Skip to comments.
**US MAY USE TATICAL NUKES IN IRAQ**
LA Times and Times of India ^
| January 25, 2003
| William Arkin
Posted on 01/25/2003 6:43:36 AM PST by ewing
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-155 next last
To: YaYa123
He has written a column for The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists It sounds like a technical publication but it is just a political dumping ground for greenies, socialist/communists and technophobes.
41
posted on
01/25/2003 7:49:43 AM PST
by
jlogajan
To: Petronski
Well, the 'freep this poll' thread got pulled, I had that coming to me. But it is getting 54% yes votes already.
And the poll is on globalfreepress.com so I suppose it can't hurt to mention it here again.
42
posted on
01/25/2003 7:49:59 AM PST
by
Petronski
(I'm not always cranky.)
To: ewing
"If the United States dropped a bomb on an Arab country, it might be a military success, but it would be a diplomatic, political and strategic disaster,"Oh well, I guess sometimes you just have to make sacrifices.
43
posted on
01/25/2003 7:52:18 AM PST
by
Kerberos
To: Principled
devastatingly precise That certainly describes a tactical nuke.
To: ewing
If it helps our fighting boys, I am all for doing it.agreed-jus thought we should be tryin to keep breakin news on FR site 'pure'....but, what is news anyway? for many of us it's got a big entertainment component-we are too removed from the facts to really know what the heck is reality at the gubmint level...
45
posted on
01/25/2003 7:54:46 AM PST
by
1234
(Border control or IMPEACHMENT)
To: YaYa123
Whoopdeedoo...4 years in the army in the 70s...didn't mention his rank....and I love the fact that during the 80s, he "became an authority on nuclear weapons"... Excellent point, I too was an intelligence analyst for 4 years, but as an enlisted man, I spent as much time cleaning heads and policing cigarette butts as combing through top secret material. After 5 10 years, I forgot more than I still knew. I couldnt imagine getting out and going on to become an authority on nuclear weapons. Lol!
46
posted on
01/25/2003 7:56:34 AM PST
by
elfman2
To: Petronski
LOL! 54% YES..
47
posted on
01/25/2003 7:57:34 AM PST
by
ewing
To: ewing; TommyDale
Thanks for the info, gentlemen.
Just another reason to love Free Republic.
48
posted on
01/25/2003 8:01:56 AM PST
by
metesky
To: ewing
Some officials have argued that the blast and radiation of effect of such strikes would be limited.Neutron? A couple of them dropped in the middle of a few palaces might just do the trick if Saddam uses any WND during or prior to the conflict.
To: TLBSHOW; putupon
That should be used first I would think and we don't send any of our boys in just NUKE IRAQ! Sure, that wouldnt pull the plug on anti- terrorism cooperation we're getting from Europe, Russia, Asia, Africa, South America and the Antarctic. Tens of millions of radioactive civies wouldnt send the rest of the world scrambling to the UNs world government vision for protection. That wouldnt nations racing into covert WMD programs. Why is it that the Left is able to portray us as Kooks again?
50
posted on
01/25/2003 8:04:54 AM PST
by
elfman2
To: ewing
It certainly makes sense to vaporize those Chem/Bio WMD before they are used against us. This would save lives in the long run.
To: ewing
Why would he pee in his pants? The possibility of our use of nukes is just about zero. Hell, the administration is about to cave on extending the inspections. So far, Saddam's winning and we look impotent.
52
posted on
01/25/2003 8:09:44 AM PST
by
clintonh8r
(It's better to be feared than to be respected.)
To: bonesmccoy
So, tactical nukes are the only response.One kiloton per presidential palace, in deep penetration mode should be about right.
53
posted on
01/25/2003 8:11:51 AM PST
by
JimRed
To: ewing
Nukes are a big stick that we should use on the turd world pissants out there.
The use of TACTICAL nukes won't make the use of STRATEGIC nukes, by our militarily near-equal geo-political rivals one whit more likely.
But they'll quickly dot the eyes of the ankle-biting vermin we must deal with.
Nukes are just tools.
We just need to remember to operate them with all guards securely in place while wearing our safety glasses...
54
posted on
01/25/2003 8:12:22 AM PST
by
DWSUWF
To: ewing
55
posted on
01/25/2003 8:45:34 AM PST
by
chance33_98
(Freedom is not Free)
To: ewing
NO, I clearly think this is a strategic move by the United States. If it is the only way to destroy deeply buried bunkers that may house Saddam and some of his weapons, I say load them up and prepare them for delivery.
56
posted on
01/25/2003 8:56:55 AM PST
by
rs79bm
To: All
Join the
AXIS OF FREEDOM Rally on TUESDAY its a CAR/HOUSE/YARD sign Rally
DAY of SUPPORT
Tues, 1/28/03....FLY your flags (U.S., British, Hungarian, Bulgarian, Romanian, Polish, Czech, Spanish, Quatar, Kuwaiti, Australian and Japanese one, too if you have them)....and put up your BUSH/CHENEY signs, (and the BIG W's on your SUV's) for the STATE of the UNION next Tuesday, Jan 28th, if you support the President, our MILITARY and the United States of America. PSST....pass it on.
57
posted on
01/25/2003 9:17:44 AM PST
by
goodnesswins
("You're either with us, or against us!")
To: pabianice
If Iraq hits Israel with chemical or germ weapons, who doubts that Israel will make Iraq glow in the dark?Interesting question. I think this is what going after Iraq is all about. The US believes that Saddam will attack Israel sooner or later with his WMDs. Israel would retaliate with deadly force. Other Arab countries would join in the fracas and the whole thing would turn into a bloody, regional war in a place from which the world gets a great deal of its oil from. This of course will have far reaching effects in terms of world economic stability, much worse than WTC. Say what you want about blood for oil, but people will suffer without the oil. This is exactly what the militant muslims would like to see happen and this is what Bush is trying to prevent. The stonewalling by the UN,Germany, France has been a big side show and has distracted from and obscured the real purpose of getting rid of Saddam. Why they are stonewalling is kind of mystery to me. All I can figure is that they are guilty of complicity with Saddam or this is part of some big international face-saving ruse they are putting up.
58
posted on
01/25/2003 9:32:43 AM PST
by
virgil
To: ewing
I believe that Saddam was hinting at the fact that he would blow up his own underground facilities when he made the threat that the US military would find themselves in pits in the ground if they tried to attack Iraq.
59
posted on
01/25/2003 9:34:36 AM PST
by
Eva
To: elfman2
[I]Sure, that wouldnt pull the plug on anti- terrorism cooperation we're getting from Europe, Russia, Asia, Africa, South America and the Antarctic. Tens of millions of radioactive civies wouldnt send the rest of the world scrambling to the UNs world government vision for protection.[/I]
I happen to agree. Nukes simply aren't necessary in this situation. Our boys have the equipment to stroll right through whatever cloud of chemicals Saddam might be able to waft their way. And if he hides in a bunker, we can certainly wait him out--six months, a year, who cares? Heck, just seal it up with another 6 ft. layer of concrete. :)
Pre-emptive nuke strikes would do more harm than good.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-155 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson