That'll leave a mark!

[Okla-homey]

Newsies are reporting we may be about to finally put some of those old gravity nukes to use which have been laying around collecting dust for forty years in taking out underground Iranian nuke sites. I hope they use at least one I signed for at some point.

http://img207.imageshack.us/img207/4926/aaaawbush09abig5pi.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

[1stTimeCaller]

quick ?. With the 'dial-a-yield' feature if you use the lowest yeild does that leave useable nuke material that could be recycled by the enemy or is it useless after any type of nuclear detonation?

[Okla-homey]

quick ?. With the 'dial-a-yield' feature if you use the lowest yeild does that leave useable nuke material that could be recycled by the enemy or is it useless after any type of nuclear detonation?

Its completely destroyed in the ensuing blast. More specifically, the fissionable material is scattered at a molecular level, so no.

[jeremy885]

So this guy is saying that we'll use nukes to stop another country from developing nukes? I just don't see this happening, because of the **** storm that would follow. The Europeans would break from us, the Japanese would break from us, and everyone in the world would look to China to contain us, so that we can't do it again.

Bush is not this stupid.


Here's the story from Homey's pic

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=C3HY5I431EHHRQFIQMGSFFWAVCBQ WIV0?xml=/news/2006/04/09/wbush09.xml&sSheet=/portal/2006/04/09/ixportaltop.html

[Okla-homey]

I guess we'll find out eventually. That said, if nukes are the only way to kill these targets deep underground, many would argue nukes are the proper tool to use. If the alternative is indeed waiting to see what the Iranians develop and employ against us or our Allies, a massive poop-storm would surely ensue among folks who would shout "why didn't you stop it when you could?" Its a tough problem. The fact is, the Prez can order such strikes on his word alone without asking permission from anyone. People need to keep that in mind when they choose to vote or not.

[Jerk]

Did you know a British RAF pilot is flying one of our B-2's now in the "officer exchange programme" that we have between us and the U.K.?

I think that's bloody cool. Wish I still had the link.

[jeremy885]

Doesn't he need a second person to agree with him under the two-man rule?

[Jerk]

Doesn't he need a second person to agree with him under the two-man rule?

The President?

No "two-man" rule. That was for strategic boat crews. (nuclear submarines)

[Jerk]

Speaking of subs, 2 of ours can render Russia into a non-entity if they launch all of their missles.

They have something like 24 missles, with several (maybe 6?) indepedent warheads, designed to hit their target within 100 meters.

I'm thinking Israel will attack Iran before we do, using their Dolphin class subs and nuclear-tipped harpoon missles.

[Okla-homey]

Doesn't he need a second person to agree with him under the two-man rule?

There is misunderstanding on this among mny people. Here's basically how it works. The two-man rule applies only at the other end of the order. IOW, the bomber, ICBM or sub crew has to decode the execution order from the president and the two people then have to validate it. Then, in the case of ICBM's, both officers have to turn their keys. In bombers where I came from, there is a mechanism aboard that the aircraft commander and another guy both have to activate to enable weapons release after two people on the crew validate the "go" order.

The order itself is different. The President (or any person in the established chain of command if he's dead or incommunicado) is the "national command authority" and the NCA can unilaterally order a nuclear strike. Its been that way since the 50's.

[SoonerWood]

HELPING HAND! HELPING HAND! (waves hat in air)

[jeremy885]

There is misunderstanding on this among mny people. Here's basically how it works. The two-man rule applies only at the other end of the order. IOW, the bomber, ICBM or sub crew has to decode the execution order from the president and the two people then have to validate it. Then, in the case of ICBM's, both officers have to turn their keys. In bombers where I came from, there is a mechanism aboard that the aircraft commander and another guy both have to activate to enable weapons release after two people on the crew validate the "go" order.

The order itself is different. The President (or any person in the established chain of command if he's dead or incommunicado) is the "national command authority" and the NCA can unilaterally order a nuclear strike. Its been that way since the 50's.

I thought that this is only if we were attacked. If we launch a first strike, doesn't someone else have to confirm the order? I'm basing this on what I read in "The Sum of all Fears". Great book but a terrible movie.

[boomersooner28]

think we can get one of those dropped on ironhorses ol' girl?

[royalfan5]

My question is what happens if we use this and there is ****up on target selection, or something else goes wrong that kills a bunch of women and children instead of blowing up what is supposed to. I would think that the resulting fall-out from that happening would be the real international fall-out rather than just using this weapon successfully. I don't know how likely a ****-up would be, or how well the Irainians could make it look like a ****-up, but that's the situation I would worry about as a part of geopolitics. So what I'm saying is if we do it, we best not **** it up.

[soonerscuba]

The way I see it, the negatives far outweigh the positives of such a strike.

[reevie]

Of course Big Blu is on the table. The government always states the nuclear option is on the table when it comes to potential conflicts.

[Okla-homey]

I thought that this is only if we were attacked. If we launch a first strike, doesn't someone else have to confirm the order? I'm basing this on what I read in "The Sum of all Fears". Great book but a terrible movie.

Okay, once again...in fact, the president is the commander-in-chief per our Constitution (Art II.) Heck, for that matter, Congress doesn't even have any real say when he deploys conventional forces. They tried to reign in presidential power in the wake of the undeclared war in Viet Nam by passing this thing called the "War Powers Act" basically saying the prez had to seek congressional approval to keep forces deployed after the immediate emergency had past, but every Prez since Carter has blown it off because everyone understands the Act is constitutionally unsound and the Supremes would rule that way if Congress ever tried to stop the Prez from deploying or keeping forces somewhere. So instead, the Prez sends forces where he sees fit and Congress usually passes some resolution thingy that says "yep, we approve" that has the practical impact of a bucket of spit. The only constitutional power Congress has to influence military affairs is the "purse strings" so in theory, they could cut-off funding to a deployed force -- but with American kids in harms way, they know at the core of their little political hearts that would be tantamount to political hari-kari so they wouldn't do that either and they've never tried it.

Sorry I digressed -- back to the nuke policy. In theory, the Prez could order a nuke strike virtually anywhere and our nuclear forces are bound to execute their missions. The military of course is involved in the development of target sets, but when the Prez says "go" against targets X,Y, and/or Z -- that's it and they'll be vaporized.

That's the way it has to work to both function effectively and be a credible deterrent. If the Prez had to get approval from some third party first, he wouldn't be the commander-in-chief and big cahuna he is. That's also why the President of the United States is the most powerful person on the planet. Reiterating, you should always remember the above when you vote.

[starclassic tama]

Bush is not this stupid.

i beg to differ

[slickdawg]

Dammit Homey, this succs

I just the the freakin' fence moved and all cleaned up, and now
we're on the brink of nuclear war. Just freakin great.








;)

[SicEmBaylor]

Dammit Homey, this succs

I just the the freakin' fence moved and all cleaned up, and now
we're on the brink of nuclear war. Just freakin great.








;)

I wouldn't worry; Even if the Iranians already had the bomb they don't have a delivery system for it that could reach you or your fence other than someone physically delivering it. (A good reason to secure our southern border?) Unless you think the Russians are going to go to bat for the Iranians...

The President does of course have the authority to use nukes to strike Iran, but I don't think it's a serious option except in some worst case scenerio whereby Iran aquires a nuke and is on the verge of striking Israel.

The political fallout from using nuclear weapons against Iran to destroy their nuclear facilities would be something like the likes of which we've never seen.

[slickdawg]

I wouldn't worry; Even if the Iranians already had the bomb they don't have a delivery system for it that could reach you or your fence other than someone physically delivering it. (A good reason to secure our southern border?) Unless you think the Russians are going to go to bat for the Iranians...

The President does of course have the authority to use nukes to strike Iran, but I don't think it's a serious option except in some worst case scenerio whereby Iran aquires a nuke and is on the verge of striking Israel.

The political fallout from using nuclear weapons against Iran to destroy their nuclear facilities would be something like the likes of which we've never seen.

therein lies the problem.

Unless Condileeza gets many nations to sign off on this preemptive strike
using tactical nukes, we must not unless there is a grave danger to the
US, its troops (in Iraq next door) or our TRUE allies.

Otherwise, I think multiple hits with MOAB's at the same site would
cause the same damage, we just have a greater risk having to fly
that many sorties.

[Vaevictis]

The political fallout from using nuclear weapons against Iran to destroy their nuclear facilities would be something like the likes of which we've never seen.

Yeah, but based upon my observations, Bush isn't generally concerned with the political fallout of his actions.

[SicEmBaylor]

therein lies the problem.

Unless Condileeza gets many nations to sign off on this preemptive strike
using tactical nukes, we must not unless there is a grave danger to the
US, its troops (in Iraq next door) or our TRUE allies.

Otherwise, I think multiple hits with MOAB's at the same site would
cause the same damage, we just have a greater risk having to fly
that many sorties.

I agree.

[slickdawg]

great minds and all....