Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: Finally escaped The People's Republic of California
11,317 posts, read 8,656,908 times
Reputation: 6391
Advertisements
the question is how long?
Within 10 years, By Pakistan on India over thier Kasmur regional dispute. Followed by retalliation from India...
It's a good thing they only have low yield weapons, this will be ugly but not a planet killer like the US vs USSR would have been...
And this is why Special Ops Units were formed...to protect us in the event that Iran or any other terrorist supporting country IS crazy enough to use nuclear weapons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TnHilltopper
It is no secret that Cheney order the Pentagon to draw up plans to attack Iran and one of the options were the use of bunker busting tactical nukes. This is old news from earlier in the summer, back when they were repealing the Posse Comitatus in case the locals in America objected.
Last month, in a paper given at a conference on Middle East security in Berlin, Colonel Sam Gardiner, a military analyst who taught at the National War College before retiring from the Air Force, in 1987, provided an estimate of what would be needed to destroy Iran's nuclear program. Working from satellite photographs of the known facilities, Gardiner estimated that at least four hundred targets would have to be hit. He added
I don't think a US military planner would want to stop there. Iran probably has two chemical-production plants. We would hit those. We would want to hit the medium-range ballistic missiles that have just recently been moved closer to Iraq. There are fourteen airfields with sheltered aircraft. . . . We'd want to get rid of that threat. We would want to hit the assets that could be used to threaten Gulf shipping. That means targeting the cruise-missile sites and the Iranian diesel submarines. . . . Some of the facilities may be too difficult to target even with penetrating weapons. The US will have to use Special Operations units.
One of the military's initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.
With several countries now having nuclear weapons, and more countries aspiring to have them along with terrorist groups, nuclear tensions are seemingly returning to coldwar levels. The only problem now is that more countries have them, and combined tensions seem to be greater now than ever before.
I truly beleive it is inevitable that someone will attack another with a nuclear weapon, the only question is, how long will it be till it happens?
I'm thinking we are less than 10 years from seeing a nuclear attack. Anybody else think the time is near?
I think about this alot, and tho it would be awful for everyone, it may stop a few things, we did it to Hiroshima, Truman had guts, and so who has now what he had then??...nobody, not from the states and I know 3rd world probably wouldnt bother... maybe we should bring it on, the idea of spending more and more on more military equipment just means slow death for all of us anyway....
As I have posted elsewhere the most likely scenario is a sneak attack on our soil. I think we have to ask ourselves the question,Which of our enemies would care? If the soviets or the Chinese should ever weigh in ,that a nuclear explosion on our soil ,would be more advantage to them than disadvantage, pop goes the weasel. There was a time when Ameican economic predominance would preclude an advantage to the soviets or the Chinese. Now that they are both economic powers in their own right and now that they have a stoneage proxy, a village idiot, to commit the deed, why not facilitate the village idiot?
Location: Sitting on a bar stool. Guinness in hand.
4,428 posts, read 6,510,291 times
Reputation: 1721
nervous
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali BassMan
the question is how long?
Within 10 years, By Pakistan on India over thier Kasmur regional dispute. Followed by retalliation from India...
It's a good thing they only have low yield weapons, this will be ugly but not a planet killer like the US vs USSR would have been...
This is what see happening. India and Pakistan will eventually end up lobing some nukes at each other. This is not necessarily a good thing because this may get Russia and china nervous and thing could get a lot worst if a missile goes off target over there.
Being that mankind IS what it is......and not a whole lot has changed throughout history......in terms of war, hate, wealth, poverty, corruption, greed, power, territorial / economic conquests, etc. etc. etc.
And.....that ONLY the technology, weaponry and the times HAVE changed.....but the same old root causes persist for as long as humanity and will......until the END of time:
YES.......it IS only a matter of time until someone, somewhere.....USES a nuke(s) and in doing so, will likely then....... "initiate" a full-scale nuclear "retaliation" (Nuclear Holocaust). This scenario will likely result in a massive loss of global population, but not necessarily......in complete human extinction.
Though......I really would feel sorry for any survivors of such an event.
IMO.......Highly LIKELY........within 10 - 30 years.
Last edited by Skytripper; 01-22-2008 at 12:56 AM..
I think it is possibly never. I do think that nuclear weapons will probably be used at some time during the future, but I don't it is a definite.
Look at chemical weapons, they are the original weapon of mass destruction (I know biological weapons can be considered the first since their use dates to ancient times, but biological weapons are harder control and their use was much cruder in those periods) and have been used very sporadically. Basically just in World War One, against Abyssinia and China in World War Two, and in the Iran-Iraq War. Considering all the conflicts which they could have been used, I'd say that is a pretty good track record.
Nuclear weapons may never be used again. Most people realize that a large scale nuclear war between two nuclear powers will result in pretty much the destruction of both nations. A world wide nuclear exchange would almost wipe out humanity and reduce the surviving few million to a preindustrial life.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
nervous
