March 26, 2003, 07:49
|
#1
|
|
King
Local Time: 00:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: appendix of Europe
Posts: 1,634
|
will coalition use tactical nuclear weapons?
there have been some statements by rumsfeld that they would counter chemical attack with tac nukes. recently there are many statements from pentagon re saddams last chemical stand in baghdad. do you feel that is a real threat or a pretext for potential nuke strike if things go bad?
__________________
joseph 1944: LaRusso if you can remember past yesterday I never post a responce to one of your statement. I read most of your post with amusement however.
You are so anti-america that having a conversation with you would be poinless. You may or maynot feel you are an enemy of the United States, I don't care either way. However if I still worked for the Goverment I would turn over your e-mail address to my bosses and what ever happen, happens.
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 08:07
|
#2
|
|
Apolyton CS Co-Founder
Local Time: 00:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Macedonia, Greece
Posts: 24,480
|
what does "tactical" mean in "tactical nuclear weapons"
they dont kill people? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 08:12
|
#3
|
|
Emperor
Local Time: 17:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Flyover Country
Posts: 4,659
|
It means they're small enough to be used on an opposing troops without necessarily frying your own.
__________________
"We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work...After eight years of this Administration, we have just as much unemployment as when we started... And an enormous debt to boot!" — Henry Morgenthau, Franklin Delano Roosevelt's Treasury secretary, 1941.
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 08:14
|
#4
|
|
Apolyton CS Co-Founder
Local Time: 00:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Macedonia, Greece
Posts: 24,480
|
given the current 20-2 (killed by friendly fire - killed by enemies) count (for the british, dont have the americans numbers), it would be better to avoid the use of nukes. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 08:15
|
#5
|
|
King
Local Time: 23:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: International crime fighting playboy
Posts: 1,063
|
The day coaltion troops use tac nukes is the day Brittney Spears shows me her chuff
__________________
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams (Influential author)
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 08:16
|
#6
|
|
King
Local Time: 15:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Posts: 1,417
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by MarkG
given the current 20-2 (killed by friendly fire - killed by enemies) count (for the british, dont have the americans numbers), it would be better to avoid the use of nukes.
|
Don't see why. Our lads are tough.
__________________
He's got the Midas touch.
But he touched it too much!
Hey Goldmember, Hey Goldmember!
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 08:16
|
#7
|
|
King
Local Time: 23:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: International crime fighting playboy
Posts: 1,063
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by MarkG
given the current 20-2 (killed by friendly fire - killed by enemies) count (for the british, dont have the americans numbers), it would be better to avoid the use of nukes.
|
4 were firendly fire the rest were crashes, there is a difference
__________________
Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
Douglas Adams (Influential author)
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 08:25
|
#8
|
|
Emperor
Local Time: 23:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: on the Emerald Isle
Posts: 5,316
|
I think the serious answer is that they will use a tactical nuke in particular circumstances. Firstly it would have to be in response to an Iraqi chemical attack on coalition forces. Second, the target would have to be a substantial Republican Guard formation not in an urban area.
If the Iraqis hold off on any chemical weapons use until they are forced into the cities and their larger formations have been dispersed then there will be no politically acceptable target for a nuke. Dropping a nuke in a city, no matter how well it is targeted will mean civilian casualties and that will be counterproductive.
It will be hard for the US/UK to argue that they need to use nukes with the conventional firepower at their disposal so they would have to have a "justification" and be determined to make a point by using such a weapon. There may even be benefits to world opinion for the US/UK if they exercise restraint after any Iraqi use of chemical weapons.
__________________
Never give an AI an even break.
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 08:26
|
#9
|
|
King
Local Time: 18:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Toronto, UnAmerica
Posts: 2,806
|
Why bother with tac nukes when they've got MOABs? From what I gather, the blast effects are similar, but without the radiation.
__________________
I live in Canada, which is a totalitarian state. - Ben Kenobi
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 08:27
|
#10
|
|
Civ4: Colonization Content Editor
Local Time: 23:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 11,117
|
I think they won't use nukes by no means, not even tactical and not even if Hussein uses chemical weapons (given he has some). The political drawback would just be too big. What they will use (and probably already do), is the usual armor breaking ammunition with depleted uranium, which will cause increased risk of cancer for the locals over a long time after the war, but is not a WoMD.
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 08:30
|
#11
|
|
Apolyton CS Co-Founder
Local Time: 00:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Macedonia, Greece
Posts: 24,480
|
|
Quote:
|
|
4 were firendly fire the rest were crashes, there is a difference
|
ok, so the americans wont hit the brits. most likely they'll hit themselves 
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 08:40
|
#12
|
|
Emperor
Local Time: 23:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: on the Emerald Isle
Posts: 5,316
|
The problem with MOAB's is the delivery system. Even light AA has a reasonable chance of downing a C-130.
As for depleted uranium rounds, I was reading a story on the BBC website this morning about traces of DU being found from use of the rounds in 1994/95 in Bosnia. Although not an immediate hazard to health the scientists were recommending further monitoring.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2884761.stm
__________________
Never give an AI an even break.
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 08:47
|
#13
|
|
Deity
Local Time: 06:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: May 1999
Location: The City State of Noosphere, CPA special envoy
Posts: 14,606
|
Re: will coalition use tactical nuclear weapons?
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by LaRusso
there have been some statements by rumsfeld that they would counter chemical attack with tac nukes.
|
Either he is trying to scare Hussein or being genuinely stupid (being himself). Seeing that chemical weapons are pretty useless as far as killing the other side goes, you go ahead and draw your own conclusions.
__________________
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 09:02
|
#14
|
|
King
Local Time: 14:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: of Aptos, CA
Posts: 2,596
|
I think it might be possible if a division commander actually used Chem or Bio on US troops and it caused significant damage. The retaliation would be on the HQ of Iraqi division responsible.
__________________
http://tools.wikimedia.de/~gmaxwell/jorbis/JOrbisPlayer.php?path=John+Williams+The+Imperial+M arch+from+The+Empire+Strikes+Back.ogg&wiki=en
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 10:57
|
#15
|
|
Deity
Local Time: 17:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Underwater no one can hear sharks scream
Posts: 11,096
|
Tactical nukes are only for use when there is a danger of you loosing, ie a Nato/Warsaw Pact war, so I don't think there is much danger of them being used in Iraq.
__________________
Rosbifs are destructive scum- Spiffor
I make no bones about my moral support for [terrorist] organizations. - chegitz guevara
If government is big enough to give you everything you want, it is also big enough to take everything you have. - Gerald Ford
Blackwidow24 and FemmeAdonis fan club
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 11:02
|
#16
|
|
Deity
Local Time: 16:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: With a view of the Rockies
Posts: 12,242
|
They will not be used. I cannot imagine the storm of political opposition everywhere if they were
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 11:19
|
#17
|
|
Deity
Local Time: 18:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Not your daddy's Benjamins
Posts: 10,737
|
Probably, we would milk the political backlash against a chem/bio attack by Hussein rather than use tactical nukes.
__________________
I came upon a barroom full of bad Salon pictures in which men with hats on the backs of their heads were wolfing food from a counter. It was the institution of the "free lunch" I had struck. You paid for a drink and got as much as you wanted to eat. For something less than a rupee a day a man can feed himself sumptuously in San Francisco, even though he be a bankrupt. Remember this if ever you are stranded in these parts. ~ Rudyard Kipling, 1891
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 11:26
|
#18
|
|
Emperor
Local Time: 16:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: of the Big Apple
Posts: 4,109
|
Got to go with Ralph, Flubber and DanS:
Nukes always trump chemicals; the political backlash from such an action is too terrible to imagine. After all, everyone sort of expects Saddam to be evil, we have set for ourselves a far higher standard.
__________________
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake :(
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 11:29
|
#19
|
|
Prince
Local Time: 23:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: of the Sarzaneers
Posts: 429
|
In this war tac nukes won't be used. Sir Ralph is right the political cost is too high.
And I don't think Saddam will use bio/chem for the same reasons: it will prove he has such kind of weapons and he will lose support from many countries... 
__________________
googol... this is a number!
"Silence Ming. I will let you know when I feel you are needed." - HappySunShine
"Classic Eyes...But in reality, it works the other way around." - Ming
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 13:47
|
#20
|
|
Chieftain
Local Time: 22:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: I wish somewhere else.
Posts: 34
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 14:46
|
#21
|
|
Emperor
Local Time: 22:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: A real Master of CTP-PBEM - together with all the others.....
Posts: 6,303
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by LaRusso
will coalition use tactical nuclear weapons?
|
No.
The coalition would fall apart quicker than a worker can swallow a pint of stout.
__________________
First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.
Gandhi
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 14:54
|
#22
|
|
Emperor
Local Time: 17:35
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: The Occupied South
Posts: 4,729
|
The entire world has an interest in Nukes not being used. To use them would set a precedent that no one wants.
__________________
Favorite Staff Quotes:
People are screeming for consistency, but it ain't gonna happen from me. -rah
God... I have to agree with Asher ;) -Ming - Asher gets it :b: -Ming
Troll on dope is like a moose on the loose - Grandpa Troll
|
|
|
|
|
|
March 26, 2003, 15:07
|
#23
|
|
Emperor
Local Time: 00:35
Local Date: November 2, 2010
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 4,037
|
|
Quote:
|
Originaly posted by MarkG:
given the current 20-2 (killed by friendly fire - killed by enemies) count (for the british, dont have the americans numbers), it would be better to avoid the use of nukes.
|
|
Quote:
|
|
ok, so the americans wont hit the brits. most likely they'll hit themselves
|
Paiktis got banned for war's duration for ridiculing these accidents so you better watc.... ah, wait, you are the site owner.
|
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 18:35.
|
|
