To: MARKUSPRIME
If we're gonna use something that powerful, why not use a danged nuke in the first place?
9 posted on
03/30/2006 8:56:58 AM PST by
Centurion2000
(Islam's true face: http://makeashorterlink.com/?J169127BC)
To: Centurion2000
Who says we arent making nuclear penetrators? My bet is we are.
To: Centurion2000
Political fallout.
(pun intended)
18 posted on
03/30/2006 8:58:03 AM PST by
MeanWestTexan
(Many at FR would respond to Christ "Darn right, I'll cast the first stone!")
To: Centurion2000
"If we're gonna use something that powerful, why not use a danged nuke in the first place?"
...but that would be wrong.....
wink wink nudge nudge!
29 posted on
03/30/2006 9:00:42 AM PST by
petro45acp
(SUPPORT/BE YOUR LOCAL SHEEPDOG! ("On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs" by Dave Grossman))
To: Centurion2000
If we're gonna use something that powerful, why not use a danged nuke in the first place?
So we can still kill lots of bad guys while retaining the threat of nuclear escalation.
Basically, it is public relations - we get to kill bad guys by the bushel, and the Europeans don't have to get worked up over it.
To: Centurion2000
If we're gonna use something that powerful, why not use a danged nuke in the first place? It shows them we can get to their nukes without playing the nuke card ourselves. Puts us in a great spot.
52 posted on
03/30/2006 9:08:16 AM PST by
ElkGroveDan
(California bashers will be called out)
To: Centurion2000
If we're gonna use something that powerful, why not use a danged nuke in the first place? Ummm...radioactive fallout?
118 posted on
03/30/2006 10:25:17 AM PST by
Bloody Sam Roberts
(I can't complain...but sometimes I still do.)
To: Centurion2000
If we're gonna use something that powerful, why not use a danged nuke in the first place?First off, it's only in the class of tactical nuke. Plus, no fallout or radiation.
Mark
139 posted on
03/30/2006 4:46:45 PM PST by
MarkL
(When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
To: Centurion2000
If we're gonna use something that powerful, why not use a danged nuke in the first place? That would be a very small nuke, 0.7 kilotons, as compared to the relatively small 10 KT or so of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs. Even the smallest battlefield nukes were only approaching that size.
No nuke means no radioactive fallout. Thing would be awfully big though. I suspect they are doing an "effects" test, where they need the explosion to be in the atmosphere, but they can't do a real nuke there.
151 posted on
03/31/2006 10:58:52 AM PST by
El Gato
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson