stratoman Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 If push came to shove would we use these? here is some info on these: U.S. tactical nuclear warheads are the B-61 and B-83 bombs, which contain a portion of the destructive capacity of strategic nuclear weapons once they are dropped from bombers or other fighter aircraft. There are approximately 1,670 B-61s and B-83s, also called "mini-nukes," in the U.S. nuclear arsenal. This includes the approximately 150 to 200 land-based, sub-strategic nuclear bombs stockpiled at eight bases in Europe. First B-61 bomb deployed: 1967 B-61 modified versions: B61-3, B61-4, B61-7, B61-10, B61-11 (as of 2002) Dimensions: 11.8 feet long, 13.4 inches in diameter, 23 inches in tail span Weight: Approximately 700 pounds maximum (earth-penetrating version, B61-11, weighs an additional 450 pounds) Number stockpiled: approximately 350 Explosive yield: 300 to 30,000 tons of TNT for all B-61 models in use. B61-11 is categorized as "single yield" or "low-yield" Delivery method: B-2 Spirit bomber or F-16 Falcon fighter jet Number of deployed: 350 B-61s Tactical nuclear warheads could be used to penetrate deep and hard targets such as bunkers and the B61-11 has limited earth-penetrating capability. When dropped from an altitude of 40,000 feet, it penetrates only roughly 20 feet into the soil. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists says the B61-11 cannot penetrate deeply enough to contain a atomic explosion and subsequent radioactive fallout, which the group says would cause thousands of casualties. The B61-11 would be used in an urban environment. First B-83 deployed: 1984 Dimensions: 12 feet long, 11 inches diameter, 35 inches in tail span Weight: 2,399 pounds Number stockpiled: approximately 650 Yield: One to two megatons (one megaton is equivalent to a million tons of TNT) Delivery method: B-2 Spirit, B-52H Stratofortress, or B-1B Lancer bombers This weapon has a variable-yield feature, as does the B-61, which means the explosive power or yield can be adjusted. When used for strategic purposes, the B-83 has a high-yield with a low-level "laydown" capability, meaning it has a delayed blast of up to 120 seconds so the aircraft dropping it can do so from a low altitude and still have time to escape the blast. It was designed specifically for use against hardened targets. At high-yield, the B-83 is said to be 100 times more powerful than the "Little Boy," the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945. The B-83 is in the process of being replaced by B61-11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 NO. Not unless somone used one on us first. Bank on this, the MOAB is being held back and will be used in place of a tactical nuke should Iraq use chemical weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 Ummmmmm no. Absolutely not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 No nukes is good nukes. I would hate to even hear that it would be considered in any situation other than a defensive response to a nuclear attack upon us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tex Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 Use nukes if and only if, not using them means defeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TennesseeCarl Posted March 29, 2003 Share Posted March 29, 2003 Hmmmm....we've invaded Iraq against the wishes of most of the world because our leaders are convinced that Saddam Heussein might have a cache of weapons of mass destruction that U.N. inspectors have been unable to find. So we're going to consider using weapons of mass destruction in order to win the war? Sort of along the lines of "We had to destroy the village to save it", no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sarge Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 No. Nukes are off limits Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskin56 Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 If we use Nukes............. North Korea uses Nukes. We don't need to use them and we shouldn't use Nukes. Use the MOAB in large numbers and you'll have the same effect of one tactical Nuke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimboDaMan Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 The next use of those things, by anybody, anywhere, will open the door to the abyss. That door will eventually open. Of that I have no doubt. But it better not be us, not now, not when we have overwhelming superiority against a foe even counting his use of chemical weapons. If the bar is that low...there are lesser powers with the bomb who will welcome us making it legitimate. We use nukes of any sort on this war and I will personally lead the drive to impeach. GWB has more on the ball than that, and if he doesn't, I don't see those around him as atomic cowboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 I'll say it a third time...we AINT going to use nukes, tactical or otherwise, unless they are used on us. Bush may be aggressive but I believe he is essentially cautious (look at his measured response to 9/11 and the lengthy buildup prior to this campaign as evidence). Despite his rep, he's no fool. And we can devastate anyone we need to in a retaliatory manner with conventional weapons. No nuke response except in response to a nuke. No way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 no nukes, please. not necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 I just wanted to add my no. I really hope not. Bush may be somewhat frightening in this aspect though. He has kept it on the table and he may be just stubborn enough to take the attitude of making the wrong choice between pulling out/defeat and winning at all costs if it came to that. That precedent could end the world. That's why all the countries who've had WMD over the last forty years, none of them have used them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stratoman Posted March 30, 2003 Author Share Posted March 30, 2003 I agree no nukes unless nukes are used against us. I just wanted to see what the extremeskins "think tank"(LOL) thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarhog Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Originally posted by Burgold I just wanted to add my no. I really hope not. Bush may be somewhat frightening in this aspect though. He has kept it on the table and he may be just stubborn enough to take the attitude of making the wrong choice between pulling out/defeat and winning at all costs if it came to that. That precedent could end the world. That's why all the countries who've had WMD over the last forty years, none of them have used them. Except for Iraq you mean? No US President would ever 'take off the table' the use of Nukes. They are the ultimate deterrent and to give up that deterrent effect by acknowledging we wouldn't use them under any circumstances would not only be foolish, it could cost more American lives and embolden outlaw regimes like N. Korea to act more recklessly. Bush is no more frightening than JFK was (the JFK who almost chose the 2nd use of nuclear weapons), but I've yet to hear any lengthy discussion about that 'madman' JFK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJWatson3 Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 JFK was a crazy mo-fo. Has anyone ever read, "the darkside of camelot"? it is a highly entertaining book by hirsch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted March 30, 2003 Share Posted March 30, 2003 Originally posted by Air Sarge No. Nukes are off limits You don't know how good it makes me feel to hear that from you Sarge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.