Posted on 01/30/2019 11:15:11 PM PST by PghBaldy
Stupid fake Squaw.
In the immortal words of Zero, “We can absorb a nuclear hit.”
Now suppose that an American President decides to use a tactical nuclear bomb over the Pacific Ocean, away from population centers, to stop that ship from deploying off the west coast of the United States.
What would be the fallout (pun intended)?
We wouldn't see Hiroshima-like devastation.
We wouldn't see Chernobyl-like wasteland.
The ocean would dissipate the radiation (probably) and the fallout would dissipate, too.
But a wide-area strike in the middle of the ocean would be sure to take out that city-killing warship. The alternative would be a carrier force, with airstrikes, submarines, and conventional surface warfare.
What do you think of such a scenario?
-PJ
November was a huge disaster. The electorate doesn’t seem to notice, agree, or care.
No sane person would vote for this peculiar individual.
The Kenyan tried his damn best to unilaterally disarm us.
Somehow and for some reason the democrats want to make us weak in the eyes of our mortal enemies. The lessons of our weakness prior to WW2 are clearly lost on these idiots.
Adam Smith D chair of Armed Services Committe has stated how he wants nothing less than unilateral nuclear disarmament.
God help us.
How queer such antiAmerican legislation was not put up while Obambi was president (and he was seeking to reduce the US arsenal to ZERO).
Barrack said he was even taking a US nuclear RESPONSE off the table.
I would have to know the back story behind this action by the Chinese. There would have to be other tensions in the air.
But, regardless the US has other conventional weapons that can take out a Chinese naval task force.
A conventional carrier strike force would be preferable. The political fallout from the use of (let alone the first use) of nuclear weapons is too high.
I can only see a second term president ever giving it a second thought. It is hard to imagine what the international ramifications would be but I can’t imagine that the nation that used a nuclear weapon first would be popular in today's international circles.
But on a technical point the best nuclear weapon for such a strategic mission officially is not in our arsenal. That would be a neutron bomb.
The bomb has relatively little fallout and would take the enemy task force out of action by killing the crew. The ship at the center of the blast would likely be destroyed but most of the ships would receive light damage.
But my solid answer is that I don’t see a nuclear strike as the best answer to the strategic question.
it is said her greatGF exterminated Indians
which is why she now lied and claimed SHE was Indian.
False-tongue gray beaver just wants to exterminate
MORE AMERICANS.
It is her family’s way.
Don’t tell NATO.
Fauxcahontas on warpath again.
I’ve always said, “The b*tches on Capitol Hill have killed more U.S. military personnel than all of America’s enemy combined.” We definitely need a bill making it MANDATORY that the first “boots on the ground” in any and EVERY conflict are being worn by POLITICIANS. Let the military sit it out until the politicians work out the “rules of engagement” with the bad guys. We can save a lot of American lives that way.
Yes, it’s not as though Putin has first-use capability. /sarc
So the Commander in Chief must make a public statement and announce his strategic plans to Congress before he takes any action...?
The out right brain damage we see today in the political arena is mind boggling
If you are still alive to have to use them second, you will be very remorseful that you didn’t use them first.
Leftist idiots just yak a lot with no thought about what they say. Their indoctrinated nitwits clap with glee and moral superiority.
Kinda agree with this as we need to thin the herd out, many NE, East,West coast cities need to glow green....
If I have to choose between “Moral leadership” (morality being defined by a party that wants to kill babies outside the womb) and survival I’ll take survival every time.
Tactical nuclear war at sea was studied extensively in the Cold War in Proceedings, the USNI magazine. No cities or civilians killed, the radiation dissipates over the ocean, the tactical advantages are obvious.
The general conclusion was that the US with its carrier battle groups, would have more to lose in a tactical nuclear war at sea. That environment favors wide spread out individual units, not large capital ship formations.
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.