1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

Bush pushing for new generation of Nuclear weapons and testing

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by underoverup, Jul 7, 2003.

Tags:
Page 2 of 2
  1. reallyBaked

    reallyBaked Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    0
    Saddam posed ZERO treat to the soverigty of the United States..there is zero evidence of him building weapons..none of his neighbors seemed to feel like they were being threatened since they weren't complaining or asking for our help. Yes his human rights record was horrible, but that was the case for 20+ years, so why now, 2003..at this , the most unstable time for our generation, does he pick to invade a country..and at the same time, LIE to the world about why he wants to? Not Smart
     
    #21 reallyBaked, Jul 7, 2003
  2. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,807
    Likes Received:
    20,465
    I understand that they may have more use, which is another reason why I don't like them. It's a bad idea to start thinking that using Nukes is ok.

    Even if our nukes are getting old, I still think terrorism is a much bigger problem, and deserves the lion's share of funding.

    I realize that no big industries make a lot of money or aren't handed big govt. contracts from that, but if it's really about national defense then that's where the priority should be.
     
    #22 FranchiseBlade, Jul 7, 2003
  3. reallyBaked

    reallyBaked Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2003
    Messages:
    362
    Likes Received:
    0

    thats the problem..its not about national defense...it IS about defense contracts..oil contracts... Haliburton gettin hugh oil contract in iraq w/o even having to bid...it is sickening.
     
    #23 reallyBaked, Jul 7, 2003
  4. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    I wish they would hurry up with these things. I would much rather throw a bunker-buster nuke at Al Qaeda's latest mountain hidey-hole than have to send in Rangers to flush them out. I'm sure those Rangers would rather have it that way, too. Let em cook real hot, I say, and let our guys come home safe.
     
    #24 treeman, Jul 7, 2003
  5. FranchiseBlade

    FranchiseBlade Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Messages:
    51,807
    Likes Received:
    20,465
    They already have bunker busters. You don't need nukes for it.
     
    #25 FranchiseBlade, Jul 7, 2003
  6. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    We don't have any bunker busters that will reliably take out an entire mountain or underground complex with one shot. Some fortresses are still totally impervious to conventional weapons, and some are just too deep, such as Libya's Tarhuna chemical weapons complex. You need a nuke for places like that. Unless, of course, you just want to storm the place with infantry...
     
    #26 treeman, Jul 7, 2003
  7. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    Those so-called bunker busters are not strong enough to penetrate some of the most deep bunkers ever made by man. We definitely need some kind of new nukes to make it easier for us to specifically target the C3 (command/control/communications) of our enemies. By showing that we can and will use small nukes to hit your leadership, no matter how deep underground they hide, most sane nations will not even think about doing, supporting, or at least hosting any attempt to hit CONUS with WMD.
     
    #27 bamaslammer, Jul 7, 2003
  8. Woofer

    Woofer Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2000
    Messages:
    3,995
    Likes Received:
    1
    The reason we need a new generation of nukes is simple, we have to show the world we are complete hypocrites. We want other nations to not develop nuclear weapons or biological weapons or chemical weapons so we refuse to sign international treaties governing the manufacture of the latter weapons and threaten any one who hints at making them. If you do manage to make one, we cower, I mean negotiate with you.
     
    #28 Woofer, Jul 8, 2003
  9. treeman

    treeman Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 1999
    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    261
    Curiously, everyone here has failed to mention the fact that these nukes are actually not weapons of mass destruction. They are not designed to inflict mass casualties or to destroy large tracts of real estate. They have no value in use against population centers, as they will not detonate above ground. They are designed to destroy single, very hard-to-destroy military targets. That is all.

    Just something for the "Oh sh*t! We're gonna nuke the fu*king world!" crowd and the "Wow, we sure are hypocrites" crowd to think about.
     
    #29 treeman, Jul 8, 2003
  10. bamaslammer

    bamaslammer Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    3,853
    Likes Received:
    4
    The problem is that your statement is without logic. Banning nuclear weapons will not ensure peace and as Iran and North Korea has shown, rogue states will develop WMD regardless of what we build or do not build. Their reasoning behind building WMD has nothing to do with what we have or develop. It is all about using WMD as a bargaining chip to improve their place on the world stage and blackmail us into concessions and money (Those little North Korean bastards are experts at this). Clinton got a deal with those little NK commie bastards to stop their nuclear program in exchange for the U.S. building a reactor that was incapable (supposedly) of production of enriched uranium and plutonium neccessary for bomb production. Of course, the little commies, like all good communists, did not keep their word and continued their program anyway. I really do wish that we could get rid of our nukes, but unilateral disarmament is not going to force others to disarm as well. If a bandit has a gun trained on you and you have a gun trained on him, are you the first idiot to lower your pistol?
     
    #30 bamaslammer, Jul 8, 2003
  11. johnheath

    johnheath Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,410
    Likes Received:
    0
    Let's see. You said that we are building up our nuclear arsenal so next time we are challenged by terrorists, we will just blow up the entire country that is providing the terrorists their safe haven.

    Do you really think that is a good point, or would you like to salvage some credibility?
    These are not answers to questions that I posed. Do you always argue like this?
     
    #31 johnheath, Jul 8, 2003
  12. underoverup

    underoverup Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2003
    Messages:
    3,208
    Likes Received:
    75
    Earth-Penetrating Weapons
    By Lisbeth Gronlund and David Wright

    Earth-Penetrating Weapons: Underlying Principles and other Technical Aspects

    An earth-penetrating warhead (EPW) is designed to hit the earth at high speed and penetrate into the ground before exploding. Such weapons can be delivered by missiles or aircraft, and are intended primarily to attack underground targets.

    However, an earth-penetrating warhead is not designed to reach targets buried deep underground and then explode. Indeed, the earth slows the warhead so quickly that it cannot penetrate very deeply. Rather, by exploding underground instead of at or above the surface, a much larger fraction of the energy of the explosion is transmitted to the ground, where it creates a strong seismic shock wave that can then propagate to and destroy or damage an underground target. Even a short penetration distance accomplishes this goal of "coupling" the energy of the explosion to the ground: penetration of a few meters increases the underground destructive effects by more than a factor of ten for a wide range of warhead yields.

    For example, exploding a 10-kiloton nuclear weapon at a depth of one meter would increase the effective yield by a factor of 20, resulting in underground damage equivalent to that of a 200-kiloton weapon exploded at the surface of the ground. But increasing the penetration depth to five meters would only increase the effective yield by an additional 60%, to 320 kilotons.

    Containment Depth
    The depth at which even a small nuclear weapon must be buried to ensure that it is "contained" —that is, that no radiation is released when it explodes—is much greater than the achievable penetration depth, so that it is impossible to prevent radioactive fallout from a nuclear EPW.

    For example, the minimum burial depth to ensure containment at the US Nevada Test Site was empirically determined, and is roughly 100 meters for a one kiloton explosion and 500 meters for a 100 kiloton explosion. In dry hard rock, the required depths would be roughly 60 meters for a one-kiloton explosion and 300 meters for a 100-kiloton explosion. These depths are far greater than what can be achieved by a penetrator.

    Current US EPW Capabilities
    The United States currently deploys both conventional and nuclear earth-penetrating weapons.
    The United States reportedly stockpiles about fifty B61-11 nuclear EPWs, which -- like the conventional alternatives -- are dropped from aircraft. This bomb was designed during the 1991 Gulf War and entered the stockpile in the late 1990s. It is a modification of the B61-7 bomb with a new casing, and reportedly has a variable yield, from 0.3 to 340 kilotons. It is shorter than the GBU-28, with a length of 3.6 meters, and has only a quarter of the mass. It reportedly can penetrate two to three meters in frozen soil.
    For a penetration depth of three meters and a yield of 0.3 kilotons, the B61-11 could destroy a target buried under roughly 15 meters of hard rock or concrete. For the same penetration depth and the maximum yield of 340 kilotons, the destruction depth would be roughly 70 meters for a hardened target.

    Plans for New Nuclear Earth-Penetrating Weapons
    In principle, a new nuclear EPW that has a greater capability to destroy deep, hardened targets than does the B61-11 could be achieved by increasing the penetration depth and/or the explosive yield. However, while a new penetrator design could increase the penetration depth somewhat, the above discussion shows that it is very unlikely that the penetration depth could be increased enough to result in a significant increase in the destructive capability of the weapon. Instead, increasing destructive capability significantly would require increasing the yield of the nuclear warhead. This appears to be what the Bush administration has in mind.


    http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/nuclear_weapons/page.cfm?pageID=777
     
    #32 underoverup, Jul 8, 2003
  13. goophers

    goophers Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2000
    Messages:
    888
    Likes Received:
    16
    On a sidebar, the 'race w/ the Nazis' was vastly overrated by the media during and after the war. From what I've read, they never really put a lot of resources into atomic research. You are, of course, correct that we should thank our lucky stars that neither group did beat us.
     
    #33 goophers, Jul 8, 2003
  14. GladiatoRowdy

    GladiatoRowdy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2002
    Messages:
    16,596
    Likes Received:
    496
    What is he, the President, or the second coming?

    Are you really so deluded that you think that our invasion is going to stabilize the middle east and solve the Israel/Palestine conflict?

    :rolleyes:
     
    #34 GladiatoRowdy, Jul 8, 2003
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 2 of 2

Share This Page