DU - Health Risk?

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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?

 

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?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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)

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

I spoked about teribble consequences from nuclear weapon,dosens years after the blast.

 

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

 

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.

 

Easily that, Sinissa. And modern nukes are many times more powerful than Fat Man and Little Boy.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.