2007-07-12 13:26:51 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
To kohneke 187: I am a staunch Democrat. I find the war against Iraq so abhorant that I ask these redicullous questions, just to find out how many people actually like my rediculous bogus ideas. We should never have attacked Iraq. They did nothing to us. We have brought ruination upon an entire nation. Shame on George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
2007-07-12 14:19:32 · update #1
Simple answer -OIL
2007-07-12 14:30:32 · answer #1 · answered by Nikki M 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't know why I am bothering to answer this question.
Your question is wrong on several levels.
Ethically incorrect. A nuclear weapon of any size does not discriminate against military targets and civilian bystanders. If the blast doesn't kill you, you die a horrible painful death from the radiation. You have to be morally bankrupt and insane to do such a thing.
Technically incorrect: tactical means battlefield level, which means not much damage. Just a big artillery shell with radioactive residue. It will kill both friend and foe. You need to be awfully stupid (or desperate, as in the scenario where the USSR invades Europe during the "Cold War" and the only way to stop them was to kill everyone, them and the defending troops, and all, as in 100%, of civilians caught between the two forces).
Geographically incorrect: Middle East? That includes the edges of Eastern Europe, Northern Africa and Western Asia. That would be an awful lot of people. Maybe you should be more precise before you send out that order.
But let's say your question meant that you wanted to wipe out the Middle East even though you didn't know what "The Middle East" encompassed. Okay, to kill all of the people in that wide a region, you need to empty at least three whole nuclear submarines armed with MIRVs (Multiple Independent Re-entry Vehicles) and throw in half a dozen MIRV ICBMs fired from directly from the US. That would kill everyone in the targeted zones instantly but the massive radioactive fallout will eventually wash over the entire planet kill almost everyone else, including you.
QED
2007-07-12 15:42:32 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Do a search on Fleigerhorst Kaserne. You will find links to 3rd Armor Division sites with first hand tales of guarding, the possible use of and preparing to deploy such weapons.
Then look up the W33 warhead. Dial a Yield. There were a bunch in the bunkers at Fleigerhorst. (8" howitzer rounds)
W45's & 54's were the weapons for the Engineers used to blow chunks of roadways and autobahns. The 45 was also for the Little John Rockets.
Kept 9 Soviet Divisions at bay. Useless in the Middle East. They are to stop armored colums not blow up cities
There are country killers. Saving those for Armegedon.
2007-07-12 14:08:46 · answer #3 · answered by Stand-up philosopher. It's good to be the King 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A small tactical nuclear weapon dropped in the center of the Middle East would accomplish one thing - devastate a small chunk of Saudi Arabia, a US Ally.
Why? Because that's where the middle of the Middle East is.
Not to mention doing so will probably irradiate US servicemen, ruin oil contracts, kill innocent people and make the US a Pariah-state. It's kinda like suddenly turning around and punching your best friend in the forehead so hard you bruise your knuckles.
2007-07-12 13:46:38 · answer #4 · answered by Gotta have more explosions! 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Unless we eradicated the entire region of human life, we'd just be giving them ideas. Besides, the US doesn't operate that way. US policy is to respond in kind to any attack. Unless we are attacked using WMD, we will never initiate a WMD attack. A little lesson learned from Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
2007-07-12 13:40:16 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, fall out and Russia, even Israel could be a controversy, to no longer point out Turkey and Greece and Saudi Arabia, and Egypt. as much as we desire to tug the plug at situations and see Iran glow green on the hours of darkness for the subsequent a million,000 years, we could desire to hold off on that till it truly is the final option.
2016-10-19 04:18:19 · answer #6 · answered by mcgoon 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A small tactical nuclear weapon is not strong enough to scare the Islamic world into submission.
2007-07-12 13:30:30 · answer #7 · answered by The Stylish One 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
2 words. Political Correctness.
2007-07-12 13:36:51 · answer #8 · answered by Coach 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
1. The Middle East is Big
2. I have Family/Friend's Family there.
3. I don't support our president!!!!!!!!!!
2007-07-12 13:34:50 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
What would be the purpose of such an act?
2007-07-12 13:45:05 · answer #10 · answered by gunplumber_462 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Carpet bombing with 1000 lb-ers would be more ecologically sound and we could then use the land sooner after the mission.
Vet-USAF 44MMS
2007-07-12 13:32:36 · answer #11 · answered by ฉันรักเบ้า 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋