New nukes

[denoir 0]

Mini-nukes on US agenda

Great. This is just what we need.  

[Tamme 0]

What do they need them for? You can't use nukes like ordinary weapons, using them would have a great negative effect upon world opinion.

Other thing is that "You can't have them 'cause you are evil and you don't know how to use them responsibly, but we're getting more!"

[-TU--33ker 0]

Why small nukes? Don't they already have a conventional bomb that has the same level of destruction? I think that's a major step backwards.

And who are they going to fight with those things? terrorists?

[ran 0]

i'm not well placed for that (see my nationality)

but :

It is shocking, disgusting and disgraceful that US defence department officials are meeting in the very week of the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

that's pretty bad taste ain't it ?

[-TU--33ker 0]

yeah! they say russia has to reduce it's number of nuclear weapons, but they' re getting themselves some more of them!

[Tamme 0]

i'm not well placed for that (see my nationality)

but :

It is shocking, disgusting and disgraceful that US defence department officials are meeting in the very week of the anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament

that's pretty bad taste ain't it ?

I think that's repulsive, but it's just my european-pinko-commie-opinion.

EDIT: Maybe they think it fits perfectly and is somehow a clever idea.

[ran 0]

Jacques Chirac started back the nuclear testing in mururoa on the exact day of the hiroshima bombing anniversary ....

stupid man ......

[Tamme 0]

It's cool to time things like that if it's an anniversary for something good, but doing something like what they did shows bad taste and lack of respect.

[Acecombat 0]

Great now we can all relax knowing that the biggest thug in the world iss concerned about its own arsenal of Nukes while it goes around and stops others from doing so.........

Didnt these guys ever heard of the phrase "Practise what you preach?"

[Tamme 0]

Great now we can all relax knowing that the biggest thug in the world iss concerned about its own arsenal of Nukes while it goes around and stops others from doing so.........

Didnt these guys ever heard of the phrase "Practise what you preach?"  

Maybe they did, but they'll be using it only if it suits them.

[denoir 0]

Didnt these guys ever heard of the phrase "Practise what you preach?"  

No, it's the other principle actually:

"Do what I tell you, not what I do!"

[ralphwiggum 6]

Jacques Chirac started back the nuclear testing in mururoa on the exact day of the hiroshima bombing anniversary ....

stupid man ......

and i thought those tasty eclairs were mini-nukes....

personally, i prefer that for every mini-nikes we make, we take down 3 conventional nuclear weapon.

[Tamme 0]

I don't understand how USA always manages to find money for military hardware or military in general. Even if the economy is going down.

[Shashman 0]

There's always money for military spending...Look at Ethiopia and Eritrea, both spending millions on Flankers, Fulcrums and mercenaries to fly them, yet they are 2 of the poorest nations on earth

[-TU--33ker 0]

Didnt these guys ever heard of the phrase "Practise what you preach?"  

hmmm... Isn't that a song from Testament?

[denoir 0]

The bad thing is that there's no end in sight for nuclear weapons. It's 50 years old technology and just about any country in the world can produce them, should they want to. Non proliferation treaties only go so far.

I saw a documentary on Discovery a couple of months ago about some cosmologic measurements that they did in a nuclear silo in California. And they showed the ICBM that inhabited the silo. It was very unsettling to see it. Although I was perfectly aware of their existance, seeing the actual missile on TV made an impression. It was a "Peacekeeper" missile. 10 warheads with 500 kt each (20x Hiroshima). And there are hundreds of them. Insane and irresponsible considering the history of human kind.

[Shashman 0]

Funny the names they give nuclear weapons

The LGM-118A Peacekeeper, the Convair B-36 Peacemaker nuclear bomber...

[CosmicCastaway 0]

Depressing stuff

This is sort of thing makes me despair of some people, it really does.

[Renagade 0]

Nuclear party

anyway should the word hypocrit be removed from the dictionary because it seems to have become meaningless these days

[FSPilot 0]

These aren't "weapons of mass destruction". They're extremely small yield nuclear weapons designed to fry chemical/biological/nuclear weapons stored in underground bunkers.

Anyway I don't think we should be using them. Waaay too much bad publicity.

[Tovarish 0]

These aren't "weapons of mass destruction".  They're extremely small yield nuclear weapons designed to fry chemical/biological/nuclear weapons stored in underground bunkers.

LOL I'd love to see if the same would be said if Iraq wound up with some of those Russian suitcase nukes that reportedly went missing during the breakup of the USSR

[denoir 0]

Allthough they do not cause mass destruction, they're still classified as WMD (or NBC or ABC whichever you prefer). All chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are considered WMD.

[FSPilot 0]

Tovarish

Quote[/b] ]

These aren't "weapons of mass destruction". They're extremely small yield nuclear weapons designed to fry chemical/biological/nuclear weapons stored in underground bunkers.

LOL I'd love to see if the same would be said if Iraq wound up with some of those Russian suitcase nukes that reportedly went missing during the breakup of the USSR

Those are much larger yield weapons designed... well designed for mass destruction. These are very small yield designed to destroy a single building.

denoir

Quote[/b] ]Allthough they do not cause mass destruction, they're still classified as WMD (or NBC or ABC whichever you prefer). All chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are considered WMD.

I could understand NBC weapons, but mass destruction? That's like saying a DU shell is a WMD because it's slightly radioactive.

[Tovarish 0]

Tovarish

Quote[/b] ]

These aren't "weapons of mass destruction".  They're extremely small yield nuclear weapons designed to fry chemical/biological/nuclear weapons stored in underground bunkers.

LOL I'd love to see if the same would be said if Iraq wound up with some of those Russian suitcase nukes that reportedly went missing during the breakup of the USSR  

Those are much larger yield weapons designed... well designed for mass destruction.  These are very small yield designed to destroy a single building.

Actually, if I remember correctly, those were based around more or less the same idea.

[GoOB 0]

These aren't "weapons of mass destruction".  They're extremely small yield nuclear weapons designed to fry chemical/biological/nuclear weapons stored in underground bunkers.

Anyway I don't think we should be using them.  Waaay too much bad publicity.

Weapon of mass destruction or not I think it is quite repulsive to be building new nukes. Even if they are just "mini" they still cause radiation wich can spread very quickly by the wind. Wich was the case in the Chernobyl accident. A fair ammount of radiation and toxic wastes were spread by the wind and also forming clouds. The result? countries quite far away will see the effects of these nukes in form of acid rain and poisoning of their wild life. In Sweden we got effected very little but a little is something and not nothing.

Stop making nukes, grow flowers to keep the hippies happy instead.

Also, the thing I was baffled about in that statement was that the only thing you appeared to be worried about is bad publicity. Bad publicity looks good compared to some of the problems nukes even mini nukes can cause.