America explores new Low Yield Nukes

[2RHPZ]

Hafnium mooted as nuclear Isomer explosive

The US Dept of Defense (DoD) is considering the development of an exotic and extremely powerful explosive that works by releasing a flood of high-energy gamma radiation from the nuclei of certain atoms, most notably: hafnium. If a weapon that exploits this energy source could be devised, it would have a power approaching that of a nuclear weapon. The Pentagon's interest in explosive isomers coincides with the Bush administration's desire to develop new nuclear low-yield weapons to destroy hardened bunkers hiding the chemical and biological weapons reputedly possessed by rogue states.

[Jane's International Defense Review - first posted to idr.janes.com - 13 May 2004]

[n4292936]

The principal concern about low yield nuclear devices is that by using them, even for relatively the benign purpose of destroying a bunker, one crosses the taboo nuclear war threshhold and actually uses a weapon regarding which there are powerful negative connotations and associations. Scientifically, they are really interesting devices.
...and for the record, for those who would state as much, DU weapons are NOT nuclear weapons by any standard definition as their destructive power is not derived from either fusion or fission.

[Kampfbaer]

Nuclear weapons are a fine as a weapon of deterence, but their use against simple bunkers would be beyond the pale.

There is a fine psycological line that shouldn´t be crossed easily.

I´m convinced that it will be able to get the same results using and developing advanced conventional waepons even if you have to use more of them and if they are more expensive.

[G1]

That is wrong. No good will come of it in the long run.

[Laworkerbee]

Such weapons would be very useful in anti submarine warfare.

Nuclear weapons should only be used against other nation states, not dirty rebels in mountain hideouts.

No room for nukes in the current war on terror, except for possibly striking nation states who support the terror groups

[martinexsquaddie]

A) one rogue state has no secret wmd bunker complexes one state giving them up due to quiet dipolmancy desire of leader to stay alive.
Nukes are ment to be BIG SCARY WEAPONS the ultimate WMD any sort of playing around with mini nukes or trying to justify using nukes for tactical use is really sending the wrong message :(

[usa320]

I agree.

A handful of GBU-28's are just as effective.

[DE_Six]

Does a low-yield nuke offer any significant advantage over a BLU-82 or a MOAB?

Also, how long could radiations preclude friendly forces from occupying the ground afterward, in the event the nuke is used in a major theatre war?

[budanski]

DOD has developed a 7 step cycle to deal with a terrorist attack, with the first 3 steps being on the frontside and the 4 thru 7 being on the backside.

They are: Prevention, Deterrence, Preemption, Crisis Management, Consequence Management, Attribution, and Retaliation.

Mini-nukes would certainly beef up the deterrence step.

Particular actions can satisfy dual steps. The invasion of Iraq was preemption, but the "shock and awe" of that attack was noticed by Syria so that invasion becomes preemptive prevention. A mini-nuke used in retaliation would deter other attacks, so it would be retalitory deterrence, or deterring retaliation.

[n4292936]

The short answer is that it depends on what type of bomb is used and where the burst is located. If its exploded at ground level there is considerably more radioactive debree created (a 500m hemispheric hole is ussually excavated) which effectively rains down in the immediate vicinity and downwind from the explosion. Air bursts produce mostly gaseous radioactivity and a localised area of contamination, the resulting cloud may or may not decend downwind. The effects of the latter are less serious in terms of long term fallout but regardless of where the explosion takes place there is ussually a remnant amount of fissile material equal to 1/3 of the total amount after an explosion that did not ignite. There are other, non-standard bombs, such as the neutron bomb which were basically designed for non-city use and render everything absolutely dead within a certain radius but produce little contamination.
Size, type of fissile material, and location of burst are the important factors.

[DPGLAW]

I think that this is a great idea for us and our allies, such as Britan to develop and mabye use. I think taht a weapon like this would be very effective if, for example, it was deployed in the area of Pakistan/Afghanistan wherre BinLaden is hiding. I think that this would scare the ever living **** out of anyone in the area not killed by the blast and/or fallout.

This would be especially effective for when we end up at war with North Korea or Iran. In the case of N.K, the human wave attacks which they are so fond of would be quite useless, and fairly humorous if we were to use a weapon like the one described above against them. I think at that point they might change their mind about focking with the US. In the case of Iran, due to the fact that they are such a disorganized army (I use the term Army loosley, they are more like a gang of retarted kids). If we dropped this bomb on them at the beginning of war I think many, if not all soldiers would be too scared to want to fight us because they would have a tiny taste of what we can do. They could then imagine what would happen if we dropped a big nuke on the,.

It is a scary thing that the world has come to this but I think it is inevitable that we are going to have to use a nuclear weapon. If we are attacked on our soil again, expecially if it is with WMD, I think that we would, and definitely SHOULD nuke the state which perpetrated and/or harbored the terrorist group that did it. We are being driven by the terrorist groups to be more and more violent due to their actions. Not such a bad thing though because mabye if we are not so "nice" as we have been in the past and seem to just now be getting away from, then I think some of these ragheads would be as scared of the US authorities as they are of authorities in countries such as Egypt, etc.

[n4292936]

That has got be one the most consistently stupid posts I have ever read in my life.

My new, amended post reads thusly:
Things I found distasteful in the last post:
1. The enthusiasm with which the author seems to embrace the use of nuclear weaaponry
2. An opinion about the inevitability of war with both the DPRK and Iran.
3. Presumed, but lacking knowledge of the state of the Iran military.
4. A general lack of awareness of the political/social/military consequences of the use of nuclear devices.
5. Another lack of awareness of the nature of assymetric warfare, OR an obvious disregard for innocent casualties which would number in the tens of thousands.

look, I appreciate that the last post wasnt exactly a well rehearsed diatribe in favour of nuclear weaponry but I have to take what is posted at face value. It should be expected when you post here.

[usa320]

While his post did sounds quite uneducated, i do see his point. Using such a weapon would send a strong message (look at Japan's surrender).

[martinexsquaddie]

unfortunatly there are no major states to go to war with
even as in the tom clancy novel americas been hit badly and the CIA say well we know where he is within a square mile or so, the president growls thats close enough he does'nt get to nuke him :) and MR clancy is hardly a bed wetting liberal :).
rather than a nuke you need human intelligence on the ground to deal with the dyed in the wool killers.
and hearts and minds for there support base.
militant islam is not a threat too the world in the same leauge as the cold war but its definitly a problem that needs bigger brains than mine to deal with.
but I'll bet the solution is not mini nukes and hypersonic stealth bombers
(no matter how cool they look :( )

[Secret Squirrel]

While his post did sounds quite uneducated, i do see his point. Using such a weapon would send a strong message (look at Japan's surrender).

spoken like an idiot. Again, maybe if you fart really hard and manage to get your head out of your ass you'd realize why there was only one war where nukes were used against a civilian population.

[OB Kenobi]

While his post did sounds quite uneducated, i do see his point. Using such a weapon would send a strong message (look at Japan's surrender).

I like it. Nuclear diplomacy. Let's start with Texas.

[G1]

I think that this is a great idea for us and our allies, such as Britan to develop and mabye use. I think taht a weapon like this would be very effective if, for example, it was deployed in the area of Pakistan/Afghanistan wherre BinLaden is hiding. I think that this would scare the ever living **** out of anyone in the area not killed by the blast and/or fallout.

This would be especially effective for when we end up at war with North Korea or Iran. In the case of N.K, the human wave attacks which they are so fond of would be quite useless, and fairly humorous if we were to use a weapon like the one described above against them. I think at that point they might change their mind about focking with the US. In the case of Iran, due to the fact that they are such a disorganized army (I use the term Army loosley, they are more like a gang of retarted kids). If we dropped this bomb on them at the beginning of war I think many, if not all soldiers would be too scared to want to fight us because they would have a tiny taste of what we can do. They could then imagine what would happen if we dropped a big nuke on the,.

It is a scary thing that the world has come to this but I think it is inevitable that we are going to have to use a nuclear weapon. If we are attacked on our soil again, expecially if it is with WMD, I think that we would, and definitely SHOULD nuke the state which perpetrated and/or harbored the terrorist group that did it. We are being driven by the terrorist groups to be more and more violent due to their actions. Not such a bad thing though because mabye if we are not so "nice" as we have been in the past and seem to just now be getting away from, then I think some of these ragheads would be as scared of the US authorities as they are of authorities in countries such as Egypt, etc.

Get an education or a brain and try posting that again in a few years. :cantbeli:

[Tane Angle]

Whoa there, guys, no need for personal attacks, right? Great post, martin. You're right; we don't need any more nukes (not to mention that withdrawing from the ABM Treaty hurt our national credibility on the world stage), we need to continue to rebuild our HUMINT resources. AS DCI Tenet alluded to, that's not an overnight process; it can take many, many years to develop an adequate legend, or to turn someone.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[G1]

Whoa there, guys, no need for personal attacks, right? Great post, martin. You're right; we don't need any more nukes (not to mention that withdrawing from the ABM Treaty hurt our national credibility on the world stage), we need to continue to rebuild our HUMINT resources. AS DCI Tenet alluded to, that's not an overnight process; it can take many, many years to develop an adequate legend, or to turn someone.

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

Yes, I agree.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Can we still afford to be so idealistic about the nuclear issue? In the current environment, can we continue Cold War attitudes? I favor a more pragmatic approach.

Let's face it...a nuke is not always a nuke. Air bursting a 50 Megaton monster on a city is not anything like detonating a .01 kiloton bunker buster on an uninhabited mountain in the middle of nowhere. Obviously, nobody would ever approve their use in a populated environment.

If one were used in the wilderness...who's to know it's even a nuke? You'd need to send teams in to check for fallout to even know. It's simply an emotional attachment to the past that we're dealing with. We need to face the future, since that's all that we have.

Also, much like Reagan deploying intermediate range missiles in Europe against the USSR - his intent was never to use them. He knew of the deterrent affect they would have, and that the USSR would have to spend time and money countering them. When it comes down to dollars and sense, nukes are an asymmetrical weapon. It costs far more to counter them then they cost to build. That's also another reason why T's want them. Think about it - if terrorists had a nuke, they wouldn't even have to use it to get what they wanted. They would only need to make us believe that they would - such is the power of the word "nuke".

IMHO, that will be the real power of these weapons - not their actual use, but to have the well known capability they offer & the very real threat of their use.

You can check out the java link for the .pdf file "Request for Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator" (man, that would be an awesome name for a heavy metal band)

http://www.fas.org/main/content.jsp?formAction=297&contentId=151

Interesting article I found linked from fas.org.


Mini-Nuclear Weapons and the U.S. Nuclear Posture Review

B-2 bomber dropping a B61-11 bomb during test.
By Charles D. Ferguson

Leaked portions of the new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)[1] and recent press reports[2] have raised alarm that the United States may develop mini-nuclear weapons. Administration officials, however, have tried to downplay this concern and have pointed out that they are only launching a feasibility study, which begins this month.[3] Congress would have to authorize any new nuclear weapon system before actual construction could begin.

The NPR and Earth-Penetrating Weapons Options

Under the heading of "Advanced Concepts Initiative," the NPR calls for "improved earth penetrating weapons (EPWs) to counter the increased use by potential adversaries of hardened and deeply buried facilities."[1] Three EPW options will reportedly be examined in a Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) feasibility study over the next two to three years. The study's estimated cost is $45 million.[3] These options are:

conventional weapons,
modifications to existing nuclear weapons, and
development of new nuclear weapons.
Conventional weapons are the least controversial option from a political viewpoint, but they are the least likely to destroy hardened and deeply buried targets, according to advocates of mini-nuclear weapons. Nonetheless, the U.S. military arsenal already has very powerful and precise conventional weapons, which could demolish hardened targets buried approximately 50 feet below the surface. During the Gulf War, for example, the U.S. Air Force used the 4,000-pound GBU-28 bomb to destroy a bunker north of Baghdad protected by more than 30 feet of earth, concrete, and steel. The GBU-37 guided bomb, an improved version of the GBU-28, might be able to obliterate silo-based inter-continental ballistic missiles. Such hardened targets were previously believed to only be vulnerable to nuclear attack.[4] Improvements in this class of conventional weapons are almost certain to follow. But these weapons would still be unlikely to destroy very deeply buried targets because even the most explosive conventional weapon would not have a large enough explosive yield. Moreover, fundamental physical limitations on the strengths of warhead, bomb, or missile components constrain how deeply warheads can be driven into the ground, as discussed below.

The Physics Constraints on Nuclear Weapons as Bunker Busters

In contrast to the conventional weapons, the second option--modification of existing nuclear weapons--is politically the most controversial, but it is most likely to accomplish the military mission of destroying very deeply buried targets. The extant nuclear weapons in the U.S. arsenal typically have large explosive yields in the range of 100 to 475 kilotons (kT).[5] In comparison, the Nagasaki bomb had an equivalent yield of 22 kT, which is small relative to the current warheads' explosive energy. (A kT is equivalent with respect to blast damage to 1,000 tons of conventional explosives, or 500 of the 4,000-pound GBU-28 bombs.) All but one of the current U.S. nuclear weapons, if used as bunker busters, would undoubtedly result in massive amounts of radioactive fallout, potentially leading to huge civilian losses.

The one possible exception in the current nuclear arsenal worth exploring is the B61 bomb, which has a dial-a-yield between 0.3 to 170 kT. At the lower yields, weapons designers thought that this bomb could be modified to be a bunker buster that would minimize fallout. Critics cried foul because they said that the modification, called the B61-11, violated the U.S. policy of not developing new nuclear weapons. DOE and the weapons designers countered that the nuclear explosive itself is not new; only the packaging around the explosive was changed by placing the old warhead inside a hardened steel casing to increase the penetrating capability. But this capability is limited. Tests showed that the B61-11 can only penetrate about 20 feet into dry earth when dropped from 40,000 feet. Not only would such a bomb be questionable for destroying very deeply buried bunkers, but it would produce tremendous lethal radioactive fallout even with its low explosive yields.

Faced with the difficulties posed by the first and second options, some weapons scientists have argued for a third option: the development of a whole new class of nuclear weapons.[6][7] They would aim for two principal properties:

low explosive yields to minimize radioactive fallout, and
missile and bomb casings with deep-penetrating capability.
However, according to Dr. Robert Nelson, a physicist at Princeton University, "The goal of a benign earth-penetrating nuclear weapon is physically impossible."[8] His recent report shows that "EPWs cannot penetrate deeply enough to contain the nuclear explosion and will necessarily produce an especially intense and deadly radioactive fallout." Moreover, "A missile made of the hardest steels cannot survive the severe ground impact stresses at velocities greater than about [one kilometer per second] without destroying itself." Further, "This limits the maximum possible penetration depth into reinforced concrete to about four times the missile length -- approximately 12 meters for a missile 3 meters long." Even low-yield earth-penetrating nuclear weapons would excavate substantial craters, "throwing out a large amount of radioactive dirt and debris." His dose calculations indicate that "A one kiloton earth-penetrating ‘mini-nuke' used in a typical third-world urban environment [such as Baghdad] would spread a lethal dose of radioactive fallout over several square kilometers, resulting in tens of thousands of civilian fatalities."

The severe adverse consequences of nuclear weapons as earth-penetrators argue against their use. Weapons designers should instead shift development to conventional weapons that can render hardened and deeply buried bunkers inoperable. Though such weapons would be unlikely to destroy the bunkers, highly accurate conventional weapons could be used to seal up the entrances to these bunkers. As long as weapons of mass destruction (WMD) arsenals remain trapped inside closed bunkers, these arsenals pose no threat.

The NPR is Only the Latest Story in the Mini-Nuclear Weapons Saga

The administration has emphasized that planning for the development of EPWs is not new to the NPR. In certain respects this is true, but the story is more complicated.

The Gulf War re-sparked concern that Saddam Hussein or some other tyrannical leader could hide WMD, missile factories, or command and control facilities in hardened and deeply buried bunkers, which would be impervious to attack. A seminal 1991 paper by Thomas Dowler and Joseph Howard of the Los Alamos National Laboratory took as its axiom that "The existing U.S. nuclear arsenal had no deterrent effect on Saddam, and is unlikely to deter a future tyrant."[7] Other analysts have countered that during the Gulf War, the U.S. conveyed credible deterrent threats to Saddam, which contributed to stopping him from using WMD. To the contrary, Steve Fetter has argued that "There is evidence that Iraq was unable, rather than unwilling, to use its chemical weapons."[9]

From their vantage point, Dowler and Howard argued for "the development of new nuclear weapons of very low yields, with destructive power proportional to the risks we will face in the new world environment." They described three classes of nuclear weapons to fulfill this mission:

"micronukes" with an explosive yield of about 10 tons or equivalent to 20,000 pounds of high explosives;
"mininukes" with an explosive yield of about 100 tons;
"tinynukes" with an explosive yield of about 1,000 tons or one kiloton.
On the political front in the early 1990s, the trend was away from development of new nuclear weapons. On September 27, 1991, President George H. W. Bush, as part of his reductions in U.S. nuclear forces, declared that the U.S. would eliminate all of its ground-based tactical nuclear weapons -- a major class of battlefield nuclear weapons. On October 2, 1992, he approved a moratorium on U.S. nuclear testing. In 1993, Rep. Elizabeth Furse (D-OR) and Rep. John Spratt (D-SC) successfully attached in the FY 1994 defense authorization bill a provision that prohibits the national laboratories from research and development leading to a precision, low-yield nuclear weapon. In particular, this legislation defined mini-nuclear weapons as those with explosive yields of five kilotons or less.

In 2000, Senators John Warner (R-VA) and Wayne Allard (R-CO) took a major step toward reversing this political trend by introducing an amendment in the FY 2001 defense authorization bill that called for a DOD and DOE study on "the defeat of hardened and deeply buried targets."[10] Although this legislation passed, it did not explicitly override the Furse-Spratt provision. In October 2001, DOD transmitted the "Report to Congress on the Defeat of Hard and Deeply Buried Targets."[11]

Scientists Speak Out

In parallel to this report to Congress, influential national laboratory scientists and analysts tried to make the case for useable nuclear weapons. In June 2000, for example, Stephen Younger, then-Associate Laboratory Director for Nuclear Weapons at Los Alamos National Laboratory, challenged "conventional thinking on nuclear issues." In addition to making a case for lower yield nuclear weapons, he argued that "it might be desirable to retain a small number of higher-yield nuclear weapons" to destroy "very hard targets."[6] A year later, C. Paul Robinson, the president and director of Sandia National Laboratory, advanced similar arguments.[12] In opposition, prominent arms control scientists and scientific organizations have spoken out against the possible development of mini-nuclear weapons, citing the likelihood of massive collateral damage and the adverse political costs of crossing the nuclear threshold if the U.S. would ever use these weapons.[13]

As the recently launched DOD and DOE feasibility study proceeds and as security concerns over rogue states expands or contracts, the political and scientific battles over whether mini-nuclear weapons are useable or necessary will continue.

Just like regular old boring nukes - I support having them, not using them.

[shrek]

I have a friend that I work with daily that has an idea (remember, I work in the Missile/Missile defense business). He says that we should tell all the terrorist that the next time a muslim attacks us we will Nuke Mecca. Then, if there is another attack, we will bomb the Mountain, so on and so forth!

First off this technology is not that new. The main thing that we're working on right now is a weapon with little or no radioactive fallout or irradiation of an area. Just a big boom!

Another idea I had is for you guys to all go get college degrees in engineering and join me (no insult meant). Help us figure out a better way. Like they say, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.


One of our favorite sayings in A-stan: From the movie Aliens, "lets just Nuke'em from space man".

[2RHPZ]

I have a friend that I work with daily that has an idea (remember, I work in the Missile/Missile defense business). He says that we should tell all the terrorist that the next time a muslim attacks us we will Nuke Mecca. Then, if there is another attack, we will bomb the Mountain, so on and so forth!

First off this technology is not that new. The main thing that we're working on right now is a weapon with little or no radioactive fallout or irradiation of an area. Just a big boom!

Another idea I had is for you guys to all go get college degrees in engineering and join me (no insult meant). Help us figure out a better way. Like they say, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.


One of our favorite sayings in A-stan: From the movie Aliens, "lets just Nuke'em from space man".

I agree with Shrek at all, nothing more to add. Here is another article:

US senate approves nuclear bunker-buster research
From AP

June 17, 2004UNITED States research into new nuclear "bunker buster" and "mini-nuke" nuclear warheads survived a vote in the Senate after a House subcommittee refused last week to provide any more money for it.
By a 55-42 vote Tuesday, the US Senate rejected an amendment to a $US447 billion defense bill that would cancel further research on the proposed weapons.
Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, an amendment sponsor, said before the vote that while the United States preaches nonproliferation, development of the weapons would say to the world: "Don't do what we do. Do what we say."
"We are practicing the ultimate hypocrisy," she said.
The nuclear bunker buster would be intended to reach deeply buried targets, such as underground military command centers beyond capability of conventional bombs to penetrate. The mini-nuke warhead of less than 5000 tons of TNT - one-fourth the explosive power of the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, in 1945 - would cause less damage and fewer deaths in the area around a target, its advocates say.
Republicans argued that the $US37 million the amendment sought to strike is for research, not development, and doesn't pose the risk of an arms race like that with the Soviet Union during the four-decade Cold War.
"This is a feasibility study ... nothing more," said Republican Senator James Inhofe. He said going forward with development and production would require approval by the president and Congress later.
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, a Democrat, said he couldn't "imagine a dumber idea."
"If the Bush administration has its way, the next war could very well be a nuclear war," Kennedy said.

AP

[n4292936]

Another idea I had is for you guys to all go get college degrees in engineering and join me (no insult meant). Help us figure out a better way. Like they say, "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.

and yet another idea is to attain a Masters degree in Defense and GeoPolitical Security Studies so as to be the person whose policies dictate the use of such weapons... Shrek, you design and I'll impliment ;)

[GazB]

There are several major problems with this hair brained idea of the west to use mini nukes to destroy bunkers. The main problem is obviously that the creation of a new type of nuclear weapon will start a new race amongst Russian and then China and no doubt others to have a similar capability. Such an increase in nuclear weapons helps no one.

Second, that lowering the threshhold where nukes are to be used as a weapon of war can only be a bad thing. Those who suggest that they could be created but not used as a deterrent... the current military force of the US didn't seem to deter OBL and Al Quada... what makes you think they care about mini nukes?

And third is about as serious as any other... there is no way you can guarantee they will work anyway. If you think about it if you are building an underground command centre the access tunnels and ventilation systems are very unlikely to be straight or give any indication of where the actual base is. If it is inside a mountain range then even mini nukes might not be powerful enough to reliably destroy it... a large base could have dozens of concealed entrances. Conventional weapons would need to hit within a dozen metres to have any effect, a comparable nuke would not be able to be much less accurate. One should also remember that even if they perfect some super material to make the case out of and it buries itself 1,000m underground before going off and there is no radiation released into the air from the explosion... it could still kill thousands simply by irradiating the ground water in the area.

Once the US uses a nuke to take out a command centre surely that will make retaliation with WMDs not just legitimate but perhaps necessary. Mini nukes with shock proof designs to penetrate the earth and concrete would be ideal as a backpack nuke for a terr.

I should point out that the radiation from nuclear weapons is not directly proportional to its size. A tiny nuke doesn't produce a tiny amount of radiation. In fact the opposite could almost be said to be true in that the radiation from a very large nuclear explosion is less dangerous as to be killed by the radiation you would be vapourised by the blast ayway.

[oldsoak]

Low yield nuke - just what we need for dealing with a large scattered cave complex.....

- I'd rather the US put the money into things like intel gathering and all the funky gear that gives its servicepeople the decisive edge on the battlefield. Sooner or later GI Joe is going to have to go get the bad guys, - and making sure he/she has the right intel and the right gear will be a damn sight better than having a shed load of low yield nukes that would cause lots of political repercussions should they be used.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Here is a link to the fas.org page on erth penetrating low yield nukes.
http://www.fas.org/faspir/2001/v54n1/weapons.htm

[DPGLAW]

Not only should we threaten the Muslims with the destruction of Mecca, we should just do it! I mean I think that would really show them that we are not kidding around, you want to destroy our Symbols such as WTC, Pentagon, etc. We will destroy yours. IMHO we should have done this after 9/11.

[duck]

Not only should we threaten the Muslims with the destruction of Mecca, we should just do it! I mean I think that would really show them that we are not kidding around, you want to destroy our Symbols such as WTC, Pentagon, etc. We will destroy yours. IMHO we should have done this after 9/11.

The WTC and Pentagon are religious symbols? Not that I would approve of your nerd fantasies but...

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Not only should we threaten the Muslims with the destruction of Mecca, we should just do it! I mean I think that would really show them that we are not kidding around, you want to destroy our Symbols such as WTC, Pentagon, etc. We will destroy yours. IMHO we should have done this after 9/11.
Hey numpty, we are in conflict with Al-Q not Islam itself you fool. Jeez some of you people. :cantbeli:

[Tane Angle]

You're kidding, right? I think I just had a small heart attack at that one.

On a different note, 2Sheds, there will only be more fighting in urban areas, not less, in the coming years. There woAfghanistan is probably something of rareity in modern wars in that there is relatively little street fighting. In the future though, my guess would be that groups and states will take a cue from Saddam Hussein's tactics in the Gulf War and hide their stockpiles in cities, beneath humanitarian or other "off-limits" buildings. Think about it; if you were a terrorist, would you hide your caches in the mountains where they are relatively easy to hit (easy in that there is less risk of hitting civilians)? Or would you hide in under a hospital or school where if the US or another nation was determined to hit your stockpile, you could at least turn it into a public relations disaster for them?

Have a good one, and just some thoughts...

[Fintin]

You're kidding, right? I think I just had a small heart attack at that one.

pills from last night getting to you...

[Tane Angle]

rofl I was wondering why it was like that, thanks for reminding me. rofl