We're gonna nuke Iran!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, February 28, 2026 17:47
VIEWED: 4913
PAGE 7 of 7
Ahh, Sleezer,
Ever the disinformation specialist. Pretty bold of you to include the link so that others could read the entire page. Do you count on people not linking and actually reading?
While the triad of defense objectives has remained the same (under the title 'Continuations of Previous Policy'), large elements are different - under the title "Departures from Previous Nuclear Policy".
For example, bunker-buster bombs were developed without nuclear bombs. They were developed with lots and lots (thousands of tons - kilo tons - KT) of high-power conventional explosives. That was to study how many KT TNT equivalent it would take to penetrate a bunker. These equivalencies could then be used to calculate the equivalent nuclear bomb.
The report goes on to say "The DOD and NNSA are studying both nuclear and conventional weapons systems for these missions. Critics are concerned that this research could lead to new nuclear testing." and
"Departures from Previous Nuclear Policy
The new NPR primarily departs from past nuclear policy by downplaying and, in key instances, repudiating arms control agreements. The stated objective of this policy is to give the United States maximum flexibility.
While the Clinton administration worked to preserve the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the Bush administration renounced this treaty expressly to remove limits on missile defense development. However, missile defense tests will not reach those limits for several years. Although the Clinton administration supported limited missile defense systems, the new NPR calls for expanding and increasing the layers of these defenses.
The previous administration advocated ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Though the present administration adheres to the nuclear testing moratorium, it will not seek passage of the CTBT. The new NPR also proposes to reduce the time required to prepare for renewed testing from a two-to-three-year period to much less than one year."
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Unwrapped:
Quote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki August, about 60 Japanese cities had been destroyed through a massive aerial campaign, including large firebombing raids on the cities of Tokyo and Kobe.
we didn't want to set fire to city after city in Japan
The firebombing of Tokyo alone killed 80,000 civilians. Dresden estimates were 25,000 civilians killed.
http://www.nps.gov/wapa/indepth/extContent/wapa/brochure/brochure2.htm
"9-10 March B-29 fire-bomb attack on Tokyo leaves much of the city in ashes and inaugurates a series of incendiary strikes against other Japanese cities."
Quote:
The first use of napalm occurred on July 23, 1944, during pre-invasion air strikes on the island of Tinian, part of the Marianas island chain in the Pacific. It was used by the Allied Forces in World War II against cities in Japan. The primary dispersment of napalm was through the usage of 165-gallon containers. The bombs were longer than a tin can, but about as big around. They fell to earth trailing cloth tails that fluttered behind them. A single firebomb dropped from an airplane at low-altitude was capable of producing damage to a 2500-yd2 area. In targeted Japanese cities, napalm bombs burned out 40% of the land area. In a Japanese residential neighborhoods with wood and paper houses, there was no way to fight the fires. On March 9 and 10, 1945, US forces dropped more than 1,500 tons of napalm bombs, all produced at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, on Tokyo. The resulting firestorm destroyed enormous sections of the city.
Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey Rue!
I also have to wonder what role the attitude of Americans towards the Japanese played in the decision to drop the bomb (not saying that it was the deciding factor, just a component). I'm not sure we unleash the atom on a European country. If you look at the popular portrayal of the Japanese at that time, there are many similarities to the way that the African was widely portrayed early in our countries history (sub-human, after the white women, bestial, tricky, amoral, etc.). There was a pervasive propaganda campaign aimed at dehumanizing the oriental menace (even Dr. Seuss got into the act. His cartoons are pretty mild compared to some of the stuff that is out there. http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/dspolitic/ ). Although, on the west coast, the vilification of all Asians, and Asian-Americans in particular, had been going on for some time.
I read a book (and, for the life of me, I can't remember the name, and haven't hit on the right google search string to locate it) that deconstructed WWII political cartoons on the basis of race. The members of the Axis were treated differently. Germans and Italians were most often symbolized by a caricature of their leader (Hitler with a weak chin, Mussolini with a bulbous head) while the Japanese were portrayed as an anonymous coke-bottle-glasses wearing, squint-eyed, bucktoothed, swarthy short man. Or as an animal - a monkey or a snake, for example. Or they were portrayed as super soldiers. It was either sub-human or superman, never as just human. I guess my point is that Americans had gotten used to thinking about Japenese as less than human, so no real repurcussions from the public for dropping the most horrific bomb ever created on a civilian population.
I mean, hell, it wasn't until the 442nd started winning recognition and medals in Europe that we as a country even thought about releasing our own citizens of Japenese ancestry from concentration camps. And those were Americans.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Ahh, Sleezer,
Ever the disinformation specialist. Pretty bold of you to include the link so that others could read the entire page. Do you count on people not linking and actually reading?
For the life of me I can't figure how you get from me posting links for additional information to me being a "disinformation specialist", without the use of some sort of psychoactive substance. Unless you're either trying to insult me, or trying to insult anyone else reading this thread. ("Do you count on people not linking and actually reading?")
Quote:
While the triad of defense objectives has remained the same (under the title 'Continuations of Previous Policy'), large elements are different - under the title "Departures from Previous Nuclear Policy".
For example, bunker-buster bombs were developed without nuclear bombs. They were developed with lots and lots (thousands of tons - kilo tons - KT) of high-power conventional explosives. That was to study how many KT TNT equivalent it would take to penetrate a bunker. These equivalencies could then be used to calculate the equivalent nuclear bomb.
The report goes on to say "The DOD and NNSA are studying both nuclear and conventional weapons systems for these missions. Critics are concerned that this research could lead to new nuclear testing."
So? If you need bigger bunker-busting bombs, can't make one with conventional explosives due to size and weight constraints (A bomber can only carry so much tonnage), and don't want to do an actual nuclear test, truck in a big pile of TNT equivalent to a nuke you expect to work, and set it off.
Here's a link to the actual NPR report. http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm About 3/4 down is a section titled "Defeating Hard and Deeply Buried Targets" which explains the need for bunkerbusters. It also explains that the current nuke bunkerbuster, the B61 Mod 11 gravity bomb, is a non-precision weapon, and that newer ones with more accuracy can accomplish more with smaller yield, less fallout, etc. Seems like a good thing.
Quote:
"Departures from Previous Nuclear Policy
The new NPR primarily departs from past nuclear policy by downplaying and, in key instances, repudiating arms control agreements. The stated objective of this policy is to give the United States maximum flexibility.
While the Clinton administration worked to preserve the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty, the Bush administration renounced this treaty expressly to remove limits on missile defense development. However, missile defense tests will not reach those limits for several years. Although the Clinton administration supported limited missile defense systems, the new NPR calls for expanding and increasing the layers of these defenses.
The previous administration advocated ratification and entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). Though the present administration adheres to the nuclear testing moratorium, it will not seek passage of the CTBT. The new NPR also proposes to reduce the time required to prepare for renewed testing from a two-to-three-year period to much less than one year."
The world of 2003 when the latest NPR was written is a bit different than 1993, when Clinton's came out. North Korea is now a ballistic missle threat, the former Soviet Union is not nearly as stable as in the early '90s and still has lots of missles sitting around in former Soviet Republics, other states are showing nuclear potential. More flexablity is needed in developing defenses.
BTW, the new NPR still plans a 40% reduction in strategic warheads between 2003 and 2007 (down to 3,800), and a further reduction to 1,700-2,200 by 2012. Those Warmongers!!
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
US, Israel attack Iran as Trump vows regime change
https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us-israel-attack-iran-trump-121038
451.html
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME