Chemical Weapons vs Nuclear Weapons in National Defense

I would say non H-bombs with out the nuke trigger that we are developing. or neutron bombs. As for nukes being a deterrent to invasion that really not true either it all depends on the size of the country and how good your Intel and what type of weapons we are talking about silo ICBM's moving ones, subs?


If the USA was going to invade lets say NK and use Nuke's which you would have to do to stop them from using there's. Really there is no need for a invasion just wipe it from the face of the earth.

So what would the USA do to get ready for a Nuke war?
1. Set up missile defense grid --- Check...
2. Move patriot missiles to costal area's to defend from sub attack --- Check
3. Make more nukes. The armed forces is trying to get permission to make small scale nukes 1 kilo ton or less. --- Check
4. Harden bases to Nuke retaliation --- Check the new bases they are putting up in Iraq and Afghanistan are hardened against Nuke attacks.

So by my check list we are getting ready for one right now. The thing is the USA does not attack first so either it is going to be a set up or the other guy will pull the trigger first.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Actually he wouldn't. He could smuggle a few into the US, perhaps in pieces, and detonate them from within American cities.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Ten kilos of antimatter would be better spent in a spaceship. You set off that bomb, no more earth. Doomsday weapons don't work very well unless you're a mad scientist.

The Davy Crockett Warheads were designed to be shot from a recoiless rifle on a jeep. Many tacticals have small enough blast radiuses to be used from conventional artillery.

Hydrogen bombs without fission is a fantasy a long way from reality.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i say that the best defence is to not invade countries pointleesly, that way no-one wants to kill you.
bush is hated by so many people that if he were to come near my country, everyone within 100km of his hotel would be taking a shot

 

The author of the thread asked an interesting question about the use of WMD, so let's be polite and post on topic, rather than hijack the thread into a long argument between the Bush supporters and opponents. I can intervene in an "Earth Science" thread and say, "Well that reminds me of something dishonest in John Kerry's past," but it wouldn't be very polite.

 

That doesn't seem very likely, with the relatively primitive technology available to Saddam, these things would be quite large.

Some people have been trying for years to figure out how nukes could be used in a strategic way against conventional forces- pure fantasy, if you ask me, it puts your own troops in mortal danger if the wind shifts, not to mention the political fallout.

 

Personally I think that chemical weapons are better for attacking and demorilazing the population.
For defence on own soil nuclear is better because it can be more easely contained while a chemical weapon might kill half of your own population.
Of course you can make it to be active only for some time and don't spread further, but unlike physics (nuclear weapons), biology (biochem weapons) does mutate!
You could wipe out the entire human species just because of some biochemical agent/weapon mutation.
That's why I think nuclear is better -> it's more easy to predict and know the results of its use.

 

Well, first of all, the components of a bioweapon would not be large. Hussein could even infect someone with a disease with an incubation period of a few days, put him on a plain to the US, then have that person rent a car here and drive across the country, starting numerous epicenters of the disease until he died of it himself.

As far as nukes go, I believe that one could be broken up into pieces small enough to ship in disguised as something else. Our ports are hardly air tight. Any country wishing to use WMD against us would have a very strong motive to sneak the parts in and attack us from within, since this would also help to disguise their involvement. It's a lot harder to tell who nuked you inspecting evidence that was at the center of the fireball, than it is when your satellites pick up ICBMS heading toward you.

I think that this is the method that a small country attempting to use WMD to overcome the conventional superiority of the US would likely take.

 

Nuclear fallout and chemical/biological weapons are airborne. The thing is, the larger nukes will kick fallout into the upper atmosphere, which makes it a global problem. This is one of the things that would contribute to nuclear winter. Just becuase your country is not destroyed doesn't mean you're not affected. chemical and biological agents are released by smaller explosions at lower altitudes, meaning less gets out of the local area.

The only thing difficult about smuggling nuclear weapons would be the nuclear material. Depending on the design, the explosive lenses(implosion type bomb) or gun mechanism could be fabricated locally.

 

The question was:

And the answer is nuclear, but only because it would keep an army from invading in the first place. That is why Osama doesn't raise a (conventional) army. Once an army invades, and they could not do it secretly, the military/industrial complex has already figured out a variety of weapons systems to deal with such a (yawn) traditional threat. There really isn't such a thing as a nuclear defense.

 

Instead of trying to build newer and bigger weapons of destruction, we should be thinking about getting more use out of the ones we already have.-JackHandey

 

I wish a robot would get elected president. That way, when he came to town, we could all take a shot at him and not feel too bad.-Jack Handey

 

I just hope the good ole USA has the forsight and political will to be pre-emptive with what they have.

Nothing wrong with that policy if we announce it in advance to the piss ants that think they want to play with the big boys.

We will be damn fools to allow NK or Iran to develope nukes. Take them out now.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

yeh, but what prohibits the USA to name any country a potential threat to be?
what if I don't feel safe about the USA bullying around the world?
Why can't Iran develop that nuke to protect itself from the USA invading it, because it clearly works that way with North Korea?
I don't trust the USA at all.

 

It might be unfair but in todays world where piss ants think it is ok to kill thousands of innocent women, working men and children just because they think their God wants them to, is no time to be weak and overly considerate.

Would it be unfortunate if some innocents get wacked in the process.

ABSOLUTELY.

But it is better that it be their innocents than ours. And just how innocent are they when they dance in the streets and drag burning bodies around after an attack? If they support this sort of behavior they are no longer innocents and they bring upon themselves and the innocents in their society the consequences.

It is up to the actual innocents to take action to stop this nonsense or move the hell away from such activity or get wacked along with those they are harboring.

To answer your question, the only cause for potential invasion or nuke attack against NK is their behavior. For Iran perhaps they should clean up their act and stop supporting terroists and talking tough - they aren't - It is their own actions which will result in punitive action against them.

 

and the USA would be the innocent? /hahahaha
look at the thread from which this thread originally started
the USA is hardly innocent
besides I also remember singing on the streets, burning the USSR flag and all when it fell. there was much natural joy and I don't see it any different for, for example, Iraq. look from their point of view
They are occupied by the USA , they have all the rights to cheer up at every instance when the occupation is weakened.
all that the USA has ever brought to Iraq is suffering and destruction.

 

Not hardly. The USA has given honorable blood defending them from tyrants and terroists. They have their own country now and should assist in a rapid crushing of those that kill people trying to help them to achieve freedom. Celebrating attacks against those helping them means they are against freedom of their own people. That means they are not innocents but participants in the terroists activities.

the sooner the wacko's are eliminated the sooner they can get the billions of dollars commited to rebuilding their infrastructure and positive improved future life.

 

there were no terrorists in Iraq prior to the USA occupation
of course Sadam was a bloody dictator

or the real reason (if it isn't oil) is to protect her own (the USA's) ass, not particulary help the people of Iraq.

I thought that fighting against occupation forces is called resistance
of course each occupation force calls them terrorists. same as Russia does with checens.

who did destroy their infrastructure in the first place?

 

Blatantly false. Granted they were not active in Iraq because Iraq was befriending them but Iraq was encouraging and harboring them.

At least you got one right.

Please provide any evidence, not lip service, showing that the USA has taken advantage of Iraqi oil. There is none. Our imports have not shifted to Iraqi oil nor has the price of oil being paid by the USA decreased. Your arguement is false on its face.

In this case protecting our ass IS freeing Iraq from tyrants and terroists. We have historically (along with the rest of the world) aided people subjected to dictators, no oil even produced in those countries. It is shear coincidence that Iraq has oil and has nothing to do with our invasion or future intent for that nation.

You do not see the people uprising and supporting the dip shit cleric and his militia. You are miss-reading the tea leaves.

The facts are that there was virtually no infrastructure there to destroy. Their sewage plant hadn't operated in years, etc.

BTW: Over 90% of the population in Afganistan have registered to vote. Now isn't that interesting. Women are becoming free and treated like human beings. Oh! Did I forget to mention we haven't struck oil in Afganistan?

 

I would have to dig up the email...Hmmmm...I wonder if I still have it.

The amount of humanitarian aid that has gone into Iraq since the US took over and eliminated Saddam's "government" is astonishing. Things are being accomplished daily that haven't been done in years. Children are being innoculated against disease, schools are being built. Saddam may have been a dictator, but you cannot say that he was not also a terrorist. I would think a terrorist is one that strikes fear in others through the use of threats of bodily injury. Look at what his death squads did and what he did to HIS OWN PEOPLE working on chemical weapons. I do believe that dear Saddam was in power when a large segment of a specific population was murdered by a nerve agent in the...Northwest? section of his country. Of course...then again, the majority of his people didn't like that segment of the population anyway, so it's okay?

Personally, I have to say that bioagebts would be the most horrific of terrorist weapons as they could be spread within days to multiple epicenters and wipe out very large population. Thing is that the US has a very mobile population. There is NO WAY humanly possible to contain something like that within the US unless it strikes almost immediately. Then you are looking at a release-type weapon which I would hope would be detected.

For invasion purposes, biochecmical weapons are only of use to the invading army, really, and that only if one is willing to sacrifice segments of one's own fighting forces. Due to wind and rain patterns being unpredictable, a chemical or biological agent could fly right back into the faces of the group launching it. Now...that proves to be a problem with the invading army as well, although I would think and invading army would have superior numbers to begin with.

Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent as long as we have someone in charge that would be willing to carry the burden of killing millions of people. If we have a President unwilling to do that, the threat is empty and no deterrent at all. Now...the other country would have to know an awful lot about the President and also be able to predict his reaction.

Hopefully that answered the original question. *LOL*