Best way to eliminate enemy country

[Hellion]

In my opinion a 500 megaton cobalt bomb on a faultline would definately do some damage,if it came down to it,in any kind of war.IMO

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

The problem with radioactive cobalt is that it wont stay in one area... it likes to drift with the wind. That is why we dont have cobalt encased bombs any more.

[phee]

Yup

[Blackmail]

The problem with radioactive cobalt is that it wont stay in one area... it likes to drift with the wind.  That is why we dont have cobalt encased bombs any more.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

there's another problem with it - it kills people.

Yeah we could have ended Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan pretty quickly but it would kill hundreds of thousands of civillions. I am sure most people understand this, but not everyone.

Cobalt is some scary stuff.

[Scary Guy]

there's another problem with it - it kills people. 

Yeah we could have ended Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan pretty quickly but it would kill hundreds of thousands of civillions.  I am sure most people understand this, but not everyone. 

Cobalt is some scary stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What about if you understand and still don't care?

[phee]

What about if you understand and still don't care?

You mean like George W. Bush?

[torn asunder]

could someone explain to me what a "neutron bomb" is? i've heard it mentioned before, but i didn't understand what it was, exactly...

[phee]

could someone explain to me what a "neutron bomb" is? i've heard it mentioned before, but i didn't understand what it was, exactly...

The effects only destroy organic matter leaving technology and cities in tact.

[Blackmail]

You mean like George W. Bush?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

actually he is the opposite of that. We could have simply bombed Iraq to death from the air and cost us no U.S. casualties (or minimum) but chose hand to hand combat instead.

Not that we should be over there at all, which is a seperate debate.

[Scary Guy]

actually he is the opposite of that.  We could have simply bombed Iraq to death from the air and cost us no U.S. casualties (or minimum) but chose hand to hand combat instead. 

Not that we should be over there at all, which is a seperate debate.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

To be honest though he couldn't use nuclear (or in his lanugage NUKYULAR) technology because all the other first world nations would have our ass on a platter for it.

[Hellion]

:devil Imagine what kind of earthquake would occur,especially when it's detonated on a major faultline.LOL

[torn asunder]

The effects only destroy organic matter leaving technology and cities in tact.

my, but that does sound rather perfect...

[The_Dark]

Intact isn't exactly correct. There is still a blast crater, a shock wave, and a wall of fire... along with an insane amount of short lived radioactivity.

[The_Dark]

BTW....

Tactical Nukes are Legal. Stratigic Nukes are the only ones not allowed uner International Law.

Tactical Nukes are anything below.. I think it's 50megatons... might be 40. Anyway... Most tactical nukes are around 10-20 megatons. These can be used in war without breaking any treatys that exists today.

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

could someone explain to me what a "neutron bomb" is? i've heard it mentioned before, but i didn't understand what it was, exactly...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A neutron bomb is an enhanced engergy weapon. Basicly it enhances one particular form of radiation (Fast Neutrons). Neutrons have atomic weight (pretty heavy) but are not charged. what they do is act like micro scopic bullets.

when a neutron bomb explodes it has a fireball just like a regular atomic bomb, but it throws out lots of neutrons rather than radiation that is persistant. if you blow one up in a city, the city is trashed. Period, BUT, the radiation is all gone in a a month or two and the city can be rebuilt or occupied. The Neutron bomb was not designed to "kill people and plants in cities" and allow us to walk in and take them over... The neutron bomb was designed for one specific area: The Fulda Gap. THe fulda gap was the most important piece of ground during the cold war. All russian armored divisions would have to go through this area to get into western europe. The Neutron bombs were designed to kill their soldiers (infantry or tanks) and not irradiate the area forever... that way Nato could eventually counterattack into eastern europe.

The destroy people but keep the buildings part was a bunch of BS created by Green Peace or some other ignorant morons. Can anyone name one city in Eastern Europe that would be worth occupying after the russians had had it for 40 years?

also, this led the russians to add lead infused armor to the outsides of their T-72s and BMPs to counter the Neutron Bomb threat. They did not lead line their buildings and trees.

THe missinformation about the Neutron bomb was almost as inaccurate as the ideas surrounding Anti Ballistic missiles in the 60s-1980s... but dont get me started on that one.

[Msterbeau]

BTW....

Tactical Nukes are Legal. Stratigic Nukes are the only ones not allowed uner International Law.

Tactical Nukes are anything below.. I think it's 50megatons... might be 40. Anyway... Most tactical nukes are around 10-20 megatons. These can be used in war without breaking any treatys that exists today.

Funny that those far larger then the 20 KILOton bombs that were used in WW2 as stretegic weapons.

[Hellion]

:devil Remember the MX missles,and the 500 megaton bomb does exhist,or at least can be built.Give it time, the bilaton will probably be on its way in the future,lets hope not,or goodby planet Earth.

[BrassFusion]

:devil Remember the MX missles,and the 500 megaton bomb does exhist,or at least can be built.Give it time, the bilaton will probably be on its way in the future,lets hope not,or goodby planet Earth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

But they might call it gigaton. Just a thought.

[Hellion]

:devil Damn,could you imagine what an explosion a billion tons of TNT would do. :fear

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

somewhere i lost a post explaining the difference in size between the nuclear yields. Kilotons= 1000 tons of TNT (plus radiation) per kilo ton

Megatons= 1,000,000 tons of TNT (plus radiation) per mega ton

standard bombs 1/2 of a ton or 1/4 of a ton only (@ 1,000lbs or 500lbs each)

The MX was supposed to have 10 small mirvs on it in the low kilo ton range rather than one huge megaton warhead. Our mirvs were more accurate and could be smaller to get the same result as the innaccurate russian warheads that had to be much larger. The mirvs could also overwhelm the AB-1 Galosh ABM system the russians fielded around moscow.

I had a nice 15 week course of Nuclear warfare. It was quite fun and I did learn quite a bit (this was ten years ago... so I have to go back to my books from time to time)

[Msterbeau]

For a while, we even had 155mm (And 230mm.. I think) nuclear cannon shells as tactical weapons. I don't remember the yield on them. I imagine it was pretty small or you start wiping out your own guys.

[ZhukovCodeslinger]

For a while, we even had 155mm (And 230mm.. I think)  nuclear cannon shells as tactical weapons.   I don't remember the yield on them.  I imagine it was pretty small or you start wiping out your own guys.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

correct. they were in the low kiloton range (2-5kt if i remember correctly) the 155 and 203 can fire 20 miles so not a real problem (over 12 miles away and the curve of the earth protects you from fast radiation... though with an air burst, the fast radiation could reach out further to get people on the ground... but there would be less radioactive debris to worry about also)

sorry to thread kill this one :blushing