[edit on 20/10/2004 by drbryankkruta]

That would definately take care of the bulk of the problem but people get so finicky when you drop nukes in 3rd world countries.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
If I remember right and one of the weaponry thread regulars may be able to confirm this but we just started making a new type of bunker buster bomb that is nuclear lets get a hole lot of those and level the mountains
these butt heads Osama and his people are hiding in. If we could do that
would you vote for that in the political forum of DC and tell congress to and the president to order there terrorists extra crispy this month and maybe we wont have to fight next year

Yeeeeaaah, why haven't the generals thought of that?? What a greeeeat idea!!! Nuke the mountains!!!

The US is proliferating nuclear arms, lets pre-emptively invade!!!

look from what i hear these are more like dirty bombs and weaker and also designed to confine there destruction to the general target area by burrowing deep inside bfore detonation thats better than getting killed off one by one and spending all the money we are pretty soon we are going to need to float a national loan not grant them but as a humorous counter point maybe one of those dead beats who owe us for a loan we made to them will be stupid enough to loan us money so we can return the favor and not pay them back

they are not mushroom-cloud bombs, they are much smaller, but still meant to explode, then implode, if i remember correctly. they have an explosion about the same size as most other bomb/missiles.

here's what i think: you just made a couple thousand environmentalists cringe.

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
look from what i hear these are more like dirty bombs and weaker and also designed to confine there destruction to the general target area by burrowing deep inside bfore detonation

Thats a very expensive 'dirty bomb/bunker buster'. Not to mention the means of delivery.
www.fas.org...

Sanc'.

yes but more bang for your buck means less bangs needed and less of our boys spent as well

Originally posted by fledgling666
they are not mushroom-cloud bombs, they are much smaller, but still meant to explode, then implode, if i remember correctly. they have an explosion about the same size as most other bomb/missiles.

here's what i think: you just made a couple thousand environmentalists cringe.

so be it atleast they are going to e living enviromentalists alive to bitch a bout it till the cows come home which is just fine with me Ill take that heat if it means killing off these guys to save our boys our country and our way of life---------LIVE NOT IN FEAR OF THE COMING DAY FOR YOU CANT STOP IT

before you put forth silly ideas do a little research...try plowshare

Originally posted by keholmes
before you put forth silly ideas do a little research...try plowshare

please tell more I have no problem looking at anything im not totally close minded and hell bent to fry the earth just fed up with the BS that comes with this whole screwed up mess

Originally posted by drbryankkruta

Originally posted by fledgling666
they are not mushroom-cloud bombs, they are much smaller, but still meant to explode, then implode, if i remember correctly. they have an explosion about the same size as most other bomb/missiles.

here's what i think: you just made a couple thousand environmentalists cringe.

so be it atleast they are going to e living enviromentalists alive to bitch a bout it till the cows come home which is just fine with me Ill take that heat if it means killing off these guys to save our boys our country and our way of life---------LIVE NOT IN FEAR OF THE COMING DAY FOR YOU CANT STOP IT

that was meant as a compliment

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
please tell more I have no problem looking at anything im not totally close minded and hell bent to fry the earth just fed up with the BS that comes with this whole screwed up mess

The idea behind plowshare was to create a Panama Canal type ditch using ~250 nuclear weapons�..look at the size of the Panama Canal with regard to the area that you�re talking about. the number of weapons required would be many factors higher. The fallout would most probably cover the entire earth including wherever you are. As most of the caves and other things are not known locations, the mountains would have to be leveled the risks would be greater to the folks outside the bunkers than in..

yes yes very well to go drop bombs all over the mountains but if they are nuclear

it could create a radiation cloud i know its under the surface but it is possible for radiation to get outi want to get rid of osama as much as you guys but a more reasnable approch wthout nuclear weaponary would be greater

Originally posted by keholmes

Originally posted by drbryankkruta
please tell more I have no problem looking at anything im not totally close minded and hell bent to fry the earth just fed up with the BS that comes with this whole screwed up mess

The idea behind plowshare was to create a Panama Canal type ditch using ~250 nuclear weapons�..look at the size of the Panama Canal with regard to the area that you�re talking about. the number of weapons required would be many factors higher. The fallout would most probably cover the entire earth including wherever you are. As most of the caves and other things are not known locations, the mountains would have to be leveled the risks would be greater to the folks outside the bunkers than in..

Im not totally happy with the idea either but can you think of a differnt option as powerful efficent and totalitarian in design if so I will gladly support that method /////do we have a bomb plastic or tnt in design as powerful that we can reload the bunker busters with instead of nukes

Common now, is it really in the best interest to get Osama right now. Iran and Syria still need to be taken down. Those weapons will more than likely be used in one of those 2 places first, mark my words.

Originally posted by infinite8
Common now, is it really in the best interest to get Osama right now. Iran and Syria still need to be taken down. Those weapons will more than likely be used in one of those 2 places first, mark my words.

does that mean you support nuking with dirt bomb nuke bunker busters

Theres so many mountains you might as well nuke Pakistan and India.Theres a great idea lets nuke everybody

Originally posted by weirdo
Theres so many mountains you might as well nuke Pakistan and India.Theres a great idea lets nuke everybody

thats not my plan I wish to spare those who are innocent

I was expressing some things in a serious manner while still being sarcastic. No, I don't think nuclear weapons of any kind should be used. We can drop several non-nuclear bombs instead. Its not a case of use being able to excercise air superiority over these countries. On a more serious note. I do believe Iran, regardless of what biased news stories are published, is in fact trying to build a nuclear arsenal. As far as Syria goes, they've been begging for an ass kicking for a long time. They have been behind many things for many years. Why then, you may ask, haven't we dealt with them first. Well it obviously a better strategic position to control the oil first. Its not all about oil, but if you must pick a pecking order, which would you choose?
I also agree that innocents should not be killed, but how do you avoid that? The reason why you see the price of war going up over time is because of the careful nature we must now take. Plain and simple, if the United Nations actually did their jobs and followed through with their threats and doctrine, the US wouldn't be bearing the brunt of these costs.