Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Jet Jaguar
"Thus, in principle, a positron bomb could be a step toward one of the military's dreams from the early Cold War: a so-called "clean" superbomb that could kill large numbers of soldiers without ejecting radioactive contaminants over the countryside."

I dont see how this will be helpful, we already have the capability to kill lots of soldiers but we wont do it because THEY are violating geneva conventions.

Unless we are willing to use the weapons we already have, it is a waste of time to even consider upgrading.

8 posted on 10/17/2004 3:35:51 AM PDT by Samurai_Jack (I pray that Im wrong about alot of things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]


To: Samurai_Jack

I disagree completely.

We must have the resources to obliterate our enemy.

If the military leaders and the executive leaders choose to use it, we have it available.


10 posted on 10/17/2004 3:46:34 AM PDT by Jet Jaguar (Who would the terrorists vote for?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

To: Samurai_Jack

The entire point of this weapon system is that you can obliterate your enemy and occupy hsi former terrain and beging reconstruction almost immediately. Whereas ith current nuke technology, the terrain is unusable for a rather lengthy period of time.


13 posted on 10/17/2004 4:39:03 AM PDT by roaddog727 (The marginal propensity to save is 1 minus the marginal propensity to consume.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson