Joejojoba111
Member
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,056
Neutron bombs decayed faster than normal warheads half life 10 or 20 years or such. Short shelf lifes and high costs. And the whole theory was tactical. Soviets trained second crews to re-crew the tanks the first bomb killed off, and so-on, even though the armor would still be radioactive. Plus more effort was put into defences against such weapons on the part of the tanks. There would still be a blast, and all that stuff you associate with a nuclear boom. The difference was that tanks were less succeptible to the overpressure effects, so the whole enhanced radiation effect was dreamt up. Of course the media, in all its accuracy, took the whole 'it doesn't blow down buildings it just kills humans' notion and ran with it.
Why would Russia use nuclear weapons? Why would the USA? Why would Israel? Why would Iran? One reason is because they are there. What's the branch of the Russian military which has generally escaped the debilitating budget cuts? That's right. Not only that, but they have been upgrading to brand new missiles. Just for the sake of argument, if you pretend that Iran is to Russia as Israel is to America, there is good reason to believe that Iran could already have nukes - because Israel already has them. Why would Russia nuke Israel? For the same reasons America would nuke Iran, retaliation. In the nuclear war game, you take tiny itsy bitsy small chances, only. You don't take huge honking chances like 'I hope they don't have anything, and I hope the Russians don't mind missiles flying towards them. ('Cause the Russians are reasonable, it's not like they'd shoot down a passenger jet that entered their airspace and had only a small possible theoretical chance to have some malicious intent. Nope they are very forgiving and very patient.
)
And want to believe that the new-and-improved patriots will save anyone, go ahead and believe it. What I could be persuaded to believe is that they can finally intercept a V2 or some other simple and antiquated ballistic missile without countermeasures. I'm not sure whether Iran's missiles fit that description. For what it's worth Israel also has large bulky lasers too. (and even when things are working perfectly, no-one guarantees 100% hits)
Then there's the problem of 'what if they are using cobalt in some way?'. If it's a pre-irradiated cobalt dirty-bomb, then shooting it mid-air would just scatter the material around, and radioactive cobalt pretty much the most radioactive stuff you can find.
IMO the only logical use for nuclear weapons would be if it was to destroy missiles being launched by Iran. You could give them a warning - Iran, you've been acting the dick, if you launch any missiles at all we will intercept them with nuclear airbursts as close to your launch site as possible.
Because I kind of suspect that Iran already has something, and they are goading Israel to attack them so they can use it. If I was a leader bent on hitting Israel with nukes, and I knew their MO, I'd have my reactor go catastrophic when they hit it, launch my nukes at them, and sit back in confidence that if I didn't die everyone would look at the situation and say, "Yea, Israel blew up their reactor and it made a nuclear mess, so when Iran launched those missiles at Tel Aviv to make a nuclear mess it doesn't seem that bad." And everyone who suggested Iran sabotaged their own reactor would be the lunatic conspiracy theorists.
Why would Russia use nuclear weapons? Why would the USA? Why would Israel? Why would Iran? One reason is because they are there. What's the branch of the Russian military which has generally escaped the debilitating budget cuts? That's right. Not only that, but they have been upgrading to brand new missiles. Just for the sake of argument, if you pretend that Iran is to Russia as Israel is to America, there is good reason to believe that Iran could already have nukes - because Israel already has them. Why would Russia nuke Israel? For the same reasons America would nuke Iran, retaliation. In the nuclear war game, you take tiny itsy bitsy small chances, only. You don't take huge honking chances like 'I hope they don't have anything, and I hope the Russians don't mind missiles flying towards them. ('Cause the Russians are reasonable, it's not like they'd shoot down a passenger jet that entered their airspace and had only a small possible theoretical chance to have some malicious intent. Nope they are very forgiving and very patient.
)And want to believe that the new-and-improved patriots will save anyone, go ahead and believe it. What I could be persuaded to believe is that they can finally intercept a V2 or some other simple and antiquated ballistic missile without countermeasures. I'm not sure whether Iran's missiles fit that description. For what it's worth Israel also has large bulky lasers too. (and even when things are working perfectly, no-one guarantees 100% hits)
Then there's the problem of 'what if they are using cobalt in some way?'. If it's a pre-irradiated cobalt dirty-bomb, then shooting it mid-air would just scatter the material around, and radioactive cobalt pretty much the most radioactive stuff you can find.
IMO the only logical use for nuclear weapons would be if it was to destroy missiles being launched by Iran. You could give them a warning - Iran, you've been acting the dick, if you launch any missiles at all we will intercept them with nuclear airbursts as close to your launch site as possible.
Because I kind of suspect that Iran already has something, and they are goading Israel to attack them so they can use it. If I was a leader bent on hitting Israel with nukes, and I knew their MO, I'd have my reactor go catastrophic when they hit it, launch my nukes at them, and sit back in confidence that if I didn't die everyone would look at the situation and say, "Yea, Israel blew up their reactor and it made a nuclear mess, so when Iran launched those missiles at Tel Aviv to make a nuclear mess it doesn't seem that bad." And everyone who suggested Iran sabotaged their own reactor would be the lunatic conspiracy theorists.
