Nuclear warfare just stepped closer

The oil comes from deep underground too. You'd need to have one major deep penetraing ground burst to containate some oil which would burn up in the process anyway. The oil will be safe, don't worry.
 
PeterCH said:
You can.
Had the Russians adapted Stalin's tactics they would have.

Either shoot or move everyone a few thousand kilometers away.
Resettle the whole population.

Or Nazi German tactics.

Kill 10 or heck 50 civilians for each dead Russian soldier. Burn the village
down.

You see you can win in Guerilla wars but you have to be really really cruel
or systematic.
Click to expand...

Germany lost ?!
 
PeterCH said:
They're not threatening IRAQ or KSA but if these guys get the message
too, its a bonus and I'm sure that the West is counting on a bit of that too.
Although in the case of Pakistan I'm SURE that BUSH told Musharraf what he
can expect if anything nasty happens to any of those nukes in very clear
terms.

They probably speak of limited TACTICAL nuclear strikes vs
STRATEGIC bombing of population centres and civilian support
structures or OIL FIELDS. You don't need to make big mushroom clouds to
be effective, the idea that you mention NUKES is enough to
freak out the other guy into subversion.

ALTHOUGH: the effect would be more STRATEGIC - freak everyone out
and win or prevent war that way, destroy the enemies will to fight.

As for radiation, Hiroshima is now a very habitable place.

Conventional war is just more of this same Iraq war cr@p. They don't want that, that's why they're saying they are considering using NUKES as a FIRST LINE measure. As I said, its more lip service and propaganda than anything,
its meant to make the Iranians and anyone else involved, think twice and
worry more maybe help distabilise the regime there. Who knows....?
Click to expand...

The French tested their nuclear bombs on Bikini island,in the late 60's, 70's and the 80's. According to some scientists it will be uninhabitable for the next 10 000 years.

I tried to find Bikini ialand the other day with google earth: Nothing.
Apparently they entombed the island with concrete.

Do you think Mugabe would still be in power in Zimbabwe if he had oil?

Why do you think the U.S. is in Iraq?
Why do you think the Russians wanted Afganistan?

It was strategic because they wanted to lay an oil pipeline to Russia.
The big countries make war for influence and for strategic minerals,nothing else.

They are not the moral watchdogs of the world,but they will push the moral issue if it serves their purpose.

The same way that the U.S. pushed the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq issue.

They never found any,yet they still occupy Iraq.
The answer is simple,they are safeguarding a steady suppy of oil to the U.S.

The Americans know that energy is the backbone of their economy,unlike our government that allowed the Escom fiasco because of shortsightedness.
 
antowan said:
America (arguably the most powerful military force on the planet) keeps "losing" small battles.
Click to expand...

They didn't just lose in Somalia.
They were humiliated by a bunch of thugs in bakkies.
If the USA used nuclear weapons against Saddam the fight would have been over in 1 day with zero casualties on the American and coalition side.
Click to expand...

They would have nuked where? The whole of Baghdad - the entire civilian population? And even then no guarantee of getting Sadam, his henchmen or his forces.

Basra - too close to Kuwait.

al-Tikriti - too close to the northern Kurds.


Nukes create fallout - and unless your target is in the middle of a very big country the risk is that you are going to very much annoy some neighbouring states.

One can only imagine the repercussions had they nuked Iraq. I doubt the global death toll would have been any less.


I laugh at people who think that the performance of America in Afghanistan and Iraq reflects it's true muscle. Not by a loooong shot.
Click to expand...

Americas true muscle is only as much as the world is prepared to allow. Sadly, the WMD debacle has removed much of their credibility, and the American public are tired of their children dying for material gain.
 
I think planet earth should take it upon itself to start a war with whatever country launches the first nuke first. You can't fight this fire with fire.
 
Bwahaha he knows nothing about the war there obviously

"CNN) -- In March 1994, U.S. troops on an ill-fated humanitarian mission pulled out of Mogadishu, Somalia. But what few Americans realize is that during this mission, U.S. troops were faced with the most sustained and bloody battle fought by American soldiers since the Vietnam War. Late in the afternoon of October 3, 1993, the soldiers of Task Force Ranger were sent on a mission to capture two top lieutenants of a renegade Somalian warlord and return to base. This mission was supposed to take less than an hour, but instead the soldiers were pinned down in the heart of Mogadishu and locked in a desperate struggle of kill or be killed. For more than 15 hours, U.S. soldiers were caught in a bloody firefight that resulted in 18 American casualties and the deaths of some 500 local inhabitants. "Black Hawk Down" tells the story of that battle, from the eyes of the pilots and soldiers who struggled to survive."
 
marine1 said:
Huh? They already won it. 1991
Click to expand...

Did they also win the hearts and minds of the people?

It also costs them millions to supply the occuping forces logistically.

The sad thing about this war is that we all lose directly.

When Bush (jr) invaded Iraq the cost for a barrel of Brent crude was U.S.$ 22, it is close to U.S.$ 100 now.

In effect it means that we are all paying for the so called war on terrorism.
 
PeterCH said:
Conventional war is just more of this same Iraq war cr@p. They don't want that, that's why they're saying they are considering using NUKES as a FIRST LINE measure. As I said, its more lip service and propaganda than anything,
its meant to make the Iranians and anyone else involved, think twice and
worry more maybe help distabilise the regime there. Who knows....?
Click to expand...

It's an extremely dangerous bluff, and it will only work once.

The point, referring back to the initial post. is that it appears they want to use nuclear weapons against countries who 'may' someday pose a threat.
That is just absurd thinking and if true then America and Britain have lost the plot. Nobody declared them global policemen but themselves.




Let us not forget that the US supported and supplied arms to Saddam Hussein at the time of the Iran - Iraq war. Today's friend could be tomorrows enemy and vice-versa , and America has lost many friends and gained none.
 
marine1 said:
For more than 15 hours, U.S. soldiers were caught in a bloody firefight that resulted in 18 American casualties and the deaths of some 500 local inhabitants. "Black Hawk Down" tells the story of that battle, from the eyes of the pilots and soldiers who struggled to survive."
Click to expand...

Does inhabitants mean soldiers with large belt-fed machine guns?
 
marine1 said:
Piepalook, you said they have not won a war since the Falklands - you were wrong. They won Desert Storm as I pointed out.
Click to expand...

They did not win.
George (jr) had to go back a few years later to attempt to finish the job his father couldn't.
They are still trying and their troops are still dying.

I also never mentioned the Falklands.
 
Umm ok if thats what you think then good for you. The facts are different.
They came and liberated Kuwait and pushed the Iraqi army back 30 yrs at least. Just because they left Saddam there means nothing, they had the option to do what the hell they liked.
 
alanf85 said:
Well please 'englighten' me as to how that was a humiliation :)
Click to expand...

http://inquirer.philly.com/packages/somalia/dec14/default14.asp




The White House was in trouble. The day after the Oct. 3, 1993, Battle of Mogadishu, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin and Secretary of State Warren Christopher had been grilled by angry members of Congress. How had this happened? Why were American soldiers dying in far-off Somalia?

These were the same questions that Clinton was asking his aides. Until this raid, Clinton had been briefed on missions in advance. This one had been mounted so quickly he had not been informed. He complained bitterly to Lake. He felt he had been blindsided, and he was angry. He wanted answers to a broad range of questions from policy to military tactics.

At the breakfast table in the East Wing on Oct. 6 were Lake and his deputy, Samuel R. Berger, and U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Madeleine K. Albright. Then they walked with Oakley into the Oval Office, where they joined the President, the vice president, Christopher, Aspin, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and several advisers.

The meeting lasted six hours. The thrust of the discussion was: What do we do now? An American soldier's body had been dragged through the streets by jeering Somalis. Eighteen soldiers were dead and 73 wounded. Hundreds of Somalis were dead. Durant was being held captive. The public was outraged, and Congress was demanding withdrawal.

Staying in Mogadishu to pursue Aidid was out of the question, even though retired Adm. Jonathan Howe, head of the U.N. effort there, and Maj. Gen. William F. Garrison, commander of Task Force Ranger, thought Aidid had been struck a mortal blow, and that it wouldn't take much to finish the job. Intelligence reports were that Aidid supporters were fleeing the city, their arsenals of rocket-propelled grenades expended. Others were sending peace feelers, offering to dump Aidid. But it was clear that America had lost its stomach for anything further in Somalia.

The meeting ended with a decision: America was pulling out. Task Force Ranger, reinforced to make a show of military resolve, would stay on - but would make a dignified withdrawal by March 1994. All efforts to capture Aidid would be called off.
Click to expand...

It had been the biggest firefight involving American troops since the Vietnam War. Eighteen Americans dead and 73 wounded. More than 500 Somalis dead and at least a thousand injured. All for the capture of Omar Salad and Mohammed Hassan Awale, two men who were as little known after the fight as they had been before it.

President Clinton would accept Oakley's plea on behalf of the Somalian leaders and order the release several weeks later of every Somali captured by Task Force Ranger.

American soldiers had fought valiantly and well, but the price paid that day effectively ended America's mission to Somalia. Every man who fought was back home within a month.
Click to expand...

Claiming this as a victory is as credible as Bush on the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln claiming the battle for Baghdad is won.
 
Welcome to reality.

Have a little gander at this:-

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=913

I was just entering my teenage years during one of the scariest periods of the cold war was taking place and I recall very strongly placing a small note inside a crack in my bedroom wall.

The note basically said that if anyone found it, I lived here in 1979 and that there was going to be a nuclear war. I was 11 and incredibly scared - so much talk about the war to end all wars.

Only people over 70 recall a world where we couldn't all be obliterated at any moment in time...
 
daveza said:
They say that insanity is very close to genius....

Are you saying that the US mission to Somalia can be counted as a victory ?
Click to expand...

Well then we should maybe congratulate the guy who was the warlord back then in Somalia -- oh wait he's dead.

Then the Yanks won by using their Ethiopian proxy army and high altitude bombing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X