luke warm Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 the inventor of the bomb said it's the most moral weapon ever invented... it doesn't maim, it doesn't destroy infrastructure, etc... it just does what all weapons of war do, it kills people - but it does so with the least collateral damage possible is such a weapon an actual possibility in the war on terror? if not, why not Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sceptic Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 biological weapons do the same job, they are cheaper and easier to make and youi can reclaim the land quicker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted April 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 biological weapons do the same job, they are cheaper and easier to make and youi can reclaim the land quicker like anthrax? i don't know how soon the land (ie, water etc) can be reclaimed but i understand your point... btw, in your opinion would anthrax be more, less, or equally moral with a neutron bomb? Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over yes, probably it would Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenrexford Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 What about Voice of America broadcasting Gilligan's Island re-runs??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over ;)Shall we start with Leeds (approximately where the London bombers came from) or Oklahoma? Paul Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted April 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over ;)Shall we start with Leeds (approximately where the London bombers came from) or Oklahoma? Paul good point... i think what fredrick meant was, those countries that harbor terrorists, that *know* they're harboring terrorists, and that do not think they are in a war Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrTodd13 Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 It is a myth that neutron bombs don't destroy buildings. Neutron bombs are atomic bombs that have been designed to maximize release of neutrons but they are still atomic bombs and do generate typical atomic bomb damage...just a little bit less than atomic bombs designed to maximize shockwave damage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sceptic Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 Ok, Anthrax is not a good example of reclaiming land, but there are many alternatives, I am sure the old Iraqi regime, could give you alternative choices (and if that is not a weapon of mass destruction, what the hell is) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigi_BC84 Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 is such a weapon an actual possibility in the war on terror? if not, why not I still don't see how one could win the so called "war on terror" with weaponry. --Sigi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted April 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 It is a myth that neutron bombs don't destroy buildings. Neutron bombs are atomic bombs that have been designed to maximize release of neutrons but they are still atomic bombs and do generate typical atomic bomb damage...just a little bit less than atomic bombs designed to maximize shockwave damage. this is true, as far as it goes... i think cohen had stated (and i'm going from memory) that exploding a device 3000 feet up results in 'minimum damage' to the surrounding area (the target zone here is 1 square mile)... that means *many* such bombs would have to be used if the aim is to minimuze collateral damage I still don't see how one could win the so called "war on terror" with weaponry.possibly you're right, though there are plans for neutron warfare that (theoretically) result in a "win" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigi_BC84 Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 I still don't see how one could win the so called "war on terror" with weaponry.possibly you're right, though there are plans for neutron warfare that (theoretically) result in a "win" "Winning" to me would mean eliminating terrorism as a whole, which is fairly utopian anyway. Even reducing it to a "manageable level" (whatever that is) will not work by attacking specific places. I absolutely don't see the value of WMDs in any meaningful campaign in this area. Having such weapons is simply insane; probably one needs them for deterrence now but making plans to actually using them is just sick in my eyes. --Sigi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted April 14, 2006 Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 in the history of the world someone always comes up with the ultimate weapon for their time....maybe the atomic or neutron bomb next to a cataclysmic event is the best thing....when we look at how little time humans have been on this planet in its 14billion years.....maybe 28,000 years(half life of uranium) is just enough for the planet to recharge itself up from all of the crap that we have done on it. Sad but mabye true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luke warm Posted April 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted April 14, 2006 well one of the things that make the neutron bomb more "humane" (in the eyes of some) is the fact that the isotopes are gone within 48 hours... Having such weapons is simply insane; probably one needs them for deterrence now but making plans to actually using them is just sick in my eyes.beleive me, i understand the sentiment... those who push the use of such weapons do so on the grounds that war is all about killing people and blowing up things... so they think they can kill fewer and blow up less... also, they think there is less maiming and other war-injuries i guess the question is, if there is to be war is it better to have it as it is now, or to do so in a way that limits loss of life and property Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AceOfHeart Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 If this is the case then chemical bombs are the bst since , little daamge will be done to the earth etc. It is like spraying insecticide over the land that kill humans :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over :)Shall we start with Leeds (approximately where the London bombers came from) or Oklahoma? Paul Yes, its a s***hole with a crap football team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sceptic Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 HAHAHA I can think of a small town, near where I live Yes, its a s***hole with a crap football team only they dobn't have such a good football team HAHAHAHA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted April 15, 2006 Report Share Posted April 15, 2006 Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over :PShall we start with Leeds (approximately where the London bombers came from) or Oklahoma? Paul good point... i think what fredrick meant was, those countries that harbor terrorists, that *know* they're harboring terrorists, and that do not think they are in a war Something like that, otherwise you can start nuking every country in the world... :) I meant those country's which HELP terrorists or terrorist regimes as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keylime Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 Peace...through superior firepower. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
han Posted April 17, 2006 Report Share Posted April 17, 2006 I think that it is a very poor idea to use any kind of atomic (or biological, chemical, etc.) weapon. Under any circumstances. I recall having read something about Osama Bin Laden's group discussing whether they would make a terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant (prior to 9/11). My recollection from this article is that they found that this was possible but too much (call it immoral if you like). Perhaps this is hard to believe, and unfortunately I cannot back it up as I don't remember the source (Time magazine?). Is there somebody who can confirm this and give a reference? Anyway, I think that it is inevitable that terrorists at some point will be able to use methods that are far more destructive than those that were used in the 9/11 attack (and perhaps they already were able). If "we" start using these weapons now, I think that they would not hold back in the future. I also don't think that it is possible to exterminate terrorism by killing a whole lot of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the saint Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 I also don't think that it is possible to exterminate terrorism by killing a whole lot of people. Yes it is. Wipe the entire human race off the planet and eh, voila - no more terrorists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al_U_Card Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 biological weapons do the same job, they are cheaper and easier to make and youi can reclaim the land quicker like anthrax? i don't know how soon the land (ie, water etc) can be reclaimed but i understand your point... btw, in your opinion would anthrax be more, less, or equally moral with a neutron bomb? Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over yes, probably it would As was often debated in High School...."Why don't we just kill all the violent people?" I rest my case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulg Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 Just nuke the countries who help terrorists (WITH proof this time plz), it will soon be over ;)Shall we start with Leeds (approximately where the London bombers came from) or Oklahoma? Paul Yes, its a s***hole with a crap football team. Crap is relative. The Coca-Cola Football League Championship : Table 18 April 2006 1 Reading P 44 102pts2 Sheff Utd 43 853 Watford 44 774 Preston 44 765 Leeds 43 74 [large snip ...] 12 Southampton 44 55 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 I don't see why it's morally superior to kill people. Then again, what do I know about moral issues. As for the "war on terror" (sigh) I think the problem is to locate/identify the terrorrist. After that has been done it's a pretty trivial decision whether to nuke them or just shoot them. Might be more practical to shoot them unless there happens to be some 100,000 terrorist and no by-standers in a well-defined area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pigpenz Posted April 18, 2006 Report Share Posted April 18, 2006 we are probably doomed to repeat history till we finally get it right Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.