United States has, unbeknownst to America, detonated Nuclear Weapons in the Middle East

Originally posted by DJW001
"Red Mercury" is one of the many clues that this story is a fabrication. "Red Mercury" was a hoax invented by the BBC to investigate the black market nuclear trade. The OP does not understand what depleted uranium is. The development of the "neutron bomb" was terminated. (The proof of this is that Iran would not be acting so aggressively if they were not certain of this. The neutron bomb was conceived precisely to kill Iranians while leaving the oil infrastructure intact.) The OP should reflect on the dictum: "less is more."

What is Red Mercury?

Question: What Is Red Mercury?

Answer: The science newsgroups have been a-buzz with tales of a 2-kiloton yield Russian red mercury fusion device, theoretically in the possession of terrorists. This, of course, prompts the question: What Is Red Mercury? The answer to this question depends largely on whom you ask. Is red mercury real? Absolutely, but definitions vary. If you had asked me before I did a bit of Internet research, I would have given you the standard cinnabar/vermillion answer. However, the Russian tritium fusion bomb is more interesting...

Cinnabar/Vermillion

Cinnabar is naturally-occurring mercuric sulfide (HgS), while vermillion is the name given to the red pigment derived from either natural or manufactured cinnabar.

Mercury (II) Iodide

The alpha crystalline form of mercury (II) iodide is called 'red mercury', which changes to the yellow beta form at 127°C.

Any Red-Colored Mercury Compound Originating in Russia
as in the cold war definition of 'Red'. I doubt anyone is using 'red mercury' in this manner, but it's a possible interpretation.

A Ballotechnic Mercury Compound

Presumably red in color. Ballotechnics are substances which react very energetically in response to high-pressure shock compression. Google's Sci.Chem group has had a lively ongoing discussion about the possiblity of a an explosive form of mercury antimony oxide. According to some reports, red mercury is a cherry red semi-liquid which is produced by irradiating elemental mercury with mercury antimony oxide in a Russian nuclear reactor. Some people think that red mercury is so explosive that it can be used to trigger a fusion reaction in tritium or deuterium-tritium mixture. Pure fusion devices don't require fissionable material, so it's easier to get the materials needed to make one and easier to transport said materials from one place to another. Other reports refer to a documentary in which is was possible to read a report on Hg2Sb207, in which the compound had a density of 20.20 Kg/dm3 (!). Personally, I find it plausible that mercury antimony oxide, as a low density (nonradioactive?) powder, may be of interest as a ballotechnic material. The high-density material seems unlikely. It would also seem unreasonably dangerous (to the maker) to use a ballotechnic material in a fusion device. One intriguing source mentions a liquid explosive, HgSbO, made by Du Pont laboratories and listed in the international chemical register as number 20720-76-7. Anyone care to look it up?

A Military Code Name for a New Nuclear Material

As I understand it, this definition originates from the extraordinarily high prices commanded and paid for a substance called 'red mercury', which was manufactured in Russia. The price ($200-300K per kilogram) and trade restrictions were consistent with a nuclear material as opposed to cinnabar.

OK, so I guess we can keep going with this, right?...

Next time don't use Wikipaedia to find your answers !!

[edit on 27-3-2010 by DarkspARCS]

Originally posted by airspoon
The military does not deny that DU is dangerous or has adverse affects on human health. In the Army, all soldiers have to go through courses on just how dangerous the substance actually is. Also, the Army has admitted that this is the reason I got cancer, as well as many others. I actually have paperwork from the Army, admitting that my sickness is the result of DU. They make no claims that it is safe and they know full well how dangerous it actually is.

That's great. Because I clearly remember arguing with people in the past who would say that the DU rounds were not increasing cancer rates or anything else in the Mid-East, and these people seemed to believe they had research and military authorities to support this. Maybe they seemed to at one point in the past.

If the military is detonating nuclear weapons in either Iraq or Afghanistan, then they sure have been very successful at keeping the soldiers and locals from finding out about it. ... Although, I don't think anything would surprise me anymore.

To be fair you know we are not talking about the kinds of bombs dropped on Japan or demonstrated in testing during the early years of the Cold War. We are talking modern tactical technology that would not be recognizable to laymen in the first place.

This story is my reason I love the internet. Well researched, totally credible and I believe everything a I personally have been following the development of small yield neutron devices for the last 10yrs that I've known about them.

Nasty weapon, but you can understand why they developed it. If the world ever had gone from "Cold War" to hot during the 70s/80s we would have seen many of these bombs used across Europe against the huge numbers of Soviet tanks/armoured vehicles as they outnumbered NATO armoured divisions by a large amount.

The only weapon that could take out whole tank division sized units without messing the whole city up.

F***ing UK?USA Armies, they are a law unto themselves.

Depleted Uranium is just as simple as the Phrase states, DEPLETED!!! it might be radio-active, but in no way shape or form will have any use again except for pentrators in conventional rounds. Ok maybe a dirty-bomb.

But anyway, if I remember correctly: at Fort Benning Georgia main post museum, they have a example of a 'suit-case' nuclear device that The Psy-Ops Special Foces carried in the Vietnam Conflict.

So why would this be such "new" news?

I mean if I remember correctly...

reply to post by bsbray11

That's great. Because I clearly remember arguing with people in the past who would say that the DU rounds were not increasing cancer rates or anything else in the Mid-East, and these people seemed to believe they had research and military authorities to support this. Maybe they seemed to at one point in the past.

I believe it was the case to where DU was not widely known by military personnel to be harmful. However, I do know that I got my first class on DU around the summer of 2000 when I went through an explosives and munitions school/class. Before then, I was not familiar with the harmful effects of DU, even though I had initially joined the Army in 1997. This could be for a number of reasons though, which I'll digress.

To be fair you know we are not talking about the kinds of bombs dropped on Japan or demonstrated in testing during the early years of the Cold War. We are talking modern tactical technology that would not be recognizable to laymen in the first place.

I understand that and I did keep that in mind but still, I think I can name most, if not all of the munitions that we were blasting the enemy with (both surface to surface and air to surface). Also, just from the precautions that we took with DU, I think there would have to be equal, if not more precautions took with actual nuclear weapons, tactical or strategic. It does not benefit our leaders to injure or sicken US troops in the field along with enemy soldiers. I realize that they could care less after the fact but during actual operations, it does them no good for plenty of reasons. Also, I'd just like to mention the precautions and procedures for handling both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons are far different than conventional weapons so I would assume that those procedures would at least hint that unconventional weapons were being used. Of course this could have happened and I was just unaware but it seems highly unlikely, especially given all of the other factors. Like I've said before, nothing would surprise me but I just don't think that nuclear weapons were/are being used, from my experience anyway and the experience of everyone else I know that has been over there.

--airspoon

Anyone remember this video of an explosion outside Baghdad at an ammo dump? (Reportedly Camp Falcon):
(at 3:58)
Youtube: Very large explosion

The flash is so bright it fills the screen, while other munitions had gone off for some time without being nearly as bright. Then the mushroom cloud that rises has an apparent internal glow making it visible far above the ground, at night. Very hard to tell it from a nuke. May be a MOAB or whatever, but with that big of an explosion being near DU munitions it wouldn't matter if it was a low-yield nuke. It would still spread DU everywhere like a dirty bomb. Whether the OP is correct, (probably is IMO) is a moot point I think.

During a three week period of conflict in 2003 in Iraq, 1,000 to 2,000 tonnes of DU munitions were used, mostly in cities.

Source

Don't readily have a source for how much was used in the Balkans, but even a little is a lot.

Why is DU bad for you? It is turned into very fine dust when it hits something, and blows around in the sandstorms for 4.5 billion years. You ingest a little of that dust, and for the rest of your life the particles are emitting alpha particles into your DNA, making it take little abnormal twists and turns. Other decay by-products are even worse, some emitting beta and gamma radiation. See decay by-products of U-238 (DU)

S&F because the use of DU and or nukes of whatever yield should be known internationally as an additional cost in the "war on terra".

End WWII with a flash. Begin WWIII with a bigger flash.
(shame I cant afford a bomb-shelter)

reply to post by 1SawSomeThings


Munitions dumps can create some very powerful explosions. I have seen this first hand. Tons and tons of explosives and/or propellant stored together can create huge explosions if set off.

A good example of a massive propellant explosion was the Pepcon explosion in Nevada.

I have some videos of stuff we blew up in Afghanistan, one was 40,000 lbs of ordinance. They produced huge mushroom clouds that could be seen miles away, rattled windows and knocked things off walls over a mile away.

Thats what large conventional explosions do.

A nuke on the other hand makes a real nasty EMP that knocks out power and communications for miles. The EMP can also be detected from orbit by satellites. Someone sets a nuke off, the whole world finds out real quick.

Originally posted by MikeboydUS
A nuke on the other hand makes a real nasty EMP that knocks out power and communications for miles. The EMP can also be detected from orbit by satellites. Someone sets a nuke off, the whole world finds out real quick.

The whole world does not have access to this satellite data, only small groups of technicians and their bosses.

You can come up with 1,000,000 reasons why you should know something like this by now, while history will show you all of these reasons are pure fallacies. You don't have the right to know. No one is required to tell you. You may think you would be entitled to such information, but the people surrounding this technology would disagree. The media does not tell you everything you "should" know. Neither do your leaders. The fact of the matter is the military is known to lie all the time. Even to their foot soldiers of all ranks. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to keep anything secret.

reply to post by Silk

Maybe the op is confusing the use of DP (depleted uranium) shells against armour instead of the release of conventional (battlefield) nukes.

I was on the Midway for Iraq War I with Bush I running the show- and I can tell you right now, the ship had nukes on board. While we had bombs, missiles, and what have you on the upper decks (like the hanger deck)- strange things were being brought up from below (around the mess deck levels). There were stations positioned along these areas with mirrored 1 way glass in them- and a marine behind each one. When a weapon was pulled from these areas- unlike the conventional stuff you could walk by and basically poke with a stick- this stuff was guarded like it was solid gold. It came up right from these areas, surrounded by Marines, and went right to the plane it was going on, no stopping at go, no getting $200. What threw me was how concealed these things were- draped in a tarp, usually. I asked someone about it- and he said pretty matter of factly, 'yup. We're carrying nukes. Try not to spread that around.' Not to mention, these things weren't coming out of these areas in any great numbers- it was rare, and almost like a ceremony when these things were stuck on a plane.

[edit on 27-3-2010 by wylekat]

[edit on 27-3-2010 by wylekat]

Did a bit more research and discovered a previous story about this from someone using credible sources for every aspect of the information they post.

I'll kick the primer off with this site:

Nukes on Afghanistan?

I would invite all of those who have any doubts whatsoever to please PLEASE read the three pages outlined below!!!

U.S. VETERAN REVEALS ATOMIC BOMBS DROPPED ON AFGHANISTAN AND IRAQ


Sleight of Nuke


NUKING TORA BORA


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/227fdaf41ae2.jpg[/atsimg]

During testimony before the House in May, General John A. Gordon, director of the National Nuclear Security Administration, groused that for the past decade the Pentagon had not been able to actively pursue new weapons designs. He said he wanted to "reinvigorate" planning for a new generation of "advanced nuclear warheads".

"This is not a proposal to develop new weapons in the absence of requirements", Gordon told the committee in a gem of Pentagon doublespeak. "But I am not now exercising design capabilities, and because of that, I believe this capacity and capability is atrophying rapidly".

Gordon wasn't being truthful. Over the past decade the Pentagon and its weapons designers have been quietly busy crafting a variety of new weapons. Indeed, although the Clinton administration generated a lot of hoopla by supporting the comprehensive test ban treaty (which it promptly violated with a string of subcritical tests), the Department of Energy and the Pentagon were busy developing new breeds of weapons. In 1997, they unveiled and deployed the B61-11, described as a mere modification of the old B61-7 gravity bomb. In reality, it was largely a new "package", the prototype for the "low-yield" bunker blasting nuke that the weaponeers see as the future of the US arsenal.

Supporting evidence in the way of suggesting that the Bush Administration did indeed use Nukes are as follows...

LAWS

Submitted to Congress on December 31, 2001, the neocon's follow-up CONPLAN 8022 would reverse the decades-old U.S. policy against “first use” of nuclear weapons by authorizing their rapid deployment to destroy 'time-urgent targets' anywhere in the world. ( People's Weekly World Newspaper Mar 16/02)[/url]

Recognizing that "low-yield nuclear weapons blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional war,” a 1994 law banned research and development on nuclear weapons of less than 5-kilotons in the United States.

But Bush's 2001 Defense Authorization Bill passed by a Republican Congress overturned these earlier restrictions. the nuclear version of the bunker-busting GBU-28 was rushed to Afghanistan to conduct remote field tests before the Taliban surrendered.

PRESS CLUES

Soon after commencing aerial bombardment against Afghanistan, Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld told the press “he did not rule out the eventual use of nuclear weapons." (Houston Chronicle Oct 20/01)

Still reeling from the relentlessly televised images of September 11, the American public was told that only nuclear blasts could safely vaporize caches of chemical, nuclear or biological weapons not authorized by Washington, which retained its own banned stockpiles of biological weapons, along with more than five-thousand nuclear warheads. (AP June 11/07)

With the resulting hard radiation supposedly sequestered underground, the 1,200-pound B61 was enthusiastically hailed by Bush and his backers as a “relatively safe” atomic bomb that would not kill too many innocent bystanders. (Philadelphia Inquirer Oct 16/00)

NO MUSHROOM CLOUDS

"When a bunker buster burrows in, the blast is directed downward," Hank explained. "It's a lens and it's focused straight down instead of outward."

QUAKES

Each of the four nuclear weapons dropped on Afghanistan set off a bedrock-amplified explosive force of 10,000 tons. The blasts in Tora Bora were immediately followed by a severe earthquake that “struck northern Afghanistan and was felt as far away as India,” the People's Weekly World reported. Even in this earthquake-prone region, the long-lasting and powerful tremors were unprecedented, killing 150 people killed and destroying 500 houses.

Additional Information:

The nuclear version of the GBU-28 bunker buster is the B61-11. When American forces targeted Tora Bora in 2001, there were 150 B61-11s in the U.S. arsenal. Featuring nuclear warheads that could be dialed from 0.3 to 340 kilotons - equivalent of 300 to 340,000 tons of radioactive TNT - these new Earth Penetrating Weapons were, according to atomic scientists, capable of "destroying the deepest and most hardened of underground bunkers, which the conventional warheads are not capable of doing." (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists May/June 1997; Wired Oct 8/01)

As a preliminary to the first nuclear attack since the incineration of Nagasaki, at least one 15,000 pound fuel-air bomb was dropped in the Basra district on February 7, 1991. The resulting fireball covered two square miles. Outside the blast zone, oxygen consumed by what was essentially a gigantic gas explosion collapsed the lungs of all living creatures. One website warned: "Usage of the BLU-82 is the precursor to the next weapon that may be used... the bunker-busting nuclear weapons." (casi.org.uk)

Around this time, a British Special Air Service (SAS) team on a secret reconnaissance mission sighted a signature mushroom cloud from 110 miles away. The commandos radioed back to headquarters, "Sir, the blokes have just nuked Kuwait." (indymedia.nl; psywarrior.com)

In fact, the blokes had just nuked Iraq. According to U.S. military sources, the first detonation of a nuclear weapon against another country since 1945 took place approximately 11 miles east of Basra, sometime between February 2 and February 5, 1991.

Click [url=http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=nuclear+afghanistan&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8]---> HERE

I was on the Midway for Iraq War I with Bush I running the show- and I can tell you right now, the ship had nukes on board. While we had bombs, missiles, and what have you on the upper decks (like the hanger deck)- strange things were being brought up from below (around the mess deck levels). There were stations positioned along these areas with mirrored 1 way glass in them- and a marine behind each one. When a weapon was pulled from these areas- unlike the conventional stuff you could walk by and basically poke with a stick- this stuff was guarded like it was solid gold. It came up right from these areas, surrounded by Marines, and went right to the plane it was going on, no stopping at go, no getting $200. What threw me was how concealed these things were- draped in a tarp, usually. I asked someone about it- and he said pretty matter of factly, 'yup. They're nukes. Try not to spread that around.' Not to mention, these things were coming out of these areas in any great numbers- it was rare, and almost like a ceremony when these things were stuck on a plane.

Those are the type of procedures that I was referring to in my previous post. Although, those procedures could be used for secret or sensative munitions, not necessarily nuclear munitions.

Originally posted by DarkspARCS

So this was NOT a thermobaric weapon, BUT AN ADMITTED THERMONUCLEAR DEVICE THAT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED AS HAVING THE POTENTIAL OF KILLING MILLIONS...

attacks using nuclear EPWs near urban areas could produce
thousands to over a million casualties, or hundreds to several hundred thousand for
attacks in rural areas

I rest this case gentlemen....

If you're resting the case there, then you don't have one. Everyone who's up to speed on current military technology knows that the military has worked on nuclear bunker busters. Your argument in the OP is that we've used them. Do you see the problem here?

The problem is this: Having something and using something are two different things. You can have things and never use them. I have a lamp I've never put together. I have a car CD player that I never installed. I don't believe for one second that you don't already realize that. I think you're just in denial that your theory got shot to pieces, and you're desperate for anything that might lead to it being saved.

Furthermore, on neutron and nuclear bombs. You mentioned some villagers that were burned or vaporized. If a nuclear bomb had been used, you wouldn't have evidence of a few vaporized people. You'd be talking about a few vaporized villages.

A neutron bomb kills with radiation. If it exists - and most experts in the world agree that neutron bombs were never actually developed for deployment - it doesn't vaporize people in the way that you're suggesting. A neutron bomb does produce a low yield explosion and things within that explosion could be vaporized, but it wouldn't just be a few people. Again, it would be entire villages. At any rate, a neutron bomb would probably be air-detonated so that most infrastructure - and also people - would be out of the destructive blast radius of the weapon.

The radiation wouldn't be vaporizing people. It would be showering them with intense, nearly-instantly lethal doses of radiation. It's possible that they would suffer from some burns, but nobody would be vaporized. The whole point of a neutron bomb is not to vaporize things.

And of course, a neutron bomb would be a very poor choice to use as a bunker buster. Radiation from a nuclear weapon of any kind will only penetrate a few feet of earth and is extremely poor at penetrating the dense materials that hardened bunkers are built out of. Nuclear bunker busters are designed to use explosive power to destroy bunkers, not radiation.

So that's another reason your arguments keep failing - you keep talking about weapons being used for things that those weapons simply do not do. Combined with the wild leaps you make from the information you find to the conclusions you make, its no wonder that very few people have bought into your theory here. The ones who do believe you would probably believe anything you told them as long as you said it on a conspiracy site.

If you want to accuse a country of using nuclear weapons, you need to provide a LOT more evidence. There's a lot of things you could go with.

1. Eyewitness accounts of the blast. Not just one guy saying one thing, another guy saying another, and so-on. Nuclear weapons are extremely powerful. If one was used, you need to find the thousands of people who witnessed it and get their input.

2. Scientific detection of the detonation. This has been mentioned before, but you like to ignore things that destroy your argument. Every first world nation has technology in place to detect a nuclear explosion - even small ones. These include seismic sensors, satellites, and radiation detectors.

3. Locations of targets. It's not enough to just guess, "Hey, I think nuclear weapons were used, so it must be true!" If you're going to make accusations (especially if you want a news organization to carry your story) then you need to have some idea of where these weapons were used. That's the biggest question they're going to want to know, because if you have a "where" then news companies might be able to send people to investigate.

4. Leaked "hard data." This could be in the form of documents discussing the attacks - not just theorizing about the possibility of using them (which they've certainly done,) but actually talking about having carried the attacks out. It could be in the form of voice recordings from the mission, or video footage of the attacks being carried out. The problem with hard data is that you still need some other kind of evidence to verify the data isn't fake.

I think you get the idea. You have nothing but conjecture, some people who don't know what they're talking about, and a handful of supposed victims of an attack that would have affected thousands or millions of people. Oh yes, and one captain who probably talks out of his butt so that he doesn't have to taste the BS when it comes out of his mouth.

Originally posted by wylekat
reply to post by Silk

 

Maybe the op is confusing the use of DP (depleted uranium) shells against armour instead of the release of conventional (battlefield) nukes.

I was on the Midway for Iraq War I with Bush I running the show- and I can tell you right now, the ship had nukes on board. While we had bombs, missiles, and what have you on the upper decks (like the hanger deck)- strange things were being brought up from below (around the mess deck levels). There were stations positioned along these areas with mirrored 1 way glass in them- and a marine behind each one. When a weapon was pulled from these areas- unlike the conventional stuff you could walk by and basically poke with a stick- this stuff was guarded like it was solid gold. It came up right from these areas, surrounded by Marines, and went right to the plane it was going on, no stopping at go, no getting $200. What threw me was how concealed these things were- draped in a tarp, usually. I asked someone about it- and he said pretty matter of factly, 'yup. We're carrying nukes. Try not to spread that around.' Not to mention, these things weren't coming out of these areas in any great numbers- it was rare, and almost like a ceremony when these things were stuck on a plane.

Star for you Wylicat! You are one of my STAR eyewitnesses! =)

While I do acknowledge those other veterans who have posted to this thread, and thank you for the efforts you put forth for the sake of America, I must also reiterate that just because you did not witness any tell tale signs of 'understood' Nuclear activity does not mean it did not occur.

And just for the sake of REASON, if you believe that something you originally thought was one thing, that you were an eyewitness of, and you know in your heart that it COULD possibly have been something that also can verify a Nuclear event - feel free to open your mind to the NEW reality that it just may indeed have been that - A NUCLEAR EVENT!...

REALITY dictates that the American Government lies, to you, and to me.

DON'T - for the sake of reason - LIE to yourself!

reply to post by mattifikation


The same conjecture can be stated towards your information mattifikation.

WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE OF ANY OF WHAT YOU CLAIM? I've provided link upon link upon link of credible EXPERT accounts. My accountability in this post is solid.

Where's yours?

I don't see any CREDIBILITY in the way of EXPERT support...

Trolls don't make it on my threads.... I think MY point is clear too.

Originally posted by mattifikation
I think you get the idea. You have nothing but conjecture, some people who don't know what they're talking about, and a handful of supposed victims of an attack that would have affected thousands or millions of people. Oh yes, and one captain who probably talks out of his butt so that he doesn't have to taste the BS when it comes out of his mouth.

That's big talk coming from... who are you, again? A military nuclear research engineer?

All that's very easy to say. If you want to actually change someone's mind, I don't think you're going to have much success just smack-talking people without addressing anything they actually say. You might get trolls riled up like a common gamer-speak cheerleader but on the internet some random person's vitriolic opinion isn't worth much anyway.

People have been reacting emotionally to information ever since the dawn of recorded history. The vast majority of astronomical experts even believed Copernicus was a nut until decades after his death. Talk about stupidity. So to distinguish yourself from that kind of "thinking" I would just suggest you back up your angry post with something other than just claiming everyone is 'talking out of their butt so they don't have to taste the BS when it comes out of their mouth.'

Now I'll tell you what you really wanted to see when you posted that: "Good one!"

Clear all our troops out and Nuke the entire Middle East Back to the Stone Age.

Anyone with brown skin must be killed for what they did on 9/11.

/end sarcasm

(I think I felt this way for about 3 hours after watching the Towers come down. It was only so long, because I actually worked in lower Manhatten for over 10 years.) But after the initial shock wore off and I came to my senses. I realized, our government wants a knee-jerk, hehe get it knee "JERK" reaction from the bulk of the US population..., and they got it.

Seriously it's extremely sad I have a few alchoholic inlaws, and friends who talk this type of crap. Still to this day. Or some who try to act smart say no, we gotta Finish what we started there or else it'll be another Vietnam!, LOL oh my the IRONY!!!

BTW- They all seem to listen to and love Rush Limbaugh, he's like the common denominator in people with sheep like mentalities. Don't ask me why, yea Rush Limbaugh is a douche, but how do people with such a low IQ even gleem anything from what he says. There must be some subliminal messaging in his radio show, that only works on the Drunken / Sloppy American.

But back to the OP, thanks for sharing all that information, although it is alot to take in. It's gonna take me a bit to get through it all and digest it, and form some sort of opinion.

But thanks for the effort...for now.

i will summarise this thread [ and others like it ]

a gaggle of walts who have no idea whow fission / fusion weapons really work have misrepresented the use of other weapons to portary a fantasy that " nukes were used " they create a word salad to prop up thier fatasies - my favourite , from this thread = " neutron thermobaric weapon " .
lastly the blindingly obvious abcence of evidence , which precludes the use of atomic munitions in the situations claimed is `spun ` as evidence of fantasy " magic nukes " that fullfill thier fantsisies , physics be dammed

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
i will summarise this thread [ and others like it ]

a gaggle of walts who have no idea whow fission / fusion weapons really work have misrepresented the use of other weapons to portary a fantasy that " nukes were used " they create a word salad to prop up thier fatasies - my favourite , from this thread = " neutron thermobaric weapon " .
lastly the blindingly obvious abcence of evidence , which precludes the use of atomic munitions in the situations claimed is `spun ` as evidence of fantasy " magic nukes " that fullfill thier fantsisies , physics be dammed

Dude......you're such a buzz kill.

Pretty much hit the nail, tho.

reply to post by wylekat


I was stationed on the Kitty Hawk and heard similar stories as yours from all the ex Midway guys. I was an HT so I had to get into the restricted magazines on occasion. On the Kitty they were empty and basically used by weapons department to hide from they're various LPO and chiefs.