[luke warm]

the inventor of the bomb said it's the most moral weapon ever invented... it doesn't maim, it doesn't destroy infrastructure, etc... it just does what all weapons of war do, it kills people - but it does so with the least collateral damage possible

is such a weapon an actual possibility in the war on terror? if not, why not

[sceptic]

biological weapons do the same job, they are cheaper and easier to make and youi can reclaim the land quicker

[Free]

Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over

[luke warm]

sceptic, on Apr 14 2006, 08:05 AM, said:

biological weapons do the same job, they are cheaper and easier to make and youi can reclaim the land quicker

like anthrax? i don't know how soon the land (ie, water etc) can be reclaimed but i understand your point... btw, in your opinion would anthrax be more, less, or equally moral with a neutron bomb?

Quote

Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over

yes, probably it would

[kenrexford]

What about Voice of America broadcasting Gilligan's Island re-runs???

[paulg]

Free, on Apr 14 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over 

Shall we start with Leeds (approximately where the London bombers came from) or Oklahoma?

Paul

[luke warm]

cardsharp, on Apr 14 2006, 09:21 AM, said:

Free, on Apr 14 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over 

Shall we start with Leeds (approximately where the London bombers came from) or Oklahoma?

Paul

good point... i think what fredrick meant was, those countries that harbor terrorists, that *know* they're harboring terrorists, and that do not think they are in a war

[DrTodd13]

It is a myth that neutron bombs don't destroy buildings. Neutron bombs are atomic bombs that have been designed to maximize release of neutrons but they are still atomic bombs and do generate typical atomic bomb damage...just a little bit less than atomic bombs designed to maximize shockwave damage.

[sceptic]

Ok, Anthrax is not a good example of reclaiming land, but there are many alternatives, I am sure the old Iraqi regime, could give you alternative choices (and if that is not a weapon of mass destruction, what the hell is)

[Sigi_BC84]

luke warm, on Apr 14 2006, 01:58 PM, said:

is such a weapon an actual possibility in the war on terror? if not, why not

I still don't see how one could win the so called "war on terror" with weaponry.

--Sigi

[luke warm]

DrTodd13, on Apr 14 2006, 12:37 PM, said:

It is a myth that neutron bombs don't destroy buildings. Neutron bombs are atomic bombs that have been designed to maximize release of neutrons but they are still atomic bombs and do generate typical atomic bomb damage...just a little bit less than atomic bombs designed to maximize shockwave damage.

this is true, as far as it goes... i think cohen had stated (and i'm going from memory) that exploding a device 3000 feet up results in 'minimum damage' to the surrounding area (the target zone here is 1 square mile)... that means *many* such bombs would have to be used if the aim is to minimuze collateral damage

sigi said:

I still don't see how one could win the so called "war on terror" with weaponry.

possibly you're right, though there are plans for neutron warfare that (theoretically) result in a "win"

[Sigi_BC84]

luke warm, on Apr 14 2006, 07:41 PM, said:

sigi said:

I still don't see how one could win the so called "war on terror" with weaponry.

possibly you're right, though there are plans for neutron warfare that (theoretically) result in a "win"

"Winning" to me would mean eliminating terrorism as a whole, which is fairly utopian anyway. Even reducing it to a "manageable level" (whatever that is) will not work by attacking specific places. I absolutely don't see the value of WMDs in any meaningful campaign in this area.

Having such weapons is simply insane; probably one needs them for deterrence now but making plans to actually using them is just sick in my eyes.

--Sigi

[pigpenz]

in the history of the world someone always comes up with the ultimate weapon for their time....maybe the atomic or neutron bomb next to a cataclysmic event is the best thing....when we look at how little time humans have been on this planet in its 14billion years.....maybe 28,000 years(half life of uranium) is just enough for the planet to recharge itself up from all of the crap that we have done on it. Sad but mabye true.

[luke warm]

well one of the things that make the neutron bomb more "humane" (in the eyes of some) is the fact that the isotopes are gone within 48 hours...

Quote

Having such weapons is simply insane; probably one needs them for deterrence now but making plans to actually using them is just sick in my eyes.

beleive me, i understand the sentiment... those who push the use of such weapons do so on the grounds that war is all about killing people and blowing up things... so they think they can kill fewer and blow up less... also, they think there is less maiming and other war-injuries

i guess the question is, if there is to be war is it better to have it as it is now, or to do so in a way that limits loss of life and property

[AceOfHeart]

If this is the case then chemical bombs are the bst since , little daamge will be done to the earth etc. It is like spraying insecticide over the land that kill humans

[the saint]

cardsharp, on Apr 14 2006, 02:21 PM, said:

Free, on Apr 14 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over 

Shall we start with Leeds (approximately where the London bombers came from) or Oklahoma?

Paul

Yes, its a s***hole with a crap football team.

[sceptic]

HAHAHA I can think of a small town, near where I live

Quote

Yes, its a s***hole with a crap football team

only they dobn't have such a good football team HAHAHAHA

[Free]

luke warm, on Apr 14 2006, 05:02 PM, said:

cardsharp, on Apr 14 2006, 09:21 AM, said:

Free, on Apr 14 2006, 01:09 PM, said:

Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over 

Shall we start with Leeds (approximately where the London bombers came from) or Oklahoma?

Paul

good point... i think what fredrick meant was, those countries that harbor terrorists, that *know* they're harboring terrorists, and that do not think they are in a war

Something like that, otherwise you can start nuking every country in the world... I meant those country's which HELP terrorists or terrorist regimes as a whole.

[keylime]

Peace...through superior firepower.

[han]

I think that it is a very poor idea to use any kind of atomic (or biological, chemical, etc.) weapon. Under any circumstances.

I recall having read something about Osama Bin Laden's group discussing whether they would make a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant (prior to 9/11). My recollection from this article is that they found that this was possible but too much (call it immoral if you like). Perhaps this is hard to believe, and unfortunately I cannot back it up as I don't remember the source (Time magazine?). Is there somebody who can confirm this and give a reference?

Anyway, I think that it is inevitable that terrorists at some point will be able to use methods that are far more destructive than those that were used in the 9/11 attack (and perhaps they already were able). If "we" start using these weapons now, I think that they would not hold back in the future.

I also don't think that it is possible to exterminate terrorism by killing a whole lot of people.