News story: ISI and nukes and al Qaeda and Bin Laden.
washingtontimes.com/news/2011/may/5/evidence-at-bin-ladens-home-raises-nuclear-concern/?page=1
Not good.
P.S. ONE of the reasons for such biggie nukes in the old days was that historically they were lucky to get within five miles of the target. So if you missed by five miles, the target was still wiped out.
You can research the C.E.P. … seems to me that back in the early days, they test dropped nukes from B-52s and didn’t do really well.
They got better eventually.
In some cases, they reduced the yield as accuracy improved. And then only used conventional (non-nuclear) payloads and in some cases even eliminated the explosive entirely.
Of course, in some cases the adversaries began to ultra-harden [my word] targets … so we had to return to use of nukes with a penetrating warhead.
The thing is that al Qaeda is engaged in asymmetric warfare. We have B-2 bombers; they have suicide guys with frequent flier miles and box cutters.
It is important for both the offense and the defense to think outside of the box.
Unfortunately, bureaucracies are not good at thinking outside the box.
[There is a writer named Marscinko or something like that. Was a SEAL. Did a lot of Hi-Lo jumps. He insisted his men tie their boots on with very tight laces so that the jump boots didn’t get torn off by the aerodynamic forces of the long free fall. He had the men TIE THE LACES WITH KNOTS … but they would have to later CUT the laces to get the boots off.
The bureaucrats wouldn’t let the SEALS have new laces. ]
Typical bureaucratic failure to think outside the box. REFUSAL to think outside the box.
Small item.
Same thing applies to choice of weapons, ammunition, amount of practice rounds needed to be fired to become proficient. Etc, etc etc.
