amadeus
Bishop of Bio-Dome
What if a nuclear weapon, used by the President of either party, was used against Afghanistan in the aftermath of September 11th?
What would have happened if the U.S. used nuclear weapons against Afghanistan?
- Thread starter amadeus
- Start date
What if a nuclear weapon, used by the President of either party, was used against Afghanistan in the aftermath of September 11th?
HotDog Fish
Leftist Loyalist
Then thousands of innocent Afghans would die, OPEC and basically ever country would condem the act and America would become a pirah state, You have to remember, The Taliban and Al-Qauda never congregated much in the big cities, assuming the Americans launched them at Kabul, Qandahar and Mazar-E-Sharif they would probably kill 10 civilians for every one Taliban or Al -Qauda fighter, Afghanistan has no viable or cenventional targets for a nuclear strike
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
I was referring to a nasty new device, a "pocket" nuke designed to take out cave complexes, but with all the normal dangers of radiation.
A disgusting weapon.
A disgusting weapon.
newfangle
hates you.
Alcibiaties of Athenae
Imperator
You would have enjoyed the "no nukes" movement of the 80s.
I was a member of it, Iwish we had none of the damn things, it's a shame we have to keep them just because somebody else does.
It's also why I feel so strongly about taking out Iraq, I firmly believe they would allow a nuclear device to be used against a western population center.
I was a member of it, Iwish we had none of the damn things, it's a shame we have to keep them just because somebody else does.
It's also why I feel so strongly about taking out Iraq, I firmly believe they would allow a nuclear device to be used against a western population center.
newfangle
hates you.
Although it may appear quite the opposite, I don't mind an Iraqi invasion. I only have two prerequisites:
1) Do it only upon confirmation of a nuclear weapon (obviously not after the thing is launch, but all those pretty satellites must do something up there.....)
2) Please, for the love of God/Allah do something about the Kurds. I really don't want to see another horrible chemical attack.
knowltok2
Deity
I can understand your prerequisites, but I would caution you to not have quite as much faith in satellites. Sure they provide a lot of useful intelligence, but they are not the end-all be-all of determining what an enemy is doing.
On point one, would not solid proof of intent to make one be enough? We are likely ony going to 'know' that Iraq has one when it actually explodes. This doesn't have to be in a city, it could be in a test in the desert. Regardless, when a nation achieves entry into the nuclear club, options for dealing with them become much more limited. At that point they can pretty much do anything they like to the Tibetans, Chechnyans, Kurds, or whoever else they want that doesn't have a nuclear weapon.
The use of nuclear weapons would have been disastrous; the eventual gain in destroying underground bunkers would not have been anyway near the outcry that had been from the general public.
And the policy, to use nuclear weapons would have maid the world a bit more unsafe, especially regarding India-Pakistan. Nuclear weapons have to be a no-no, otherwise we are facing Armageddon sonner then later.
And the policy, to use nuclear weapons would have maid the world a bit more unsafe, especially regarding India-Pakistan. Nuclear weapons have to be a no-no, otherwise we are facing Armageddon sonner then later.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
I think it is rather obvious that world opinion would have joined mine at the time. If you check way back to last year, you'll find that I was shouting down supporters for the nuclear option.
I have to say that I agree with both newfangle and knowltok. Any invasion of Iraq should have the security of ethnic minorites be a goal, and waiting until Saddam already has nukes is far too long a wait.
I've already gone on record here as saying that he will announce his possession of nuclear arms by 'hugging' Israel with them. Doubt me if you want, but mark my words, 'cause you'll be eating them later.
I have to say that I agree with both newfangle and knowltok. Any invasion of Iraq should have the security of ethnic minorites be a goal, and waiting until Saddam already has nukes is far too long a wait.
I've already gone on record here as saying that he will announce his possession of nuclear arms by 'hugging' Israel with them. Doubt me if you want, but mark my words, 'cause you'll be eating them later.
JoeM
Imperator
AoA,
What 'pocket' nuke is this? How would it's deployment be different from convential high explosives and what would be the benefit?
My understanding is that locating the cave complexes you mention was the problem, destroying them not so.
What 'pocket' nuke is this? How would it's deployment be different from convential high explosives and what would be the benefit?
My understanding is that locating the cave complexes you mention was the problem, destroying them not so.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Such efficiency would usher in an age of limitless free energy for mankind. You are talking about 100% conversion of matter to energy, the Holy Grail of energy production. If you used such a device on earth, you'd probably turn it into an asteroid belt.
JoeM
Imperator
Originally posted by FearlessLeader2
Such efficiency would usher in an age of limitless free energy for mankind. You are talking about 100% conversion of matter to energy, the Holy Grail of energy production. If you used such a device on earth, you'd probably turn it into an asteroid belt.
funxus
Orange Cycloptic Blob
What about fusion? It doesn't give any radiation, and we allready have hydrogen bombs. If we just can get the heat to start the fusion we'd have radiationless nuclear bombs, and it would also generate a lot of energy in powerplants.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
We have nuclear bombs already, but we need an atomic bomb to kickstart them, that's where the 'dirt' comes in. Fallout is nothing more than bomb fragments coated in enriched uranium dust. Something like less than 1% of the uranium is consumed in the chain reaction of an atomic explosion, the rest is atomized and then violently recombined via chemical reaction with other bomb fragments and the environment.
Why do you want to make nuclear weapons less horrifying? Do you actually WANT someone to use them?
Why do you want to make nuclear weapons less horrifying? Do you actually WANT someone to use them?
Nuclear devices with no radiation... that would be a large bomb... and we would use them, still it would be a weapon of mass destruction I belive. Perhaps we would have to define a nummber of TNT for it to count as mass destruction.(the largest amount of TNT used I belive is 13000kilo blowing away some rocks in Japan?)
Sparrowhawk
The Builder
Nope. The destruction of Ripple Rock in the Straight of Georgia (B.C., Canada) is credited as the largest man made non-nuclear explosion.
1375 tons of explosives = between 1247400 and 1397088 kilos of explosive (depending on whether it was short tons, metric tons, or long tons of explosive).
Here's a couple of eyewitness accounts.
Chris85
Emperor
Neato!
To add a little humor:
If we used nuclear weapons on Afghanistan we'd blow them back into the stone age. Oh wait, they're already in the stone age.
cgannon64
BOB DYLAN'S ROCKIN OUT!
Off-Topic: Aoa, you techinically have "Third Reich" in your signature...
On-Topic: Europe would hate us for good. Even in the aftermath of 9/11, that would have been a pointless waste of Afgahni lives, most of them innocent. We would be alienated by the international community because of our unprovoked nuclear attack on innocent people. Don't throw 9/11 at me when I say unprovoked: if 20,000 Afgahn people died in a nuclear blast, probably 500 of them wouldhave been involved in 9/11.
To sum up: it would have been a terrible mistake.
CG
On-Topic: Europe would hate us for good. Even in the aftermath of 9/11, that would have been a pointless waste of Afgahni lives, most of them innocent. We would be alienated by the international community because of our unprovoked nuclear attack on innocent people. Don't throw 9/11 at me when I say unprovoked: if 20,000 Afgahn people died in a nuclear blast, probably 500 of them wouldhave been involved in 9/11.
To sum up: it would have been a terrible mistake.
CG
Similar threads
- Poll
