Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

DU - Health Risk?

Discussion in 'Post-World War 2 Armour' started by Grieg, Feb 1, 2007.

  1. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    I read your post carefully but I don't see an answer to my question. Where is it forbidden to develop new low yield nuclear weapons?

    Have you considered that my post is the same because a fact doesn't change regardless of who is uttering the words? The weapon we are discussing was a modicfication of a weapon that was designed in the late 1950s.

    Has not this been an issue that was brought to your attention recently? Attacking the poster rather than addressing the substance of the post?
     
  2. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    look here:http://www.state.gov/www/global/arms/ctbtpage/trty_pg.html
    and dont be lazy reed this one:
    http://www.brook.edu/FP/PROJECTS/NUCWCOST/lasg.htm


    A central and expressed purpose of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) has always been to arrest the further evolution of the world's nuclear arsenals. This modified weapon? certified without nuclear testing and deployed after signing the CTBT?undercuts that treaty and could provide political cover to countries which have their own unsatisfied nuclear ambitions.

    And why then US look bad in the world?
     
  3. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    When you use Leftist "think tanks" like the Brookings Institute for the source of your quotes it's no surprise that you get criticisms of the military and government desisions regarding defense issues.
    It is to be expected.
    The fact remains that nowhere is it prohibited to modify an existing nuclear weapons such as was done with the B-61-11.
    The members of the Brookings Institute may not like it but that doesn't mean much to the non-leftist people of the US which still make up the majority view.
     
  4. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    One of explanation for ths weapon is that they need it,in case that US attack Libia,to breach some underground bunkers and facility's.How u then explain this:
    Interesting huh?

    But it is prohibited to do nuclear explosion test,and how can US be shure that bunkerbuster work if they did not test it? And what if Russia modify M1 Topolj Nuclear systems in Ai defence weapon (create air blast,al craft go down) it will be still modification?

    Till this weapon,nuclear weapons was just retaliation weapon,purpose was just to scare otther side from agression and attacks.Now US gone step forward,they made convential use nuclear weapons.It can be Jump board for new nuclear race.
     
  5. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Nothing to explain IMO. I don't see why the US pledging not to use nukes in africa is that interesting.

    Nuclear weapons were not just retaliation weapons. IF one could only retaliate then they would be pointless. What would you be retaliating against if they couldn't use nukes offensively?
    They could also be first strike (preemptive strike) weapons if any country were so inclined. I'm not sure why you should concern yourself with the issue of whether or not the US nuclear devices will work or not. Chances are pretty good that they will IMO, and if they don't, I'm puzzled as to why that would concern you?
     
  6. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I doubt that they did not test it,that is my point.As u se,it is smal power nuclear warheard and it can be tester withouth much attention,but again,it is prohibed.
    About US and africa,if u sign something u r in abligation to stick with that,i will not say more.

    And yes grieg,US made history as first,and only country who used Nuclear weapons till now....continue tradition,good work,but if u play with fire u can be burn.Imagine nuclear explosion in NY for exsample?
     
  7. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    You have no evidence that additional testing was done so that is pretty much the end of that line of discussion.

    I'm not worried about nuclear war. If it happens it will not have been initiated by the US. Of that I have no doubt.
     
  8. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    They will not attack nuclear power for shure,but this bunker buster was made with purpose.And US oficials sayed that they might use nuclear weapon in war vs Terrorism.
     
  9. Siberian Black

    Siberian Black New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hunting Panzer IV's
    via TanksinWW2
    If they valued thier jobs they wouldn't. You can't win against people who use civilians as human shields (on a broad scale such as this, not individually although that can be pretty hard)
     
  10. Ricky

    Ricky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    11,974
    Likes Received:
    105
    Location:
    Luton, UK
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes, and they might. Should the conditions require its use then why not? Presumably if there is another better option they would not use one.
     
  11. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Ricky it can triger chain reaction.Nuclear weapon main blast is not much probles,as radiation cloud after blast.U can control size and place where blast will be,but u cant predict moowent of cloud,and accidents do heapens.Nuclea weapon shoud not be used in the world,hiroshima i nagasaki remind us on that.
     
  12. Grieg

    Grieg New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2005
    Messages:
    2,625
    Likes Received:
    1
    via TanksinWW2
    Doesn't remind me of that. The attack on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, despite the lives that were taken, shortened the war and saved lives in the long run.
    Tragic (as is all war), but under these circumstances necessary IMO.
     
  13. Jens Knudsen

    Jens Knudsen New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    the whole way of thinking were different duing ww2, bombing of civilians were consider necessary for the warefford, also because you could't hit anything precise
    the US used the bomb because they tried to advoide to invade Japan, they had seen how high number of casulties they could risk duing the invasion of Iwo Jima and Okinawa, the resistance that the japaness gave got harder and harder des closer the US got to main land Japan, they calculated that basily almost all japaness would fight if US invaded Japan and that US have to use over a million men to secure victory
     
  14. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    I spoked about teribble consequences from nuclear weapon,dosens years after the blast.
     
  15. Jens Knudsen

    Jens Knudsen New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2004
    Messages:
    331
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Denmark
    via TanksinWW2
    not many knew about the long term consequens at the time the two bombs were used and the way of think was difference at the time, it was considered a necessary evil to kill civilians at the time and nobody knew much about radioactivity and its long term consequens on people, something that we have a better understanding about today, but we still dont know all about it
     
  16. sinissa

    sinissa New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    570
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    If i remember good,estimated is that more then 100 000 ppl died after the blast as direct consequence of A bomb,and radiation.

    Anyway,nuclear pandora box shoud not be opn newer again.
     
  17. Siberian Black

    Siberian Black New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hunting Panzer IV's
    via TanksinWW2
    Easily that, Sinissa. And modern nukes are many times more powerful than Fat Man and Little Boy.
     
  18. MikeGolf

    MikeGolf New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    0
    via TanksinWW2
    Yes and no. We have, or had, tac nukes with a small yield for specific targets. Their explosive charge is considerable compared to the size of the weapon.
     
  19. Siberian Black

    Siberian Black New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,097
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hunting Panzer IV's
    via TanksinWW2
    Explosive yield is still greater the FM and LB though right?

    MOAB has blast radius of 150m, which is still relatively small to even a tactical nuke.
     
  20. TISO

    TISO New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2005
    Messages:
    1,231
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    A wierd blue planet
    via TanksinWW2
    Acctualy they didn't. Japanese were seeking negotiation trough SSSR but were more or less rebuffed by Truman becouse they wanted to negotiate the unconditional part ( becouse of uncertain fate of the emperor).

    Waging agressive war is a crime. Poeple were hanged for that (Nueremberg rigs a bell??). Only an Idiot would use nuclear weapon in first strike mode. Nukes are by definition WMD's (even bunker busters becouse of radiation part). If nukes were used other side would have all right to retaliate with everything they have (nukes, biological, chemical). Only an Idiot would expose his civilian population to possible retaliation strikes.
     

Share This Page