cpaul writes:
THE US 'ANNOUNCED' THEIR INTENTION TO USE B61-11 BUNKER BUSTERS ON LAST NIGHT'S NEWS BULLETINS (BUT SOMEHOW FORGOT TO REFER TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE CLASSIFIED AS TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
Yes, I noticed this as well. I wonder how many euphemisms we will now hear for the word "nuclear" until the American public is informed after the fact how wonderfully the weapons have worked. Such games require quite a bit of collusion on the part of our supposedly free and independent press. One wonders what would happen to the press credentials of a reporter who said - "Scuse me, Ari. Are those the nuclear bunker busters we're talking about?" I don't know if it's related, but there were reports earlier today that people were reporting seeing bright flashes of light and fireballs in the direction of Afghanistan. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
Eric Cordian wrote:
cpaul writes:
THE US 'ANNOUNCED' THEIR INTENTION TO USE B61-11 BUNKER BUSTERS ON LAST NIGHT'S NEWS BULLETINS (BUT SOMEHOW FORGOT TO REFER TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE CLASSIFIED AS TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
Yes, I noticed this as well. I wonder how many euphemisms we will now hear for the word "nuclear" until the American public is informed after the fact how wonderfully the weapons have worked.
Such games require quite a bit of collusion on the part of our supposedly free and independent press. One wonders what would happen to the press credentials of a reporter who said - "Scuse me, Ari. Are those the nuclear bunker busters we're talking about?"
I don't know if it's related, but there were reports earlier today that people were reporting seeing bright flashes of light and fireballs in the direction of Afghanistan.
It is hard to imagine the USA going anywhere near nukes in this war. The last thing any sane government would want is to lower the psychological threshold against first use of nuclear weapons anywhere in the vicinity of China or India. Even if Russia is on board. There has been speculation about a possible future Islamist Pakistan using nuclear weapons, and the US maybe trying to pre-empt that, but I don't think that is likely either. If someone took over Pakistan & actually used their nukes against India, I suspect that the Indian military would roll over the country in 2 weeks flat. If not one week. India would probably have total support from the US navy & airforce, & certainly from the British, if only because the USA would desperately want to make sure that they got to Islamabad before the Chinese did. A month after the war you'd have a theoretically UN but in practice Indian hegemony over what was left of Pakistan. There would be millions of Muslims expelled from Kashmir (& possibly Gujarat and other provinces as well), and a supposed disarmament and permanent occupation of the North-West Frontier districts probably including the Panshir valley & parts of what would by then be ex-Afghanistan as well. Chances are that the entire west of Pakistan and the south of Afghanistan would have been hived off into an semi-independent Baluchistan as a client state of Iran, which would probably have retaken Herat while no-one was looking. Islamabad would be all but dismantled and the rump of Pakistan ruled from Karachi, within easy reach of the aircraft carriers. Once upon a time that might have sparked off the 3rd world war with Russia and the USA taking different sides in a war between India and China. These days, I suspect they would all be in it together. A Pakistan that had actually used its nuclear weapons would be the 21st century equivalent of Bolivia or Paraguay in the 19th. And yes, it would be the final nail in the coffin of the Taliban and OBL - but at the expense of hundreds of thousands dead, if not millions. And no, it isn't worth it. Those nuclear weapons are useful to Pakistan only as long as they aren't used (the military equivalent of the British monarchy if you think about it). As soon as they are used, because there aren't enough of them to destroy Pakistan's enemies - which in this case would be India *and* China *and* Russia *and* Iran, none of which Pakistan would have the slightest hope of beating - it would all be up for Pakistan as an independent country. So what if you totally wiped out Delhi and Bombay. That just means that the other 900 million Indians would be very, very, angry indeed. And the rest of the world would be too shocked to stop them fighting back, even if they wanted to. Pakistan's nukes are intended as a deterrent against an Indian invasion. Once they are used, there is nothing to stop such an invasion (if the Indians wanted to do it of course, which right now they don't) But the whole situation is, as diplomats used to say, delicate. For the USA to use nukes first would possibly mess things up a lot. Of course I am assuming that the rulers of the USA and India are sane. Not very sane, but a little sane. Ken Brown
Ken Brown writes:
It is hard to imagine the USA going anywhere near nukes in this war. The last thing any sane government would want is to lower the psychological threshold against first use of nuclear weapons anywhere in the vicinity of China or India. Even if Russia is on board.
Yes, one would think that would be the case. The B61-11 weighs 1200 lbs and can be delivered by the B-2 bomber and even by an F-16. Conventional bunker busters weight 5,000 lbs, and have to be delivered by structurally modified B-52s. What is worrysome here is that Bush is a big fan of the B61-11, which is widely deployed throughout NATO, and the defense department recommended at the beginning of this conflict that the B61-11 be used. Anthrax Theatre has opened to rave reviews nationwide, and the Defense Department considers nuclear retaliation appropriate for any WMD activity. The US threatened to use nukes in Iraq, but backed down after Yeltsin grumbled. Putin is not grumbling over Bush's WarOnTerrorism(tm). All of this makes the use of nukes in this conflict much more likely. Here's an interesting article on Bush and the B61-11 which predates the WTC downing. http://www.progressive.org/0801issue/mill0801.html ----- It's a Bomb! Bush's Baby Nuke by Alistair Millar On October 2, 1992, President George Bush signed into law a moratorium on nuclear testing. Now his son is preparing to end that moratorium. The current Bush Administration is studying options for the development and production of a small, low-yield nuclear weapon called an earth-penetrator or bunker-buster, which would burrow into the ground and destroy a deeply buried hideaway of a "rogue" leader like Saddam Hussein. ... -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
At 10:08 AM 10/12/01 -0700, Eric Cordian wrote:
Conventional bunker busters weight 5,000 lbs, and have to be delivered by structurally modified B-52s.
The GBU-28 (BLU-113 Penetrator) weighs 4,414 lbs, and can be delivered by F-15s and F-111s. http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/gbu-28.htm Reese
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:33:22 +1000 Subject: B61-11
THE US 'ANNOUNCED' THEIR INTENTION TO USE B61-11 BUNKER BUSTERS ON LAST NIGHT'S NEWS BULLETINS (BUT SOMEHOW FORGOT TO REFER TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE CLASSIFIED AS TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
I can't find any specific statement anyone made that the B61-11 weapons are being deployed. I can find lots of mention of the GBU-28 being used. Pointers, please, to specific mentions of the B61-11 being deployed? -- J. Eric Townsend -- http://www.spies.com/jet Were you in USASSG/ACSI/MACV in Vietnam, 1967-1970? Drop me a line if so...
On Friday, October 12, 2001, at 03:39 PM, cpaul wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2001 12:33:22 +1000 Subject: B61-11
THE US 'ANNOUNCED' THEIR INTENTION TO USE B61-11 BUNKER BUSTERS ON LAST NIGHT'S NEWS BULLETINS (BUT SOMEHOW FORGOT TO REFER TO THE FACT THAT THEY ARE CLASSIFIED AS TACTICAL NUCLEAR WEAPONS)
2:00 a.m. Oct. 8, 2001 PDT Following the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was questioned on ABC television's This Week program about the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons in the expected conflicts to come. The most likely candidate is a tactical micro-nuke called the B61-11, an earth-penetrating nuclear device known as the "bunker buster."
The B61-11 was designed to destroy underground military facilities such as command bunkers, ballistic missile silos and facilities for producing and storing weapons.
Whoever it is you are quoting (I can't tell), this is nonsense. Bunker busters were used in the Gulf War...are you too young to recall that? None of these bunker busters were nukes. Some were already-developed earth-burrowing warheads. Some were quickly-developed weapons based on converting large gun barrels (used on ships) into bombs. --Tim May "Gun Control: The theory that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her panty hose, is somehow morally superior to a woman explaining to police how her attacker got that fatal bullet wound"
Tim writes:
Following the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was questioned on ABC television's This Week program about the possible use of tactical nuclear weapons in the expected conflicts to come.
The most likely candidate is a tactical micro-nuke called the B61-11, an earth-penetrating nuclear device known as the "bunker buster."
The B61-11 was designed to destroy underground military facilities such as command bunkers, ballistic missile silos and facilities for producing and storing weapons.
Whoever it is you are quoting (I can't tell), this is nonsense.
Bunker busters were used in the Gulf War...are you too young to recall that?
None of these bunker busters were nukes. Some were already-developed earth-burrowing warheads. Some were quickly-developed weapons based on converting large gun barrels (used on ships) into bombs.
Yes and no. Rumsfeld won't rule out the use of tactical nukes. Both conventional and nuclear "Bunker Busters" are available, and the B61-11 is specifically designed for his purpose, and widely deployed thoughout NATO. We even have a bunch of them in Turkey just in case Saddam gets uppity. The defense department has suggested the possible use of tactical nuke Bunker Busters both in the Gulf War and in this current conflict. In the last war, Yeltsin wasn't on board, and in this war, Putin is. The junior Bush is very fond of small tactical nukes, and I firmly believe that if Osama bin Laden was in a very deep cave, and the American public was distracted by an engaging performance of Anthrax Theatre, that he might use a single such weapon to vaporize Osama to a big round of applause. Is this likely? No. But neither is it impossible. Bush thinks he is on the side of God fighting Evil. All bets are off. So far, the Bunker Busters have been conventional. Tommorow, who knows? -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
On Saturday, October 13, 2001, at 11:35 AM, Eric Cordian wrote:
ed on ships) into bombs.
Yes and no. Rumsfeld won't rule out the use of tactical nukes.
Both conventional and nuclear "Bunker Busters" are available, and the B61-11 is specifically designed for his purpose, and widely deployed thoughout NATO. We even have a bunch of them in Turkey just in case Saddam gets uppity.
The defense department has suggested the possible use of tactical nuke Bunker Busters both in the Gulf War and in this current conflict. In the last war, Yeltsin wasn't on board, and in this war, Putin is.
Beside the point. I was commenting on the paranoid/misinformed rant that "use of bunker bunkers" means "use of nuclear bunker busters."
The junior Bush is very fond of small tactical nukes,
You know this how? --Tim May, Citizen-unit of of the once free United States " The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. "--Thomas Jefferson, 1787
Tim wrote:
Beside the point. I was commenting on the paranoid/misinformed rant that "use of bunker bunkers" means "use of nuclear bunker busters."
Someone probably typed "Bunker Buster" into a search engine, and got a lot of hits on the B61-11.
The junior Bush is very fond of small tactical nukes,
You know this how?
In April, the media reported that the US was considering development of a new small tactical nuke specifically tailored for use against "rogue dictators" hiding in underground bunkers or heavily fortified command centers, in violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban treaty. These would be used for, in the words of the director of Sandia, "deterrence in the non-Russian world." Since such research is currently illegal, Congress has tacked something onto the 2001 Defense Authorization Bill mandating a study by DOE and DOD into small-scale nuclear weapons use against dictators hiding in "hard and deepy buried targets." George W. Bush, John Warner, and Wayne Allard, are the culprits here. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
participants (6)
-
cpaul -
Eric Cordian -
j eric townsend -
Ken Brown -
Reese -
Tim May