Even the "Obama's been shot" thread some time back made me neutral on the spot. Like everyone has said, and will say, if anyone did anything with a Nuke, the whole world would be up in arms right now.
[QUOTE=OvB;33517934]Haven't we also used MOABs?[/QUOTE]
No, although they have overtaken the same operation niche as the BLU-82.
Amusing conspiracy theory there, Iran.
I thought tactical nukes were designed to take out large airforce bases and similar stuff during a nuclear war
[QUOTE=Captain Forever;33518307]I thought tactical nukes were designed to take out large airforce bases and similar stuff during a nuclear war[/QUOTE]
Tactical nukes are meant to be used in conjunction with other forces, usually to spearhead an assault or as a massive area defense method. (Nuclear land mines were planted in Europe to counter waves of soviet tanks rolling across open, undefended land.)
The same guy problem says the Holocaust didn't happen.
I really doubt you could plant a stealth nuke, too much interference with everything in range, too many witnesses with that area of destruction.
I guess the closest thing to nukes they're deploying is Uranium ammunition. And goddamn that's nasty. A pretty "permanent solution" that'll give the people something to chew on for generations, not just because of the babies deformed by radiation, but also because the ground and water sources are radiated.
How they can get away with it is anyone's guess. I can only imagine the headlines if it was used against us.
Wouldn't surprise me if it was true to be honest.
Seems so ridiculous that few will take it seriously but if nukes were used it would certainly be covered up by the US information control people
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;33519458]Wouldn't surprise me if it was true to be honest.
Seems so ridiculous that few will take it seriously but if nukes were used it would certainly be covered up by the US information control people[/QUOTE]
Considering you can detect a nuclear explosion from orbit, every country with spy satellites would know by now. I doubt China or Russia would stay quiet on the matter.
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;33519458]Wouldn't surprise me if it was true to be honest.
Seems so ridiculous that few will take it seriously but if nukes were used it would certainly be covered up by the US information control people[/QUOTE]If nukes were used, every intelligence agency and their mother would know it. Not to mention everyone for possibly hundreds of miles would be affected by the blast.
How could a nuke go off secretly?
A nuke gives off light that can be seen for miles and can blind people instantly and the things create a insane amount of noise plus the mushroom cloud would be huge
this is bullshit
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;33519560]How could a nuke go off secretly?
A nuke gives off light that can be seen for miles and can blind people instantly and the things create a insane amount of noise plus the mushroom cloud would be huge
this is bullshit[/QUOTE]
"But it's a [I]tactical[/I] nuke so no one can see it! The United States uses stealth nukes against her own allies! Wake up people!"
[QUOTE=JustExtreme;33519458]Wouldn't surprise me if it was true to be honest.
Seems so ridiculous that few will take it seriously but if nukes were used it would certainly be covered up by the US information control people[/QUOTE]
i'd be incredibly surprised because it's a nuclear bomb - you can't really hide these things, particularly multiple detonations in the same area over a short period of time.
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;33519587]"But it's a [I]tactical[/I] nuke so no one can see it! The United States uses stealth nukes against her own allies! Wake up people!"[/QUOTE]
-Conspiracy Theorist
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;33519587]"But it's a [I]tactical[/I] nuke so no one can see it!"[/QUOTE]
Oh god.
First, silenced shotguns.
Now, silenced nukes.
Fukushima obviously used to cover up global rises in radiation.
Called it first.
[QUOTE=Xenocidebot;33519634]Oh god.
First, silenced shotguns.
Now, silenced nukes.[/QUOTE]
Oh, a silenced shotgun is absolutely plausible. Just can't fire buckshot with it.
[QUOTE=mastermaul;33517758]You can tell by their website that they're fueled by anti-american propaganda.[/QUOTE]
So its like the opposite of Fox new?
Get this horse shit off, someoneone would've atleast ATTEMPT to shoot them down in mid flight.
Okay, I think we can safely discard the actual allegations without much regard. For one, it's impossible to keep the use of a nuke safe - both Russia and China have extensive detection systems, and anyone capable of running three seismometers and doing some basic math can run a seismic detector (that's how we keep detecting North Korea's underground nuclear tests). Pakistan and India would pick up the radiation clouds anyways.
The more important news here is political. In both the US and the UK, things are going a bit nuts with regard to Iran. It's not entirely unprecedented, but there's a definite agitational aspect to it. A few months ago, you never heard anything about Iran; now it's a major issue in the presidential election. And the UK embassy thing literally could have been casus belli alone.
The fact that Iran is going this far in their own media means, essentially, they're expecting a war. Maybe not wanting one, but definitely expecting one. Considering the US has invaded not one but two countries on their border, they kind of have a right to be worried that they're next.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;33519308]I really doubt you could plant a stealth nuke, too much interference with everything in range, too many witnesses with that area of destruction.
I guess the closest thing to nukes they're deploying is Uranium ammunition. And goddamn that's nasty. A pretty "permanent solution" that'll give the people something to chew on for generations, not just because of the babies deformed by radiation, but also because the ground and water sources are radiated.
How they can get away with it is anyone's guess. I can only imagine the headlines if it was used against us.[/QUOTE]
I assume you're talking about munitions/weapons that use DU(Depleted Uranium). At which point I'm going to call you a complete idiot for saying that, as DU is barely radioactive [I]at all[/I] as it has a half-life of around four and a half billion years and it's isotope decay is virtually undetectable on all but the most sensitive of dosimeters. No seriously, its [I]heavy metal toxicity[/I] is more dangerous than it's supposed radioactivity.
At least get your basic facts straight before you post something that makes you look stupid.
Gotta love the Iranian state news agency. Always fair and unbiased and true.
[QUOTE=CakeMaster7;33519560]How could a nuke go off secretly?
A nuke gives off light that can be seen for miles and can blind people instantly and the things create a insane amount of noise plus the mushroom cloud would be huge
this is bullshit[/QUOTE]
I knew a guy who claimed the US had secret launch capabilities for space shuttles, so they could launch military versions without anybody knowing.
You could see the shuttle launches from England, he had no explanation as to how the military would make them invisible, but he insisted he was correct.
[QUOTE=Marik Bentusi;33519308]I really doubt you could plant a stealth nuke, too much interference with everything in range, too many witnesses with that area of destruction.
I guess the closest thing to nukes they're deploying is Uranium ammunition. And goddamn that's nasty. A pretty "permanent solution" that'll give the people something to chew on for generations, not just because of the babies deformed by radiation, but also because the ground and water sources are radiated.
How they can get away with it is anyone's guess. I can only imagine the headlines if it was used against us.[/QUOTE]
depleted uranium isn't radioactive, and is actually used more for radiation shielding than anything else.
The US has been working on nuclear bunker busters, significantly less powerful than the hiroshima nukes but powerful enough to make a difference, just because it's a nuke doesn't mean it's a tsar bomba
[QUOTE=DrBreen;33521282]The US has been working on nuclear bunker busters, significantly less powerful than the hiroshima nukes but powerful enough to make a difference, just because it's a nuke doesn't mean it's a tsar bomba[/QUOTE]
the problem with nukes is the aftermath, not the initial destruction
[QUOTE=DrBreen;33521282]The US has been working on nuclear bunker busters, significantly less powerful than the hiroshima nukes but powerful enough to make a difference, just because it's a nuke doesn't mean it's a tsar bomba[/QUOTE]
The US stopped working on nuclear bunker busters (RNEP, if you will) because they're so dangerous. Which was deliberated upon the first test after several workers fell ill and died after the first test. There's just far too much radioactive dust spewed by such a weapon, which will cause far more collateral damage than to that of the target. [url=http://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear_weapons_and_global_security/nuclear_weapons/technical_issues/nuclear-bunker-buster-rnep-animation.html]Which is minimal, at best (yes, it's that animation again).[/url]
[editline]00[/editline]
(I really should make a thread about these...)
What a load of horseshit, show me the contaminated radioactive areas, that and i'm sure someone would take a picture of the resulting mushroom clouds.
Do they have concrete proofs?
[QUOTE=N-12_Aden;33521704]Do they have concrete proofs?[/QUOTE]
no
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.