Nuclear weapons used in Afghanistan?

[sammi jo]

(I searched for an Afghanistan thread...none found....)
This story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3050317.stm) published today in the BBC looks as if there is a strong possibility that some variety of mini-nuke(?) may have used in Afghanistan.

The first of Bush's wars looks like it was sold on partial lies (namely to "get al qaida" and unseat the Taliban), when the more likely (and unsellable) reasons were to build that Caspian oil pipeline, install a puppet regime (Karzai) and use one of the most inaccessible and remote parts of the planet to field-test new controversial weapons on a human population that the Bush administration most probably regards as "expendable" (my emphasis).

[groverat]

Fantastic.

Let me make some popcorn and watch another SJO/radioactive weapon thread unfold!

[xterra48]

Although the information is starteling, and I hate Bush I don't think he is stupid enough to do something like this. Maby alqueda/taliban attempted dirty bomb in desperation (if sensors with troops picked it up they wpold stop and go back)but the winds changed? who knows, it is not a certanty of anything is what i'm saying.

Personaly when the whole mini-nuke-bunker-buster concept came on to the scene, I developed my own (non nuclear) soluton. Have a sattelite containing 4 rv (reentry vehicle), each rv has shielding, mini-rocket motor, fule, computer, and guide fins. When called to action and plugged with gps coordinates the rv plots its decent from space and travles through the atmosphere, once the shielding is no longer neded and the projectile is through the upper atmosphere and headed twords its target the casing holding all named components breaks away leaving a hardened metal prolectile (2 feet long that looks like a sphere fused to a cone, and a gps housing with srevo fins fitting snugly over the cone for fine tuning to the target)to strike the target bunker at 15,000 mph (or more!) creating a crater and obliterating any subterrinian structure. The greatness is twofold, one that it needs no explosive, the orbital momentum of 18,000mph packs all the wallop, and two that it cuts reaction time.

[ena]

We'll, what that story DOESN'T tell you is that GWB actually used the mini nukes to send a sub-space e-pulse to communicate with the alien fleet parked on the dark side of the moon. He lied about going to war in Afghanistan because if he tried to signal the fleet from the usual Nevada sites, the Sierra Club would have objected.

Apparently trusted sources claim that GWB has traded the freedom of the solar system---including the First Lady---for a time share in Rio populated by topless Swedish supermodels. Vice President Cheney has also been implicated in this horrifying plot in exchange for Elle Mcpherson and an off-shore oil platform that is reportedly within jet-pack distance of New Orleans.

...Developing.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by ena
We'll, what that story DOESN'T tell you is that GWB actually used the mini nukes to send a sub-space e-pulse to communicate with the alien fleet parked on the dark side of the moon. He lied about going to war in Afghanistan because if he tried to signal the fleet from the usual Nevada sites, the Sierra Club would have objected.

Apparently trusted sources claim that GWB has traded the freedom of the solar system---including the First Lady---for a time share in Rio populated by topless Swedish supermodels. Vice President Cheney has also been implicated in this horrifying plot in exchange for Elle Mcpherson and an off-shore oil platform that is reportedly within jet-pack distance of New Orleans.

...Developing.

Been watching Fox News?

[der Kopf]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Been watching Fox News? I guess ena was to busy *leaving threads*.

[mrmister]

Could there have been depleted uranium weapons in Afghanistan--possible, and a big black eye for the administration.

Could it instead be some "mini-nuke"? Give me a fvcking break. That's just insane.

[Tulkas]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Been watching Fox News?
Why Fox? His sounds as plausible as yours.

[Outsider]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Been watching Fox News? More like Comedy Central :D

[der Kopf]

Originally posted by Tulkas
Why Fox? His sounds as plausible as yours.

That is not true, Tulkas, and you know it. Nuclear weapons are, hard to peg correct numbers, but probably about 10e1000000 more plausible than aliens, especially when we're talking about a region spanning 500.000 km from the earth's core. (this covering the area at the dark side of the moon amply).

[Mike Ghost]

Originally posted by sammi jo
(I searched for an Afghanistan thread...none found....)
This story (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3050317.stm) published today in the BBC looks as if there is a strong possibility that some variety of mini-nuke(?) may have used in Afghanistan.

The first of Bush's wars looks like it was sold on partial lies (namely to "get al qaida" and unseat the Taliban), when the more likely (and unsellable) reasons were to build that Caspian oil pipeline, install a puppet regime (Karzai) and use one of the most inaccessible and remote parts of the planet to field-test new controversial weapons on a human population that the Bush administration most probably regards as "expendable" (my emphasis).


This is not same thing, but here is article," Awaiting the Real Toll" by Chalmers Johnson, who disscussed about DU which gave me an eye-opening experince.

"..The first Iraq War produced four classes of casualties: killed in action; wounded in action; killed in accidents (including "friendly fire"); and injuries and illnesses that appeared only after the end of hostilities. During 1990 and 1991, some 696,778 individuals served in the Persian Gulf as elements of Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. Of these 148 were killed in battle, 467 were wounded in action, and 145 were killed in accidents, producing a total of 760 casualties, quite a low number given the scale of the operations.

However, as of May 2002, the Veterans Administration (VA) reported that an additional 8,306 soldiers had died and 159,705 were injured or ill as a result of service-connected "exposures" suffered during the war. Even more alarmingly, the VA revealed that 206,861 veterans, almost a third of General Schwarzkopf's entire army, had filed claims for medical care, compensation, and pension benefits based on injuries and illnesses caused by combat in 1991. After reviewing the cases, the agency has classified 168,011 applicants as "disabled veterans." In light of these deaths and disabilities, the casualty rate for the first Gulf War is actually a staggering 29.3%. .. "

Here's the whole article. A very good, thought provoking read. :no:

(read on) (http://www.motherjones.com/commentary/columns/2003/19/we_404_01.html)


Mike.

[ena]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Been watching Fox News?

Oh no...........it's all true........I have my sources.

What's more----you can't prove it's not true!

The fleet is perched for a massive attack on earth---everything is in place. GWB is busily cashing in those Halliburton stock options, and the vice president is having his legs waxed---the situation COULD NOT be more grave.

I would urge all readers of this thread to immediately freak out and start hoarding the necessities of life, as the next few years are going to make Night of the Creeps look like an episode of Three's Company.

[pyr3]

Originally posted by ena
Oh no...........it's all true........I have my sources.


World Weekly News ?

[bunge]

What I don't understand is why some of you are skeptical when the administration was seriously considering using these weapons. You'd have to be an ignorant and 100% partisan moron to completely discredit this theory.

[Aquafire]

Gee,
I wonder how the Americans snuck all these nuclear bunker buster missiles past the world press, moved them under the very noses of the Pakistan Government / Military, loaded them up and dropped them without any of those anti-American reporters getting a whiff of the radiation leaks.....?

Strange that not a single geiger counter has been offered up along with the actual sites of where....?

Sounds more like another " pull the chain " conspiracy theory....;)

[torifile]

Originally posted by aquafire
Gee,
I wonder how the Americans snuck all these nuclear bunker buster missiles past the world press, moved them under the very noses of the Pakistan Government / Military, loaded them up and dropped them without any of those anti-American reporters getting a whiff of the radiation leaks.....?


Snuck them past people? When did anyone ever have the right to inspect US ordnance? Come on. You can't be so naïve as to believe that the US military is all on the up and up and completely honest with the world community.

Of course, this doesn't mean a thing about the veracity of this article, but let's at least operate in the realm of reality.

[ena]

Originally posted by aquafire
Sounds more like another " pull the chain " conspiracy theory....;)


....more than that, I think there might be a teency weency seismic event associated with that sort of detonation. Hell, when they demolished the Kingdome (you just HAD to be there) it genertated a small "quaklet".

[drewprops]

Nice.

Just when her rep couldn't drop another notch she proves me wrong.


I love that.

[Aquafire]

I hardly think it outside the realm of reality that Pakistan would request such inspections..After-all, there are many complex machinations going on behind the scenes that you and I are not privvy to.
And even though the probability might seem low, even you cannot rule that scenario out.

( Or are you a one of those psychologists who dismisses alternate realities that dont fit your profilled definition of such ?:)

Back on track, my point is questioning the use of such nuclear bunker busting missiles..They are very big... OK...Not exactly toothpicks..
On the otherhand I deplore the use of all forms of uranium depleted / hardened conventional warfare shell casings, as used by the US army & I wouldn't doubt that the same casings are being used in "conventional" bunker buster bombs & missiles....

Those are very real possibilities..the nuclear ones are too big in terms of radiation spread to go unnoticed...with the kickback of radioactive clouds emmenating from the detonation sites...being virtually impossible to hide..
Such radiation would be quickly spread through the air & into the subterranean aquifers, eventually percolating back into rivers & streams that cover much of Afghanistan..
Water radiation tests would help determine this..:\

[ena]

Originally posted by aquafire
On the otherhand I deplore the use of all forms of uranium depleted / hardened conventional warfare shell casings, as used by the US army & I wouldn't doubt that the same casings are being used in "conventional" bunker buster bombs & missiles....

Those are very real possibilities..the nuclear ones are too big in terms of radiation spread to go unnoticed...with the kickback of radioactive clouds emmenating from the detonation sites...being virtually impossible to hide..
Such radiation would be quickly spread through the air & into the subterranean aquifers, eventually percolating back into rivers & streams that cover much of Afghanistan..
Water radiation tests would help determine this..:\

I think certain countries' spy satellites would be ALL OVER those kind of heat blooms, and quite frankly the radiation would be impossible to hide.

Unless, of course, the aliens are in on it, then all bets are off.

[Outsider]

Mini-nukes are useful... to poop on!

[Aquafire]

Unless, of course, the aliens are in on it, then all bets are off. [/B][/QUOTE]

Those dastardly aliens use giant invisible cosmic vacum cleaners to hoover up all the radiation and dispose of it in space...Err ....well they used to..until they got an offer from some guys in Yurrup wanting to make extra strong Blue vein Cheeze..;)

[torifile]

Originally posted by aquafire
I hardly think it outside the realm of reality that Pakistan would request such inspections..After-all, there are many complex machinations going on behind the scenes that you and I are not privvy to.
And even though the probability might seem low, even you cannot rule that scenario out.

( Or are you a one of those psychologists who dismisses alternate realities that dont fit your profilled definition of such ?:)


I guess you missed my many many posts in the Matrix thread. I'm probably a litte TOO into alternate possiblities for my own good. ;)

Of course Pakistan asking for inspections is not out of the question. However, I do believe that if they did, they would either be denied or publicized if they were allowed. "Look, we have nothing to hide!" Chances are, however, that there was no way a foreign country could get access to US stockades and supplies. Even if there were nothing to hide.

[Aquafire]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by torifile
[B]I guess you missed my many many posts in the Matrix thread. I'm probably a litte TOO into alternate possiblities for my own good. ;)

Yeas I did miss the Matrix threadssszzzzzzz :)

(Hand Dials old looking balck telephone to get out of Matrix thread sequence )..............

[running with scissors]

Originally posted by aquafire
On the otherhand I deplore the use of all forms of uranium depleted / hardened conventional warfare shell casings, as used by the US army & I wouldn't doubt that the same casings are being used in "conventional" bunker buster bombs & missiles...

actually aside from some of the depleted uranium bullets fired from some of our attack aircraft, notedly the a-10, most of the weapons used would not likely to have been of the hardened uranium variety. not everything we use is, nor are they always needed. most of what we attacked over there were what one would call a "soft targets". exceptions being made to some of the cave networks that were just as likely to have been attacked with fuel air exlosives and your standard laser/sat guided bombs than any type of bunker buster.

[Aquafire]

Originally posted by running with scissors
actually aside from some of the depleted uranium bullets fired from some of our attack aircraft, notedly the a-10, most of the weapons used would not likely to have been of the hardened uranium variety. not everything we use is, nor are they always needed. most of what we attacked over there were what one would call a "soft targets". exceptions being made to some of the cave networks that were just as likely to have been attacked with fuel air exlosives and your standard laser/sat guided bombs than any type of bunker buster.
Not doubting your sources, but why would A-10 Wart-Hog pilots be using bullets..I think you mean cannons..& err..... yes these could be used effectively against tanks and missile batteries..
But it makes me wonder though, if anyone has tested the A-10 pilots for radiation sickness?
Second point re Air - fuel bombs..
Yep, much cheaper to produce..& extremely effective in sucking the life out of anything within a quarter mile radius...an area of destruction that easily approaches that of a mini nuke...

[running with scissors]

Originally posted by aquafire
Not doubting your sources, but why would A-10 Wart-Hog pilots be using bullets..I think you mean cannons..& err..... yes these could be used effectively against tanks and missile batteries..
But it makes me wonder though, if anyone has tested the A-10 pilots for radiation sickness?
Second point re Air - fuel bombs..
Yep, much cheaper to produce..& extremely effective in sucking the life out of anything within a quarter mile radius...an area of destruction that easily approaches that of a mini nuke...


if you want to get technical, then yes it's a 30 millimeter canon. however, since it doesn't explode upon impact and just kind of bounces around once penetrating a tanks armored shell, it's a big assed bullet.

re: the fuel air, yep your right, mushroom cloud and all, but no radiation.

[curiousuburb]

warthog jockeys have appeared on these boards before, <we defer to those out of Army NDA> but IIRC the Titanium tub the pilot sits in is buffered by a lead magazine drum 'sheath' from the nasty DU ammo

ground crew probably got more exposure in terms of Roentgens than riders
-
old school folks hypothesizing about wacky radiation-vs-blast dynamics may recall the 70's Neutron bomb (in the opposite direction... all rad, minimal physical damage). by now we couldn't have gone as far the other way? mmmmkay.

[Aquafire]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by curiousuburb
warthog jockeys have appeared on these boards before, <we defer to those out of Army NDA> but IIRC the Titanium tub the pilot sits in is buffered by a lead magazine drum 'sheath' from the nasty DU ammo
ge)[/QUOTE
]
Impressive Obbi-Wan !:D

[AirSluf]

DU isn't evil until it's powdered. While I wouldn't want to play with it in a nice game of catch, there isn't enough radiation to penetrate normal clothes+skin let alone irradiate anything while it is in the drum. Sure you could hold it in you hand and rub a round for a couple days and might have a problem later, but you would have to be pretty stupid to do that.

Breathing or eating where the powder is present can circumvent that protection, get enough of the dust and get sick. Casual one time exposure won't normally be a problem, but sneaking around a vehicle or arty piece that has been strafed (and therefore rounds have fragmented/powdered) would definitely not fall in the good thing category.

[alcimedes]

didn't we conclusively establish that DU rounds are not dangerous due to radioactivetly, but were rather dangerous as a heavy metal, like lead etc.?

i swear there was a huge thread on just this subject. DU rounds aren't bad because of radiation, they're bad because they're a heavy metal and heavy metals do bad things to you.

but then i guess we torture iraqis with heavy metal, or something like that, so go figure.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by alcimedes
didn't we conclusively establish that DU rounds are not dangerous due to radioactivetly, but were rather dangerous as a heavy metal, like lead etc.?

i swear there was a huge thread on just this subject. DU rounds aren't bad because of radiation, they're bad because they're a heavy metal and heavy metals do bad things to you.

but then i guess we torture iraqis with heavy metal, or something like that, so go figure.

Did anyone actually read the article? It specifically pointed out that DU was *not* the cause.

The chance of the US military was trying out a bunch of kick-ass new weapons sould have got Joe Schmoe Six Pack and the flag-waving jingoist fake-patriot contingent in here all goosebumped, instead of regurgitating the kindergarten "conspiracy theory" reactions.

Go figure.

:rolleyes:

[BuonRotto]

I don't understand what the difference is between the DU weapons and what they describe as "radioactive, toxic uranium alloys and hard-target uranium warheads." Certainly doesn't sound nuclear anyway.

Interesting that according to this page (http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-4/bigmines.html), there's a lot of uranium mining all around Afghanistan, but not actually in Afghanistan. I thought I would see if that might have something to do with it.

My other thought is what would be the point of these radiation weapons?

[pyr3]

Why is it always the same 2 or 3 people that post these things and argue over them so viciously? It's like they are just looking for something wrong with Bush because they don't like him. So much so that they'll believe 'World Weekly News' as long as it gives them something that is against him. Or maybe it is just 'America' in general? I don't exactly like Bush all that much, but I somehow think that Gore would have done a worse job on the other end of the spectrum (ie, Bush did too much after 9-11, and Gore would have done too little). But I'm not exactly jumping on every bandwagon that rolls by me. Some of you people are just jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon with little regard for anything else as long as you have an arguement and it is against whatever it is that you hate. I mean they even attack some of the people that show different views, even if those people are very polite about it, these people counter-attack a punch with a nuclear warhead, so to speak.

[alcimedes]

Did anyone actually read the article?

problem was the article was full of innuendo, but very light on facts. i think people turned to DU rounds because it's the most plausable source of radiation. (at least off-hand)

just a thought.

[bunge]

Originally posted by alcimedes
problem was the article was full of innuendo, but very light on facts. i think people turned to DU rounds because it's the most plausable source of radiation. (at least off-hand)

Again, the administration has stated that they have 'light weight' nuclear weapons and that they were considering using them. DU aside, this is what Rumsfeld said more than once.

[alcimedes]

sure. but any evidence of their use? hence the innuendo remark.

[bunge]

Originally posted by alcimedes

but any evidence of their use?

I think the glow-in-the-dark piss is considered by some to be one bit of evidence.

[ena]

Originally posted by bunge
I think the glow-in-the-dark piss.....


Glow-in-the-dark piss, I hate it when that happens.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by pyr3
Why is it always the same 2 or 3 people that post these things and argue over them so viciously? It's like they are just looking for something wrong with Bush because they don't like him. So much so that they'll believe 'World Weekly News' as long as it gives them something that is against him. Or maybe it is just 'America' in general? I don't exactly like Bush all that much, but I somehow think that Gore would have done a worse job on the other end of the spectrum (ie, Bush did too much after 9-11, and Gore would have done too little). But I'm not exactly jumping on every bandwagon that rolls by me. Some of you people are just jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon with little regard for anything else as long as you have an arguement and it is against whatever it is that you hate. I mean they even attack some of the people that show different views, even if those people are very polite about it, these people counter-attack a punch with a nuclear warhead, so to speak.

The source (BBC) is a fairly conservative, UK government subsidized/policed news service...not exactly the bullsh¡t "gutter-press" like the Weekly Norld News, National Enquirer or Fox. The scientist doing the research is an ex. U.S. Army colonel whose organization is based out of Washington DC. According to the article the findings are soon to be published in 4 scientific journals (it didn't mention which ones)...but if it's any decent peer reviewed scientific publication....then the material should be taken seriously.

[Eugene]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Joe Schmoe Six Pack and the flag-waving jingoist fake-patriot contingent in here
U R 1 KEWL KAT

[AirSluf]

Originally posted by bunge
I think the glow-in-the-dark piss is considered by some to be one bit of evidence.

That just means Phish or the Dead played the hemisphere recently. :lol:

[Moogs]

I don't know their specs (and neither do any of you because I'm sure it's mostly classified) but I am reasonably certain those bunker-busters *must* use some kind of spent Uranium or other extremely dense material in order to produce the results that they do.

The A-10 for example was originally designed to use spent Uranium rounds in its massive Vulcan cannon? Why? Because the rounds could pierce 3 ft. of concrete (I think that's the right number). Now ask yourself what kind of material would have to be used to send a free-falling (i.e. much lower velocity than the shell from an A-10) bomb through 20 feet of solid earth -- or more. As the scientist said, use your common sense. I think it's pretty obvious that ordinary metals are not going to allow a bomb to penetrate that much earth. This all seems pretty academic to me.

That said, I don't think the Bush Administration is running some kind of evil nuclear weapons conspiracy under the guise of TWOT ...
(aka: The War On Terror :D )

...However I don't doubt for a second that Bush knows he pretty much has carte blanche to test whatever new non-WOMD weapons he wants (you know...the kind you can't hide when you detonate them). And I don't doubt that he would test them on these new battlefield engagements either. Whether or not that is ethical depends a lot on weather the weapons scientists know from their modeling / simulations whether local populations will be adversely affected after the fact.

[bunge]

Originally posted by Moogs
I don't know their specs (and neither do any of you because I'm sure it's mostly classified) but I am reasonably certain those bunker-busters *must* use some kind of spent Uranium or other extremely dense material in order to produce the results that they do.

If they or the Vulcan rounds are creating light up kidneys then it's a problem.

As for the tech used in the bunker busters, I thought it was a two stage bomb. The bomb is dropped and when it reaches the ground (or a few feet above) the first munition blows up thrusting the nose forward at ungodly speeds through the earth. After a prescribed amount of time that nose then explodes on its own. This doesn't precluded the use of DU though.

[BuonRotto]

Yes, there could well be DU to burrow, but it's air-fed ignition is what creates the huge blast. Basically incinerates the atmosphere. Not a lot of material is thrown around in that sort of blast, IIRC, but it's a plausible idea that this burnt-off uranium round stuff does get pushed out with the blast. Of course, then you have to ask where was this stuff used? I would think the folk near Tora-Bora would have a hell of a different prognosis than others around the country.

[ena]

It's just a Howitzer barrell full of-high explosives.....

http://www.mw-line.at/news_pitures/mw_big_bunkerbuster.jpg

[Harald]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The source (BBC) is a fairly conservative, UK government subsidized/policed news service...not exactly the bullsh¡t "gutter-press" like the Weekly Norld News, National Enquirer or Fox.


Although I am one of the few people who agree with you most of the time, I should point out the BBC is not funded by the UK government and is not policed by it ... hell no to the latter as it means they can piss off the incumbent government. It is publically funded by a kind of mandatory subscription.

[Moogs]

Yeah, those kinds of diagrams that we see and hear about all the time are oversimplified I suspect. There is plenty about those bombs we might not know / understand but either way I don't see how the terminal velocity of such a bomb would be drastically different than that of any LGB dropped from similar altitudes. Therefore I think it is the materials the bomb is made of / contains that might explain their effectiveness in burrowing into deep hardened targets like say a mountain cave.

[ena]

Originally posted by Moogs
Yeah, those kinds of diagrams that we see and hear about all the time are oversimplified I suspect. There is plenty about those bombs we might not know / understand but either way I don't see how the terminal velocity of such a bomb would be drastically different than that of any LGB dropped from similar altitudes. Therefore I think it is the materials the bomb is made of / contains that might explain their effectiveness in burrowing into deep hardened targets like say a mountain cave.

Maybe, but I beleive that the first ones used in GW I were what they said---at any rate---4000lbs at couple hundred miles and hour is ONE HELL of alot of kinetic energy. Terminal velocity for the human body is about 70ish mph--I'll be those babies get going much faster, and then there's the forward motion of the plane to consider/angle of relaease as well.


<begin thinking out loud>
On the DU thing, I think at high pressures the DU burns--melting into the tank's armor, which is why they use that material.

I think.

I could be thinking about another weapon, but that is the technology behind some weapons---a heavy casing that impacts the target with a central component of a different material that goes even further, that is melting the armor and itself along the way---the occupants of the tank can be sucked through the exit hole if I remember correctly.
</end thinking out loud>

[groverat]

I like mini-nukes because miniature things are cute.

Like Miniature Pinschers:

awwwww!

http://www.petsmart.com/aspca/images/dogs/miniature_pinscher.jpg

[BuonRotto]

Originally posted by ena
<begin thinking out loud>
On the DU thing, I think at high pressures the DU burns--melting into the tank's armor, which is why they use that material.

I think.

My simple understanding of it is that the DU heavy metal heats up quickly under the pressure of hitting the armor (which may also be made of DU apparently) and melts the steel or other armor it hits, then ignites the oxygen in the immediate area when it heats up, like a match. I don't know exactly what happens to the DU after that, but I thought that once it's lit, the chemical reaction changes its composition, like sulfur on a spent match. That's probably a simplistic understanding, and it's surely not so efficient at the chemical change process if that's what really happens.

[AirSluf]

Originally posted by bunge
If they or the Vulcan rounds are creating light up kidneys then it's a problem.

Let's come back to earth a little bit. If someone was radiologically hot enough to glow they would have to have 10's x 1000's of times more radiation in them than the old style glowing radium watch dials. They would be medium-well cooked within the hour and unable to pee to give a sample in the first place.

[AirSluf]

Originally posted by Moogs
Yeah, those kinds of diagrams that we see and hear about all the time are oversimplified I suspect. There is plenty about those bombs we might not know / understand but either way I don't see how the terminal velocity of such a bomb would be drastically different than that of any LGB dropped from similar altitudes. Therefore I think it is the materials the bomb is made of / contains that might explain their effectiveness in burrowing into deep hardened targets like say a mountain cave.

Nope these babies are old fashioned simple. Pretty much the howitzer tube analogy. Just a simple, robust fuse designed to wait a bit.

Terminal velocity isn't radically higher, but kinetic energy applied per square cm of front plate penetrator is drastically higher.

[AirSluf]

Originally posted by ena
<begin thinking out loud>
On the DU thing, I think at high pressures the DU burns--melting into the tank's armor, which is why they use that material.

I think.

I could be thinking about another weapon, but that is the technology behind some weapons---a heavy casing that impacts the target with a central component of a different material that goes even further, that is melting the armor and itself along the way---the occupants of the tank can be sucked through the exit hole if I remember correctly.
</end thinking out loud>

Nope, you are thinking about shaped charge anti-armor warheads like TOW or Hellfire. The second part of what you describe is called a hyper-velocity kinetic round. They only exist in research lab and scientific papers right now. The kinetic energy of a Mach 6+ impact would instantaneously fragment and melt the targets armor which is not only metal but also ceramic. Then the melting projectile injects itself into the target spraying hot heavy metal bb's every which way. No explosive necessary fo this one.

30mm rounds literally destroy the target armor by giving it an old fashioned blunt force beating. It is also shot into a target from an angle the armor isn't designed to protect against, so the required energy to penetrate is not great. Then the rest of the armor keeps all the shrapnel and bouncing rounds inside until the fuel or ordnance is set off finishing the job.

[bunge]

Originally posted by AirSluf
Let's come back to earth a little bit.

When someone mentions 'glow-in-the-dark piss', it's a joke. A metaphor.

[AirSluf]

Originally posted by bunge
When someone mentions 'glow-in-the-dark piss', it's a joke. A metaphor.

That's why I mentioned Phish earlier. Your following comment kind of missed the humor/sarcasm mark though without a smiley or <sarcasm> tag.

It looked like you were actually serious. Deadpan deliveries do that.

[bunge]

Originally posted by AirSluf

Deadpan deliveries do that.

Too much Steven Wright as a child.

[sammi jo]

**** off-topic ****


Originally posted by Harald
Although I am one of the few people who agree with you most of the time, I should point out the BBC is not funded by the UK government and is not policed by it ... hell no to the latter as it means they can piss off the incumbent government. It is publically funded by a kind of mandatory subscription.

Thank you for the correction! I always thought that the BBC was a publicly-funded broadcast organization...actually it is in a way...but via an annual television license paid for by any household that owns a TV set...as opposed to directly via the taxpayers. My mistake!

***** back to the scheduled programming *****

[Moogs]

I guess the doubled mass, in conjunction with the narrow tube shape might be enough on its own. But I still wouldn't doubt the use of DU or something similar. Hell, the intended consequence might be to *spread* DU dust into the cave or structure that is being penetrated, in order to ensure any surviving "kayda" cave-rats are unable to stay under ground. Maybe that's why Bin Laden looked like a ghost after those first few weeks of the bombing in Afghanistan....low grade radiation poisoning?

:???:

[BuonRotto]

Maybe. One thing I was thinking was maybe some of these folk were Taliban in those places like the caves near Tora Bora. Or maybe they went looting in the caves afterwards. I'm not saying it explains it all, but it's a possible explanation for some of it.

[Scott]

The whole DU scare is nothing more than anti-american assholes dreaming up a disaster to slam the US. SJO is the lead anti-american hate-monger here at AI spreading her lies about DU. Ignorance is bliss when you're a anti-US bigot.

[Mike]

Originally posted by sammi jo
The first of Bush's wars looks like it was sold on partial lies (namely to "get al qaida" and unseat the Taliban), when the more likely (and unsellable) reasons were to build that Caspian oil pipeline, install a puppet regime (Karzai) and use one of the most inaccessible and remote parts of the planet to field-test new controversial weapons on a human population that the Bush administration most probably regards as "expendable" (my emphasis).

The only thing worse than writing an article making assertions based on assumptions 'supported' by narrowly focused testing is making further conclusions based on the article...which is the statement I have quoted above. This is the most unscientific article I have read in a long time that makes scientific assertions.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Scott
The whole DU scare is nothing more than anti-american assholes dreaming up a disaster to slam the US. SJO is the lead anti-american hate-monger here at AI spreading her lies about DU. Ignorance is bliss when you're a anti-US bigot.

Scott....what's with this "anti-American" line you keep coming out with?

Do you believe that our supplying arms/ chemical weapons etc to Saddam Hussein for a decade or so was "pro-American"? Do you believe thatthe plan to cut veterans' benefits by $14-$26 over the next 10 years in "pro-American"? Do you believe that the Pentagon's denial of Gulf War Syndrone is "pro-American"? Do you believe that foreign policy that makes travel abroad hazardous for Americans, and generates anger, hatred and the formation of terror groups who carve up ordinary American people is somehow "pro-American"? etc etc ad *

Scott, it's Memorial Day today. Go hang a plastic flag on your car/SUV. Feel the patriotic rush and remember that most misquoted of quotations:

My Country, Right or Wrong. What a shame that the second part...the genuinely patriotic bit is so often left out: "Support it when it's Right, Dissent when it's Wrong".

Open debate and criticism is American. Marching in lockstep to the tune of its government sounds more "North Korean" to me.

[AirSluf]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Open debate and criticism is American.

That it is when done with respect. Regularly playing fast and loose with facts and emotions under the false guise of open debate is not.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by AirSluf
That it is when done with respect. Regularly playing fast and loose with facts and emotions under the false guise of open debate is not.

Would would apply that principle to both sides of the argument? It's more than easy to diss the honesty of the entire administration using that statement.

[Moogs]

Lose the conspiratorial overtones in most of your postings SJO, and I suspect you'll catch a lot less flak. All of your comments in your last post (cutting benefits, supplying arms "back in the day", etc.) are not anti-American, but they frankly have nothing to do with the assertions you're making / implying in this thread. Namely that there is some sort of nasty nuclear weapons program we're using in places like Afghanistan, and that by extension our government doesn't mind using the people of such places as "lab rats". That's a load, so you need to back off that type of sentiment and just talk about these facts in real context, not in terms of the absolute worst possible thing they *might* indicate is happening.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Moogs
Lose the conspiratorial overtones in most of your postings SJO, and I suspect you'll catch a lot less flak. All of your comments in your last post (cutting benefits, supplying arms "back in the day", etc.) are not anti-American, but they frankly have nothing to do with the assertions you're making / implying in this thread. Namely that there is some sort of nasty nuclear weapons program we're using in places like Afghanistan, and that by extension our government doesn't mind using the people of such places as "lab rats". That's a load, so you need to back off that type of sentiment and just talk about these facts in real context, not in terms of the absolute worst possible thing they *might* indicate is happening.

How about reading the article, Moogs. The research is being conducted by a DC based organization headed by a former US Army Colonel who feels that there is something worth investigating. Where's the "conspiracy theory"? It's all out in the open. If you feel that this line of research is so "unpatriotic or flawed in its very premise, why not write to the author and complain? Why not w2rite to the 7 or 8 newspapers the article has appeared in so far, if you that offended....then take it up with the four science journals who plan on publishing the findings. It's not my material, I just posted it here, with some commentary of my own. Or do feel that we should button up, as recommended by arch-weasel Fleischer when he said "Americans better watch what they say"?

Using people as lab rats is nothing new. It happens all over, and the US is no exception. We've even used our own troops as guinea pigs for hell's sake. Let me see your refutation of the "mini-nukes" possibility before you go dumping on others' inquiries which may be inconvenient to your world view. Regurgitating "conspiracy theory" each time there's an allegation of questionable (or illegal) government/military activity etc. etc. demonstrates naivety.

:rolleyes:

[BuonRotto]

There's no proof of any nuclear activity in Afghanistan in this or any other article, save the radiation levels, which can be explained more readily by other means, not saying that they're necessarily much better (some explanations could be "natural" causes, though they're less likely). There are many possibilities, but some are more possible than others. Insisting on a nuclear explanation isn't justified by the facts presented alone. It's not that can't be ruled out, it's that the loose evidence given points to other explanations more easily. I think more people are willing to entertain the gist of the article -- that people were infected with radiation due to bombs/weapons in Afghanistan -- than are willing to entertain such a specific cause. There are people on your side in that sense.

[ena]

Sunset in Kabul:

http://www.cccoe.k12.ca.us/abomb/images/cover_romeo.jpg

[Scott]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Scott....what's with this "anti-American" line you keep coming out with?

Do you believe that our supplying arms/ chemical weapons ...


We didn't do that you hateful bigot. Stop spreading your lies.


You want to point a finger? Point it at France, Germany and ... the UN for funding that maniac.

[Mike]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Using people as lab rats is nothing new. It happens all over, and the US is no exception. We've even used our own troops as guinea pigs for hell's sake. Let me see your refutation of the "mini-nukes" possibility before you go dumping on others' inquiries which may be inconvenient to your world view. Regurgitating "conspiracy theory" each time there's an allegation of questionable (or illegal) government/military activity etc. etc. demonstrates naivety.

...

The first of Bush's wars looks like it was sold on partial lies (namely to "get al qaida" and unseat the Taliban), when the more likely (and unsellable) reasons were to build that Caspian oil pipeline, install a puppet regime (Karzai) and use one of the most inaccessible and remote parts of the planet to field-test new controversial weapons on a human population that the Bush administration most probably regards as "expendable" (my emphasis).

Two quick questions...

What FACTS do you know at this point?

Which of these facts bring you to your conclusions (your first post)?

[Moogs]

SamJo, you can either taker my advice (which was general in nature, not specific to only this thread) or you can leave it. I don't give a flying fuk. I DID read the article, and I did NOT accuse anyone (you included) of being "unpatriotic" so please STFU with that misdirection nonsense. I was trying to give you a friendly little piece of advice because whether you realize it or not, many of the accusations that you post in here have conspiratorial overtones and it turns people off. It smacks of poor logic. Again, take it or leave it. I don't care.

What's more, if YOU read my posts in this thread, you'll realize I have not ruled *anything* other than a thermonuclear device out. I actually said more than once that it's possible there is radioactive material used in the bunker-busters and that perhaps they cause some type of low grade radiation sickness. You'll notice no one is bashing me for saying that; it's probably because I read the very limited set of facts presented us, and made an educated guess about a relatively simple and plausible explanation.

One difference between you and I apparently (thank God not the only one) is that I am observant enough to realize that if I place the phrase "Nuclear Weapons Used" in the title of a thread, I know people will take that to mean thermo-nuclear weapons. You know...mushroom clouds, skin falling off victims, soil contamination for 10,000 years...that sort of thing. And so, being given scant evidence from a single news story about something that MIGHT be nuclear in nature - and clearly NOT thermo-nuclear in nature - I am wise enough not to connect that phrase with said evidence.

Just do the math, think things through, remember Okam's Razor and post on.

Christ....

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Scott
[B]We didn't do that you hateful bigot. Stop spreading your lies.

*my* lies...hmmm... (!) oi veh

http://www.thepowerhour.com/iraq/US-businesses-that-sold-weapons-to-Saddam-Hussein.htm
http://csf.colorado.edu/forums/isafp/2002/msg00148.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,866942,00.html
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1218-06.htm

Scott....

(1) please do some reading
(2) attempt to be civil, if that isnt too much effort.

sammi x

[Scott]

Sorry. Try again. Selling a sample of anthrax does not equal "sold biological weapons".

Oh and how 'bout you stop spreading your lies. You're extreme hatred of the US and mindless bigotry does you no good. Oh and a little balance in your criticism might do you some good too.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Scott
Sorry. Try again. Selling a sample of anthrax does not equal "sold biological weapons".

Oh and how 'bout you stop spreading your lies. You're extreme hatred of the US and mindless bigotry does you no good. Oh and a little balance in your criticism might do you some good too.

Scott, stop digging a hole.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00158.htm

Also try to not get so angry...you should know its not good for you.

You have some strange ideas of what is good and bad for America. A recent situation is where, as a result of the recent war in Iraq, the Tuwaitha atomic facility was looted and stripped, completely unguarded for 2 weeks while US troops were busy securing oil facilities for the benefit of oil men. Now if some terrorist group, furious about the invasion, launches 'dirty bombs' against America (or anyone else for that matter), be it on the Bush Administration. Yet another example of short sightedness which may well endanger our security.

[Scott]

Originally posted by sammi jo
Scott, stop digging a hole.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0208/S00158.htm

Also try to not get so angry...you should know its not good for you.

You have some strange ideas of what is good and bad for America. A recent situation is where, as a result of the recent war in Iraq, the Tuwaitha atomic facility was looted and stripped, completely unguarded for 2 weeks while US troops were busy securing oil facilities for the benefit of oil men. Now if some terrorist group, furious about the invasion, launches 'dirty bombs' against America (or anyone else for that matter), be it on the Bush Administration. Yet another example of short sightedness which may well endanger our security.


You need to learn to 1) read, 2) think. So what I read is that this site says the US sold some germs and some "precursors to chemical warfare agents" NOT NOT NOT chemcical weapons.

Now had the US found "precursors to chemical warfare agents" would you call that a "chemical weapon" and a violation of 1441. No. Why not? You're too pro-Saddam too anti-US. Turn your brain back on.

All this coming from the person who Isn't sure if Saddam gassed his own people.

[SDW2001]

Scott,

I've learned to stop wasting my energy and time on Samantha Joan Conspiracy. But sometimes I like to to chime in just to laugh at stuff like this:

The source (BBC) is a fairly conservative...

:lol:

and this:



Joe Schmoe Six Pack and the flag-waving jingoist fake-patriot contingent in here...

:lol: :lol: Oh! My sides!


and:



Scott....what's with this "anti-American" line you keep coming out with?




:wow:

[ena]

I think the point that hasn't been addressed by sammyjo is the preponderance of satellites that various militaries use to detect heat blooms: a gas pipeline fire was once "almost mistaken" for an ICBM launch. The satellites along with seismic sensors can tell if certain countries are doing nuclear testing--and if there have been nuclear detonations.

The most likely solution is that, after seeing the Dole/Clinton episode of The Simpsons, extended intergalactic focus group sessions concluded the best course of action for the forward elements of an alien invasion force would be to impersonate all the major world leaders in the days leading up to the invasion.

But GWB, who is adept at cutting deals and coming out on top, (Just ask the city council of Arlington, Texas) was able, through the use of experimental technology and a spare space shuttle out of Vandenberg AFB, to send Cheney out on one last daring diplomatic mission. Successful negotiations were made and the rest, as they say, is history.

Even now all significant world leaders (with the exception of Kim Jong Il) have been replaced with copies of their former selves. Il apparently was reckoned not to be an indigenous inhabitant of earth and was passed over for prosthesis.

So, with alien beings monitoring the advanced nuclear detection equipment so often found in the first world countries---GWB is in position to signal the alien fleet and play his part in true diabolical republican fashion.

The NYT refused to comment on the veracity of this article.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by Scott
You need to learn to 1) read, 2) think. So what I read is that this site says the US sold some germs and some "precursors to chemical warfare agents" NOT NOT NOT chemcical weapons.

Now had the US found "precursors to chemical warfare agents" would you call that a "chemical weapon" and a violation of 1441. No. Why not? You're too pro-Saddam too anti-US. Turn your brain back on.

All this coming from the person who Isn't sure if Saddam gassed his own people.

To quote from the link in my previous post:

The US spent virtually an entire decade making sure that Saddam Hussein had almost whatever he wanted… US export control policy was directed by US foreign policy as formulated by the State Department, and it was US foreign policy to assist the regime of Saddam Hussein.''

A 1994 US Senate report revealed that US companies were licenced by the commerce department to export a ``witch's brew'' of biological and chemical materials, including bacillus anthracis (which causes anthrax) and clostridium botulinum (the source of botulism). The American Type
Culture Collection made 70 shipments of the anthrax bug and other pathogenic agents.

The report also noted that US exports to Iraq included the precursors to chemical warfare agents, plans for chemical and biological warfare facilities and chemical warhead filling equipment. US firms supplied advanced and specialised computers, lasers, testing and analysing equipment. Among the better-known companies were Hewlett Packard, Unisys, Data General and Honeywell.

Billions of dollars worth of raw materials, machinery and equipment, missile technology and other ``dual-use'' items were also supplied by West German, French, Italian, British, Swiss and Austrian corporations, with the approval of their governments (German firms even sold Iraq entire factories capable of mass-producing poison gas). Much of this was purchased with funds freed by the US CCC credits.

Now who was Pro-Saddam? And most probably would have remained so, had Saddam not strayed from the program by invading Kuwait.

Why did the US (under Bush Sr.) supply helicopter gunships and arms to Saddam to successfully squash the huge Iraqi rebellions in the wake the Gulf War? Nobody's answered that one to any satisfaction. Can you?

The UN sanctions did nothing to hamper Saddam and his thugs...he lived in luxury in his palaces while the Iraqi people took the butt end of that piece of gross international mismanagement, to the tune of 1.5 million Iraqis dead.

Now look what we gone and done: Saddam's now safe in hiding somewhere, most of his ex-thugs are on the loose and most of the Republican Guard melted away into civilian life. There's hordes of angry people over there armed to the teeth, gangs rule in every Iraqi city, US troops are being picked off daily by snipers, nuclear facilities have been looted, as well as everywhere else. 7000 (and mounting rapidly) innocent Iraqi civilians dead from the war. Anti US feeling is about to boil over. Ahmad Chalabi, the Pentagon/White House favorite to "run" Iraq is universally hated there. (He's also wanted in Jordan and Switzerland for major banking crimes). There's been a recent rash of terrorist attacks in Saudi Arabia, Morocco and elsewhere. A western style democracy in Iraq? Liberation? That's cloud cuckoo land, a sick joke. They hate us.

It's cost we-the-US taxpayer some $75 billion for just the first installment of this f*cking stupid fiasco...all at a time the economy is in a shambles. NOTHING good has come of this so far...even the deposing of Saddam's government isn't anything near what they claim...many ex-Baathist officials are being *re-hired*!!!!

Pro Saddam...hmmmm.....don't look at me, Scott.

[alcimedes]

Now look what we gone and done: Saddam's now safe in hiding somewhere, most of his ex-thugs are on the loose and most of the Republican Guard melted away into civilian life. There's hordes of angry people over there armed to the teeth, gangs rule in every Iraqi city, US troops are being picked off daily by snipers, nuclear facilities have been looted, as w.......

man, you live in a very strange, scary world.

[sammi jo]

Originally posted by alcimedes
man, you live in a very strange, scary world.

It's not my world. I live in comfortable white middle class S. California suburbia. And for that I shall remain eternally grateful...and always hoping that we don't get bombed by future alliance between al Qaida and extremist Iraqi militants

And I occasionally watch satellite news broadcasts/ documentaries out of the middle east, not brought to you by Rupert Murdoch or Lowell Mays.

[giant]

I can't believe you dipshits still bother to post.

[groverat]

I'm calling this fight off.

Take it back to your corners, ladies.