• 'US used nukes on Iraq, Afghanistan'
    89 replies, posted
Mushroom clouds aren't unique to nuclear bombs, any sufficiently large bomb will create them. I remember reading a story about a group of British soldiers freaking out when the US dropped a rather large bomb near their position, they thought they had been nuked when in reality it was just a daisy cutter or so.
Fucking great title OP. For a goddamn second I thought nuclear bombs have been launched and WW3 was about to start
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;33521715]no[/QUOTE] I know :v:
Iran's version of Fox News, jus a whole loada bullsheet
[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] They used chemtrails to bounce the light from the nuke straight to planet X, so nobody on the ground saw it. [editline]1st December 2011[/editline] The only problem now is that who or whatever lives on planet X interpreted it as an attack and there's already a fleet of UFOs heading towards Earth. [editline]1st December 2011[/editline] We would have had a chance to defend ourselves, but only if the government and oil industry didn't stop technology from advancing as well as it could over the last half a century by suppressing all the inventors of perpetual motion generators. But thanks to them we're fucked now.
Protip: We already have nukes that leave no radiological contaminants, so it wouldn't surprise me any to see that we've been using smaller versions in actual wars. As for other countries going apeshit, who would know? It's not like people have satellites over the region 24/7, much less advanced gamma and x-ray detectors actually required to see if someone's been playing with the smaller versions. Also, we've no real idea what our military are actually using, much less doing, so saying something is impossible is silly. Especially when it comes to top of the line tech, we didn't know about the B2 and the stealth fighters until after they made public releases. People thought they were UFO's, and the government actually encouraged those rumors.
[QUOTE=Worldwaker;33522557]Protip: We already have nukes that leave no radiological contaminants, so it wouldn't surprise me any to see that we've been using smaller versions in actual wars. As for other countries going apeshit, who would know? It's not like people have satellites over the region 24/7, much less advanced gamma and x-ray detectors actually required to see if someone's been playing with the smaller versions.[/QUOTE]Was any of this based in reality? [QUOTE]Also, we've no real idea what our military are actually using, much less doing, so saying something is impossible is silly. Especially when it comes to top of the line tech, we didn't know about the B2 and the stealth fighters until after they made public releases. People thought they were UFO's, and the government actually encouraged those rumors.[/QUOTE]There is a major difference between keeping the official details of an experimental aircraft secret and hiding large scale nuclear reactions.
This is ridiculous, it's like I'm reading an Iranian version of fox news.
[QUOTE=Worldwaker;33522557]Protip: We already have nukes that leave no radiological contaminants, so it wouldn't surprise me any to see that we've been using smaller versions in actual wars.[/QUOTE] Uh, what? If you're referring to so-called "clean bombs", you should know that they are only relatively low-radiation - they are still immensely radioactive, and leave significant radioactive traces. Most importantly, a "clean bomb" can easily be converted back into a dirty bomb, which vastly increases the power (at the cost of much greater fallout). "Clean bombs" are generally considered a publicity stunt - a reduced-fallout version is made and tested, but the deployed version is the regular, high-yield high-fallout weapon. Since even the radiation from a "clean" bomb is trivially detected even by third-world powers, there is no benefit to using them. [QUOTE=Worldwaker;33522557]As for other countries going apeshit, who would know? It's not like people have satellites over the region 24/7, much less advanced gamma and x-ray detectors actually required to see if someone's been playing with the smaller versions.[/QUOTE] Uh, yeah, they do. Besides the American GPS satellites (all of which do double-duty as nuclear test ban enforcers and are equipped with bhangmeters), various Russian satellites (Prognoz, Yantar, etc) are believed to do the same. Plus, even small nuclear detonations can be detected seismically. North Korea tested a sub-kiloton weapon in 2006 - it was detected by seismometers globally, and even radiation was detected (even underground detonations release detectable amounts of radiation). Seismometers in particular are very widespread in the civilian world. One or two nuclear detonations could be covered up, if you somehow got Russia and China to collaborate. Any significant nuclear series, though, more than three detonations, and you literally could not cover it up. [QUOTE=Worldwaker;33522557]Also, we've no real idea what our military are actually using, much less doing, so saying something is impossible is silly. Especially when it comes to top of the line tech, we didn't know about the B2 and the stealth fighters until after they made public releases. People thought they were UFO's, and the government actually encouraged those rumors.[/QUOTE] The B2 is quite different from a B83. We know exactly what the US (and Russia, for that matter) has with regard to nuclear weapons. Stealth bombers, I remind you, are not subject to several dozen disarmament and limitation treaties with extensive verification clauses. We have 650 B83 bombs, 480 B61 bombs, 200 W87 missile warheads, and so on. The rough capabilities of these are well-established, and, most importantly, independently verified. For many, exact details are public - we know the dimensions of a W88 down to a tenth of an inch. Besides, there's one important detail - why the fuck would we need nukes? We're fighting people who are considered "heavily armed" if they have an RPG-7. There's no infrastructure to destroy, no bunkers to bush, nothing at all that justifies using nuclear weapons except brute intimidation - in which case they would be publicizing the fuck out of it! So, the only way your "theory" could be correct is if multiple countries, who can't even agree to intervene in Libya, somehow cooperate to cover up a series of purposeless nuclear detonations, silence the entire seismological science (including amateurs), convince Pakistan and India to cover up the radiation (anyone with a geiger counter in those countries would be able to detect fallout from an Afghan detonation), and somehow manage to keep all this a secret for several years. [i]And then a simple journalist working in Iran is somehow able to slip past all this.[/i] ... ... . . . I've seen better conspiracy theories involving ancient aliens.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;33524476]I've seen better conspiracy theories involving ancient aliens.[/QUOTE]You mean Scientology?
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;33524529]You mean Scientology?[/QUOTE] Among others. It really says something when you can say "that makes less sense than Scientology".
[QUOTE=mastermaul;33517812]I posted it more as a humor piece, and an example of dishonest media in the region. PressTV has quite a bit of the market in the area, so what they say gets pretty far.[/QUOTE] I knew that. I was trying to be snarky no offence meant towards you. Hard to show sarcasm over text >.>
[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] put a silencer on it drop it from a stealth bomber dumbass im not even in the military and i knew that
[QUOTE=Tunak Mk. II;33529421]put a silencer on it drop it from a stealth bomber dumbass im not even in the military and i knew that[/QUOTE] Doesnt have to be a bomber, I remember they had a cannon that shot nuclear shells, just put a big ass suppressor on it. I think it was a gift from the lizards.
[QUOTE=Zezibesh;33519519]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] They're obviously in on it. Open your eyes to the truth, man
[QUOTE=Greenen72;33529566]They're obviously in on it. Open your eyes to the truth, man[/QUOTE] The Lizards! I have been saying it for the longest time, just cant explain it right now because there are a lot of what nots and what haves yous involved.
[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] Except for the fact that it's DEPLETED uranium you moron. As in, NOT RADIOACTIVE. It's just really fucking dense to punch through tank armour, hence it's used in TANKS. Not against people. Uninformed people like you make me mad, sorry but you do.
not gonna lie kinda got scared when i read the title
[QUOTE=The one that is;33529610]Except for the fact that it's DEPLETED uranium you moron. As in, NOT RADIOACTIVE. It's just really fucking dense to punch through tank armour, hence it's used in TANKS. Not against people. Uninformed people like you make me mad, sorry but you do.[/QUOTE] It's radioactive, but only really dangerous if you're touching it all the time. Like if it's a bullet lodged in your leg. It's just that you're more likely to die from the fact that it's a chemical hazard than anything.
[QUOTE=Greenen72;33529742]It's radioactive, but only really dangerous if you're touching it all the time. Like if it's a bullet lodged in your leg. It's just that you're more likely to die from the fact that it's a chemical hazard than anything.[/QUOTE] Bullets aren't a problem, because the smallest DU projectile is 20mm and DU is exclusively used for armor-penetrating ammunition. You get hit with one of those, it's going through you, the two guys standing behind you, and half of the hill you're fighting for. It's not a case of "get shot, nearly die but live the rest of your life with a bullet in your leg", it's "get shot, nearly die but live the rest of your life with one leg missing". DU ammunition cuts through tank armor like swiss cheese. That's the main use - anti-tank rounds for vehicle-mounted cannons. It comes in 20mm, 25mm, 30mm, 105mm and 120mm. All are either used in miniguns (which will literally saw through heavy armor), autocannons, or full-on tank main guns. None of them are designed for anti-infantry - they are literally the worst possible ammunition to use for that. They produce relatively little shrapnel or fragments, and tend to overpenetrate. The other main use is in tank armor, where it is sandwiched between steel plates. The main concern there is for our own troops - if something breaks through, it will release a bit of powdered uranium, which can be dangerous if inhaled. While they haven't quite figured out how much of the health damage is due to simple heavy metal toxicity, and how much is due to radiation, it is known that inhaled DU powder is not that good for you - but not nearly as dangerous as actual uranium, more comparable to nickel or cobalt. In any case, I'm pretty sure the list of people who have been shot by a DU projectile and later died from radiation or toxicity is in the single-digits (0 is a single-digit number, right?).
[QUOTE=gman003-main;33530113]0 is a single-digit number, right?[/QUOTE] Yes
I'd rather have a bit of DU in my lungs than be dead from tank fire thanks.
We nuked the shit out of th.....I mean, Oh no, why would they say this? We clearly didn't do this.
fuck i just finished a game of defcon when i read this
Tactical nukes are only used in fiction.
[QUOTE=Biggins;33532487]Tactical nukes are only used in fiction.[/QUOTE] Ironically they are quite worthless tactically. As airbursting a Tac. Nuke would be fucking retarded, You get the same amount of demolition from a MOAB Fuel-Air or carpet-bombing an area with no fallout(both political and radioactive.) or being seen by every fucking motherfucker ever. Most ICBMs are airburst anyway, in order to maximize the blast zone/emp radius/fallout "blanket" coverage, Detonating it on-ground reduces said coverage and overall damage radius while incinerating everything directly in the blast zone to Extra-Crispy mode. Overall nuclear weapons are ineffective nowadays and are only a deterrent, considering that carpet-bombing an area would be more cost and manpower effective than nuking the fuck out of an area. Plus it would reduce the political controversy by a massive degree. [editline]2nd December 2011[/editline] This is not to say however that nukes still won't cause untold damage if used wildly, Or to say that nukes are even a good weapon, All i am saying is if you really need to cause such goddamn damage, there are better and easier ways to do it than dropping an ICBM on someone's ass and ruin the area for years to come. [B]And guess what i found out? [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82]The Daisy Cutter[/url] was used extensively in the Tora-Bora region of Afghanistan. I bet that is the "tactical nuke" they are talking about. Morons. Daisy cutters are not tac-nukes, they are just very powerful bombs. They were famed in 'nam for being able to flatten an area into a helicopter landing pad.[/B]
How unfortunate that the news is fake.
[QUOTE=the_headcrab;33534249]How unfortunate that the news is fake.[/QUOTE] why
[QUOTE=Drsalvador;33532624]Ironically they are quite worthless tactically. As airbursting a Tac. Nuke would be fucking retarded, You get the same amount of demolition from a MOAB Fuel-Air or carpet-bombing an area with no fallout(both political and radioactive.) or being seen by every fucking motherfucker ever. Most ICBMs are airburst anyway, in order to maximize the blast zone/emp radius/fallout "blanket" coverage, Detonating it on-ground reduces said coverage and overall damage radius while incinerating everything directly in the blast zone to Extra-Crispy mode. Overall nuclear weapons are ineffective nowadays and are only a deterrent, considering that carpet-bombing an area would be more cost and manpower effective than nuking the fuck out of an area. Plus it would reduce the political controversy by a massive degree. [editline]2nd December 2011[/editline] This is not to say however that nukes still won't cause untold damage if used wildly, Or to say that nukes are even a good weapon, All i am saying is if you really need to cause such goddamn damage, there are better and easier ways to do it than dropping an ICBM on someone's ass and ruin the area for years to come. [B]And guess what i found out? [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BLU-82]The Daisy Cutter[/url] was used extensively in the Tora-Bora region of Afghanistan. I bet that is the "tactical nuke" they are talking about. Morons. Daisy cutters are not tac-nukes, they are just very powerful bombs. They were famed in 'nam for being able to flatten an area into a helicopter landing pad.[/B][/QUOTE] MOABs were meant to replace them, it's just that we have a bunch of BLU-82s lying around from Nam. :v:
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;33561035]MOABs were meant to replace them, it's just that we have a bunch of BLU-82s lying around from Nam. :v:[/QUOTE] Actually, they never really even had that many. Grand total, 225 were produced. Last one was used in 2008, on a test range (probably for publicity purposes - there's a [url=http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/BLU-82_Daisy_Cutter_Fireball.JPG]very nice[/url] image of it).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.