “tailored” or “enhanced” effects warheads — such as the Enhanced, Suppressed, and Induced Radiation Warheads (ERW, SRW, IRW), the Reduced Residual Radioactivity (RRR) or Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) bombs, Hot X-ray devices for antiballistic missile (ABM) systems, “clean” explosives for possible use in peaceful activities — or nuclear-driven “directed energy” devices. For the most part, these ideas never became part of a third generation of nuclear explosives because they never found any truly convincing civilian or military use.
I think not:But you'll notice in your link that there is precocious little mention of the uniformed military stating prospective uses for it.
I think not:
On 24 June, Post readers learned that "The Pentagon is proceeding in great secrecy to produce neutron 'killer' shells for its nuclear artillery forces in Europe." On 25 June, the Post headlined an article: "Pentagon Wanted Secrecy on Neutron Bomb Production." In a follow-up article on 01 July, the Post, following a lead from the Pentagon, now referred to the warhead as an "enhanced radiation weapon" and quoted freely from an Army publication to graphically describe how radiation kills. ...
In effect, there followed a complete halt to the ER warhead development for one year. Regardless of the problems and frustrations this stoppage caused both the Departments of Defense and Energy ... President Carter's three principal foreign- policy advisers — Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, Secretary of Defense Harold Brown and National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski — all urged production. ...
I keep pointing to published articles. The publishing of classified documents is illegal. Do you have any reports on generals at the time disagreeing with the use of tactical nukes?Did you notice I said "uniformed military?" You keep pointing to politicians. Do you have a report of any generals speaking before Congress for the neutron warhead?
Are you honestly telling everyone there you don't see a problem with a nuclear, nor a problem with the tests done in Pacific waters, nor the radiation dispersed flowing US atomic attacks on those civilian cities. That being the case then your attitude and others similar to yours is why the world is under threat from nations such as yoursWhat makes you think I don’t know about any of those things? All bombs have radiation; as far as long term effects, just weeks after the bomb was dropped on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, US military personal were in the city to inspect the damage the bombs caused and they were not wearing protective suites.
Would clean nuclear bombs with less radiation be acceptable to you? Or do you just have a problem with the blast? If just the blast, how is that different than an equal blast from conventional weapons?
All bombs emit heat and light that dissipate within moments. But not ionizing radiation.
The effects of radiation were poorly known at the time. A good many of those troops later died of cancer.
Equivalent conventional destruction, even today, would require a massive military undertaking that would take literally days to weeks to accomplish. A lot of diplomacy can occur in that time.
One is considerably easier to do than the other.
I never gave my opinion on this issue, I simply asked for yours.Are you honestly telling everyone there you don't see a problem with a nuclear, nor a problem with the tests done in Pacific waters, nor the radiation dispersed flowing US atomic attacks on those civilian cities. That being the case then your attitude and others similar to yours is why the world is under threat from nations such as yours
When the USA used the MOAB in Afghanistan, that was considered the most powerful conventional bomb blast ever used in war. There are some bigger, but they haven’t been used in war. With a blast yield of 11 tons of TNT it would take around 1000 of them to equal what was dropped on Hiroshima. I doubt it would take days or even weeks for the US military to deliver 1000 bombs, however assuming it does; is this your objection to use of Nuclear weapons over conventional weapons? That it is easier to kill people? Conventional bombs make it easier to kill than guns; guns easier to kill than knives; I guess it all depends on where you draw the line.
The 'Mother of All Bombs' (MOAB) has been dropped on Afghanistan. Here's what it does (and doesn't) meanThe MOAB was not 11 tons of TNT. The MOAB is an air-burst anti-personnel weapon designed for military forces out in the open or only lightly sheltered. It's considered mostly a weapon of intimidation.
The 'Mother of All Bombs' (MOAB) has been dropped on Afghanistan. Here's what it does (and doesn't) mean
GBU-43/B MOAB - Wikipedia.
These sources suggest that it is 11 tons of TNT
The basic principle resembles that of the BLU-82 Daisy Cutter, which was used to clear heavily wooded areas in the Vietnam War. Decades later, the BLU-82 was used in Afghanistan in November 2001[5] against the Taliban. Its success as a weapon of intimidation led to the decision to develop the MOAB. Pentagon officials suggested MOAB might be used as an anti-personnel weapon, as part of the "shock and awe" strategy integral to the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[6]
...
The MOAB is not a penetrator weapon and is primarily an air burst bomb intended for soft to medium surface targets covering extended areas and targets in a contained environment such as a deep canyon or within a cave system.[7] High altitude carpet-bombing with much smaller 230-to-910-kilogram (500 to 2,000 lb) bombs delivered via heavy bombers such as the B-52, B-2, or the B-1 is also highly effective at covering large areas.[8]
The MOAB is designed to be used against a specific target, and cannot by itself replicate the effects of a typical heavy bomber mission. During the Vietnam War's Operation Arc Light program, for example, the United States Air Force sent B-52s on well over 10,000 bombing raids, each usually carried out by two groups of three aircraft. A typical mission dropped 168 tons of ordnance, pounding an area 1.5 by 0.5 miles with an explosive force equivalent to 10 to 17 MOABs.[9][10][11]
No I wasn 't suggesting only that bomb to replace nuclear weapons, I was suggesting they have the technology to build a bunch of bombs with enough firepower to replace a nuclear weaponClearly you didn't actually read the entire article if you think it would replace a nuclear weapon.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?