Serious topic

[Wanderwolf]

Is the geography of Iran such that attacking the forts dosen't include genocide? Or are we saying genocide is the only option?

What genocide? We're not talking about attacking population centers.

Um, Calbeck, we're talking about a bunker-buster nuke, here. The device detonated 1900 feet above Hiroshima was 12.5 kilotons. It created a fireball more than 90 feet across, burned people to death out to 39,000 feet away, created a wind moving more than 1,400 feet/second, and killed people out to 1,640 feet away from radiation alone (not counting radiation exposure that was not immediately lethal and discounting fallout).

An estimated 140,000 people died.

At Nagasaki, the device was 20 kilotons, and had a total death count estimated at 70,000, having been detonated at 1500 feet over a smaller population center.

Now, a bunker-buster nuke has a yield of about 340 kilotons. To give a vague perspective, I'll simulate a detonation of this yield at Eastfield College, near my home. The detonation is on the college campus, but not in or on a college structure, simulated at:

http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/tools/gmap/hydesim.html

Out to 1.05 miles, we have overpressure of 15 psi on all structures. The college is flattened, along with my house, Zack Motley Elementary, and every other structure; even reinforced concrete has trouble surviving in this range. Likewise, I-30 just suffered a structural failure. Estimated 98% fatality at detonation.

Out to 1.96 miles (5 psi shockwave), and every grocery store in my neighborhood is gone with the wind. Highway 80's tattered, and there are two Wal-Marts gone, along with the North Branch of the Mesquite Public Library. Estimated 50% fatality at detonation.

Out to 3.43 miles (2 psi shockwave), and the school where I'm a crossing guard stands in a neighborhood of rubble, hundreds of residential houses reduced to heaps of shattered materials. The school itself survives with shattered windows and broken doors. Estimated 10-15% fatality at detonation.

Out to 5.06 miles, and we're tapering off. Most structures are still standing, and most people are just injured by the 1 psi shockwave. Walls are still blown out, but Mesquite City Hall is just fine, along with our Main Library.

Out to 12.98 miles radius, most of the damage is in the form of broken windows, with most of the injuries resulting from them. 0.25 psi is impressive, but not too destructive overall.

Add in fallout and thermal, Calbeck, and we're exterminating a city. Whether we hit Bushehr (SW of Isfahan and containing an airbase), Natanz (near the village of Deh-Zireh [no known streetcars, sorry]) or Arak (32 miles NW of the city that gives it its name), civilians are going to get nuked along with everyone else; Death plays no favorites.

It's a nuke, Calbeck. Even when you miss, you hit.

Yours truly,

The saddened,

Wanderer

[Kerry Skydancer]

Wanderwulf, you kinda missed a big point there. This is supposed to be a bunkerbuster weapon. It will not be detonated in midair. Nor even at ground level. It's supposed to be a deep penetrator and go underground before detonating.

Surface damage will be far less than even the Hiroshima bomb, and if the penetrator works well enough, no worse than a dirty-bomb at the surface. It will presumably destroy the underground structures it is aimed at by direct contact or shockwaves.

It is also on the table as a last-resort weapon, not for the first try. If we can take the stuff out with conventional BB's, we will.

[StrangeWulf13]

Plus, we're ignoring the original argument... that we're going to commit genocide in this war.

Okay, let's get one thing straight. We have little to no interest in killing every Arab in the Middle East. Not only is it overkill, it's unnecessary and extremly costly. We could probably do it, but the operation would be shut down by protests or even a civil war here at home.

All we're interested in is the terrorists. If the entire Arab world just gift-wrapped the buggers and handed them over, we'd likely go home and leave them be. It's all we care about, save perhaps for helping Iraq and Afghanistan get back on their feet.

Now, the problem is that the terrorists, or the great majority of them, are located in the Middle East and happen to be Arabs. And there's a great deal of debate as to just how many of said Arabs are terrorists, financial backers, or just part of the silent masses who pray that those "brave jihadists" will soon smite the "infidels" living in the world.

It'd be useful to be able to read hearts and minds right about now...

[Jachra]

The composition of the Islamic world being under debate in another thread on this forum. Certitude seems a little premature at this juncture in time, but I'll leave that topic for there. Once again, no argument that radical terrorists are the problem, however

A simulation on the effects of a bunker-buster nuke would be interesting, although I wonder at the necessity. Ever see videotapes of conventional bunker busters? Impressive. Why would we need a nuclear one?
Further, given the...most remarkable destructive qualities of a nuclear weapon, is 340 kilotons all that necessary?
(Yes, those are real questions, not rhetorical. I do enough research on the Earlier thread. ;D)

[Grumpywolfhound]

One other aspect of this that adds to an already horrific scenerio, dispersal or placement of high value military sites next or even UNDER civilian and/or holy sites. Saddam had this down to an art, and I'm guessing Iran's current lot will not be above using this tatic either.

The military does have experience with these kinds of targets, but it usually boils down to a lesser of two evils kind of choice.

And bluntly, all this talk of the use of nukes of ANY size or kind would create far more problems than it'd solve. We honestly don't need to resort to nukes to take out their bases. The current (as far as we know ) generation of bunker busters can get thru roughly 30 feet of re-enforced concrete or 50 feet of normal rock. It'd take some work, but building a bunker deeper than that is possible.
Our solution for that is simple, they gotta surface somewhere, that's where you hit them.

[RHJunior]

God save us from people who think a war can be fought with half measures.

[Jachra]

You might want to, you know, explain what you're talking about. Vagueness is a terrible way to make a point.

Do you mean we should start bombing cities with nuclear weapons, or were you talking about nuclear bunker busters?

Finally, I seriously doubt God will take a hand in just about any of this. He certainly hasn't bothered before...but I won't presume to speak for Him.

[Wanderwolf]

Wanderwulf, you kinda missed a big point there. This is supposed to be a bunkerbuster weapon. It will not be detonated in midair. Nor even at ground level. It's supposed to be a deep penetrator and go underground before detonating.

Surface damage will be far less than even the Hiroshima bomb, and if the penetrator works well enough, no worse than a dirty-bomb at the surface. It will presumably destroy the underground structures it is aimed at by direct contact or shockwaves.

It is also on the table as a last-resort weapon, not for the first try. If we can take the stuff out with conventional BB's, we will.

I certainly hope we will use conventional bunker-busters; they're a lot more reliable than the nuclear models have been in simulation. According to our own government, the nuclear bunker-buster is only successful against shallow-ground targets, due to the current inability to "shape" a nuclear "charge".

Which brings us to fallout. Assuming the BB penetrates, the fallout, along with most of the explosive force, will follow the path of least resistance; straight back out the hole the BB just dug. A rough calculation of the now-discarded plan for a 1-megaton BB indicated that fallout would be "shotgunned" over Iraq and Afghanistan in the event of an Iran-based detonation.

(I know, you read the "optimum dispersal" listing. Problem is, that pattern intends that the nuclear BB actually wind up *inside* the target, allowing the radioactive material and explosive overpressure to be discharged primarily (or at least somewhat) within the walls of the target. Under those ideal conditions, yes, you get nothing worse than a dirty bomb. If the BB fails to penetrate into a containing chamber, you get a radioactive shotgun blast over a chunk of oil-producing landscape three countries in size.)

I still don't like that we're even considering this... especially after the previous "last resort" was the war in Iraq...

Yours wolfishly,

The mildly-jittery,

Wanderer

[Wanderwolf]

God save us from people who think a war can be fought with half measures.

Lord, save us from those who would burn all the world in the fires of their zeal. May they come to understand You before they kill the rest of us.

Yours truly,

The Christian,

Wanderer

[Sciguy]

God save us from people who think a war can be fought with half measures.

Lord, save us from those who would burn all the world in the fires of their zeal. May they come to understand You before they kill the rest of us.

Yours truly,

The Christian,

Wanderer

Would your quote include the genocidal men in power over in the Guld Area?

To quote Winston Churchhill, "For evil to win, good men just need to do nothing."

[Jachra]

To quote Winston Churchhill, "For evil to win, good men just need to do nothing."

There's rather a large difference between 'nothing' and 'wholesale slaughter, rapine, pillaging, salting of fields, and poisoning of wells.' Large differences imply a multitude of options.
For example, the United States government has opted out, so far, of wholesale slaughter, rapine, pillaging, salting of fields, and poisoning of wells, but they still appear to be doing something.

[Wanderwolf]

God save us from people who think a war can be fought with half measures.

Lord, save us from those who would burn all the world in the fires of their zeal. May they come to understand You before they kill the rest of us.

Yours truly,

The Christian,

Wanderer

Would your quote include the genocidal men in power over in the Guld Area?

To quote Winston Churchhill, "For evil to win, good men just need to do nothing."

It was a quote? And here I thought I came up with it out of my own head...

To answer the question: Yes, I include the Israelis slaughtering Palestinians, the Palestinians slaughtering Israelis, and the al-Qaeda slaughtering everybody that happens to pass by their dirty windows. I don't play favorites; trying to kill people just because they exist is Horrible and Wrong.

Yours truly,

The logical,

Wanderer

[Jachra]

I must also ask you to define 'half measure.'

What sort of scale is it based on? What is it half of? Where does this half point lie? Is it set at giving them candy or perhaps at eating their children? Exaggeration used for emphasis, not seriousness.
I find it rather difficult to evaluate a method so ill-defined, either a half or a whole one, in even a hypothetical sense.

[RHJunior]

When you go in, you go in with all the power you can muster. You crush the enemy with all the terrible swift power you can summon. You do it immediately, you do it decisively, you do it completely. You must utterly shatter the enemy's will to fight, <I><B>for in the long run that saves lives.</i></b>

In the end of World War II, we had one enemy left to defeat... the Empire of Japan. We had to use nukes to do it.

"Had" to?

Yes.

Those who disparage the US for dropping fat man and little boy on Japan are pathetic ignorants. Japan was a culture steeped in notions of oriental honor, self-sacrifice for their god-Emporer... this was the culture that produced the kamikaze pilots, people. This was a society that had its women and children <I>sharpening wooden stakes</I> with which they were to attack American soldiers when they landed. (For all their claims of honor, they were no more above the cowardly tactic of using children against American soldiers than the Islamics are.) The empire of Japan was filled with a terrible, poisonous pride; a pride they would have let lead them into the decimation of their island country rather than the "dishonor" of surrendering. They were ready-- or thought they were ready--- to die to the last man, woman and child, killing the White Devil.

The strategists weren't talking out their backsides when they predicted a land invasion costing a million lives on each side.

All that changed when the first two atom bombs fell.

Think on this. THINK ON IT. It took TWO cities vanishing in a ball of fire to lance the boil of pride festering on the Japanese leaders' hearts. Hiroshima, then Nagasaki. Then, only then, after witnessing the terrible cost of Japan's hubris, when it was made abundantly clear that the White Devil would not only defeat them, but would do so in a matter of DAYS, obliterating them from the stratosphere without ever risking a single soldier on Japanese soil, did the generals of Japan surrender.

It took TWO CITIES to convince them of this.


Now dwell on this bloody, ugly reality: <I>the followers of Islam are tenfold the fanatics that the people of the Rising Sun ever were.</i> The villains ruling Iran right now are rattling their half-forged nuclear sabers because they are perfectly willing to wage war on America and Israel <I> even if they see millions of their own people blown to Allah in the process.</i>

Know this, believe this, say this out loud until it sinks in: They see our unwillingness to cause excessive deaths as a WEAKNESS TO EXPLOIT.

We are willing to accept a limited war.

They are not.

Unless we shatter their will utterly, we will be waging this war for the next hundred years or more. We will be waging an ENDLESS war, with an enemy who responds to restraint on our part with increasing savagery on his own.

They have set the terms of this war--- it is a war to the death, to the last Islamic standing.

What it will take to break that will would make a man shudder to even contemplate.... but it is nothing compared to the price the whole world will pay if we do not.

We will use nukes on Iran. Or we will be forced to when the mad mullahs happily press the button and escalate the whole affair. We will have to destroy cities of millions, or watch as tens of millions die in a war we didn't have the stomach to fight.