The UK's Finest Independent Forum for Shooters and Gun Owners. Est 2010.

Got this article recently, quite timely given some discussions on here

eye witness at Hiroshima..
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40405

"Nuclear weapons as small and as clean as those the Russian military intends to deploy will blur the lines between nuclear and conventional weapons, since the newest versions of the former will, in theory, be only marginally more contaminating, indiscriminate or destructive than the latter (though they will be more efficient, by some measures). This will make their usage more practical from a military standpoint, as well as undermine the argument that they represent a unique and impermissible type of weapon. Accordingly, Russian strategists believe that this will make their use unlikely to provoke an all-out war, and the threat of their employment therefore more credible than the saber-rattling which accompanied earlier Russian protests over NATO expansion, or American policy towards Iraq."

http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airc ... rad01.html

"Regardless of the exact form that conflict will take in the future, however, nuclear weapons will in the future be less contaminating, more discriminate, and more versatile, which, with the decline of conventional forces and the splintering of international conflict, will strengthen the temptation to use them. Indeed, there may be situations in which tactical nuclear weapons will appear to be not only a choice, but the only choice, and it would not be the first time someone argued that nuclear weapons had to be used in order to save lives. The taboo will likely break down to some extent, applying only to particular categories of nuclear weapon rather than nuclear weapons generally, or the use of the weapons against specific targets, freeing decisionmakers to use them. The use of these weapons, in turn, will undermine the taboo, setting a precedent for others. In any case, what would have been condemned in one period, much as had been the case with dynamite, will come to be not merely accepted, but even praised in another, the early prohibition as anachronistic to future observers as the horror with which the Church had regarded crossbows seems to people of our time."

I do believe that fool in NK could make USA bring it on.

Rob

Chuck wrote:Got this article recently, quite timely given some discussions on here

eye witness at Hiroshima..
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40405

A good enough reason to not repeat history regardless of the alleged new generation of clean nukes. The deployment of such weapons comes into it's own against the western world, countries like ours, with densly packed cities and industrial centres.

Tossing a couple of nukes in the hills......... well, you might scare a few goats but gain very little else, they would barely qualify as WoMD's. Leeds or Manchester or Coventry is a very different matter.

It's only a matter of time.

Once the lunatics have them...they will use them...on us.

Make no mistake.

Rob

Rob, bang on (oops).

That's the problem, we are continually hitting softly in the hope they will stop. Big lassie slaps are NOT what these people understand. A severe boot in their gonads is needed.

What happened to the Neutron bomb, was that a mmyth then. Kills people, leaves infrastructure.

I suppose that a 100% "clean" nuke would, in practical terms, be the answer, massive yield from a small size compared to current HE bombs and shells....as long was WE were using them.

Years ago in the 60's, the US hypothesised that any nuke war would be triggered by the middle east, looks like they were maybe right. SOme general (Patton??) was right when he wanted to fry China and N Korea during the Korean war - a chnace missed? China will soon be a very unhappy country, population getting restive as their bubble will burst soon enough.

The Chinese population know they are being kept in the dark by those that have and do not wish to share.

We worry about contamination, yet over 1,000 air bursts since they were invented...and they didn't start clean did they?

Should have nuked after 9/11.

Rob

Should have nuked what after 9/11 Rob?

For starters I would have launched cruise missiles with tactical nukes on all known al-Qaida training camps in Afghanistan, Iraq and Sudan and in tribal areas of Pakistan.

I would have put a couple into Tehran also.

Rob

Notice Burma appears to be going nuke and building bunkers aided by NK.

China not keen over Nobel Peace prize award.

Rob

Lets hope the bunkers are deep.




Regards

Phil*