im moving to canada...If my government continues on its course, its gonna really tick someone off. Im gonna move into a cave somewhere in the far north if this continues.

<font color="#f683ad">
I can think of two very good reasons why we would need these mini-nukes. Both have to do with "Bunker Busting". It's easy to boo and hiss, but when it comes time and you needed a tool and it wasn't available, the bitching and moaning come out just as strongly then..you never hear..ohh yeah we understand you didn't know 9/11 was gonna happen because we slashed the budget for the intelligence agencies....no, all you hear is..."YOU should have known".

Oh and don't forget these tools will if needed save more lives than they take.
Unless they get stolen...how many US nukes have gone missing in the past 59 years?

It really is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation for defense planners. You get bitched at if you do your job and you get bitched at if you don't.

Now, I am as worried about the security of these devices as anyone, but todate, the US has had an exemplary record of physical security on its nuclear devices. None, zero, zip, nada have fallen into the wrong hands. So while we may develop these tools, I think we should also work on tightening up our information security. Make it harder for former foreign nationals to get information back to their countries of origin.

(Note no sarcasm is intended just a dry commentary. I have been reading about these things for more than 2 years now)</font>

<font color="#f683ad">
Here is a question for everyone...
which is worse?

death by rifle bullet
death by napalm
death by thousands of conventional explosives
death by one mini-nuke
or death by starvation?
|
|
|
|
|
My opinion is its all the same...after your dead, you really don't care how you got there.</font>

Well, I predicted months ago on Circular Discussions forum that we would see conventional use of Nukes come about in the next few decades. However, I still see it as wrong. With Nukes it's not damned if you do, damned if you don't. It's just damned if you do. Yes, nukes that detonate underground don't fill the air with radiation. They do still contaminate large areas and aquifers. It's simply wrong.

Couldn't have said it better myself MagiK.

Tough call. I say go ahead and make a few. Let's face it. Some of those little dictatorships have access to nuclear technology. If you think we're the only ones with nukes, I'm willing to bet you're sadly mistaken. If we have them, it'll make the, "Do a terrorist act and then run and hide in caves." tactic a little less effective. Personally, I think a little non-persistent toxic chemical agent would have worked well in that circumstance too. Perhaps one of the Cyanide compounds. In 24 hours it breaks down in the environment if I remember correctly. Nice and clean. Smoke the snakes out of their holes, so to speak.

I also remember a few years back that Lawerence Livermore labs was working on making pure fusion weapons. Which would make the likely hood of the use of nukes more likely. Since a pure fusion bomb would have much lower radioactive fallout.

For those that do not know there are two basic types of nuclear weapons: Fission and Fusion (aka thermonuclear). Fission weapons use uranium and /or plutonium for their explosive power. They release energy by creating a cascading reacion of atom splitting. Fusion bombs work by fusing two hydrogen atoms to make a helium atom. Current fusion weapons are encased in a fission weapon to start the fusion reaction. Making them just as 'dirty' as fission weapons. A pure fusion weapon would use a different method of compressing the hydrogen to start the fusion process.

<font color="#f683ad">
Rokenn, I remember reading something along those lines a while ago.....
I think the minimum yield of the PF warhead was considered to be too
much overkill though...

TL, I wasn't talking about using them indiscriminately, they would have a specific role to play. Nations like North Korea are working very hard to build their labs very deep underground where conventional arms cannot touch them...you need a way of taking those places out if the need should arrive.
(Im still waiting for a public announcement of on particular Iraqi facility that no one seems to be talking about...This facility started a new round of talks about the mini-nukes in the defense circles.)

Oh and you are wrong..the American public will definatley damn you if you don't take out some facility that later turns out to have been the birth place for some weapon that kills lots of americans.
</font>

Emm... to those people that answered that there's no difference if you die of a nuke or any other bomb... I thought that the reason why nukes are so bad was because of the radiation...? Am I wrong here? If I'm not, then there's a big difference between an average bomb and a nuke.

Oh, I didn't see what you wrote. Sorry. :D