Nuclear Bunker Buster Bombs againt Iran: Madness

[jdnation]

The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear “bunker busters” in Iran in a preemptive strike. As a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini, 1956) I can affirm that this is absolute madness. The “bunker buster” is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror. Air bursts are horrible enough, doing incredible destruction through heat, shock and high initial radiation. The fallout from an air burst is registered around the world. A surface or subsurface burst is even deadlier and more long lasting.

Whole Article:
scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0603/S00348.htm

 

[rlg94086]

jdnation:

The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear “bunker busters” in Iran in a preemptive strike. As a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini, 1956) I can affirm that this is absolute madness. The “bunker buster” is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror. Air bursts are horrible enough, doing incredible destruction through heat, shock and high initial radiation. The fallout from an air burst is registered around the world. A surface or subsurface burst is even deadlier and more long lasting.

Whole Article:
scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0603/S00348.htm

Information he has from “followers of Bush”…that sounds reliable

To use bunker busters it is important to:

1. know where the bunkers are.
2. know what is in the bunkers.

I don’t think we know either. It sounds to me like the author just wanted to write something negative about “der Bush” and created a fictitious scenario to do it.

 

[Al_Masetti]

The article omits the identity of the person or persons who allegedly gave Bush permission to use bunker busters.

The author refers to nuclear weapons of the 15 megaton size and is ignorant of the fact that nukes can have a yield of around 0.1 KT… very small yield. Tiny. About the yield of ten truckloads of conventional explosives.

Then he purposely brings in emotional arguments by changing the subject… away from “bunker busters” and brings up Chernobyl and depleted uranium.

If the article was part of the Catholic Answers forums, then the majority of the article would be off topic.

It is simply a rant against any kind of nuclear anything. And full of inaccuracies and innuendo, besides.

 

[gilliam]

jdnation:

The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear “bunker busters” in Iran in a preemptive strike. As a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini, 1956) I can affirm that this is absolute madness. The “bunker buster” is a cute sounding name for a nuclear horror. Air bursts are horrible enough, doing incredible destruction through heat, shock and high initial radiation. The fallout from an air burst is registered around the world. A surface or subsurface burst is even deadlier and more long lasting.

Whole Article:
scoop.co.nz/stories/WO0603/S00348.htm

We don’t have nuclear “bunker buster” bombs. So we can’t use them. In fact, that program, I think, has not been funded except for basic research.

Your “scoop” doesn’t know what they are talking about.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

jdnation:

The latest information I have had from the followers of Bush is that he has demanded and received permission to use nuclear “bunker busters” in Iran in a preemptive strike. …

Bush asked for permission? From who? Sounds like a national enquirer article to me. As an officer in the USAF, I’d like to know more precisely what law requires the U.S. Commander-in-Chief to ask permission to use any kind of weapon?

 

[Robert_Bay]

Thread closed

Sorry, this is controversial and news that is controversial must link to a publicly available news article. You have linked to an opinion site, not to a news article. The site also has not linked to a publicly available news article that backs up the allegations.

Thread closed

Please review the forum guidelines before posting.