Smaller than 15KT means that there several conventional options of equal power so again there isn't even a reason for the US to use a nuke.
November 1st 2001: US dropes a nuke in Afghanistan
- Thread starter Euroman26
- Start date
Dure
Banned
Can the USA be expelled from the UN or just from the UN general assembly? An action this dumb, criminal and homicidal would push the Europeans into a separate power block. An Arab bomb becomes a racing certainty. China and Russia are forced into a defensive pack. Nations will trade with the USA of course but they will never be trusted again and they will never have real allies again.
I don't think the US Govt. will be overthrown either by a general revolt or by a coup but you never know, All those people calling the US military SS, Gestapo, child killers and so on will take its toll on officers consiences.
I don't think the US Govt. will be overthrown either by a general revolt or by a coup but you never know, All those people calling the US military SS, Gestapo, child killers and so on will take its toll on officers consiences.
That's an interesting question. No nation has ever been expelled but I think there are provisions for just that:
The US has a veto on the Security Council so even if it got rammed through, it wouldn't work.
The UN *can* however, 'suspend' a country from the General Assembly (they did that with South Africa) without bringing that to the Security Council. It would be a ballsy move but I can see a few countries trying to pull it off.
MacCaulay
Banned
...Euroman, are you serious?
Why would they do that? Patton totally set it out. There's just no reason to drop it. What in the name of God would get into their heads that a nuclear bomb is just the thing to crack open Tora Bora (with 1 "r")?
There were Northern Alliance troops all around it. There were US Special Operations troops around it. CIA and SAS on the ground as well. And even if it happened, there's no way to get inside after the attack and assess the immediate impact because...well...it's the middle of fucking Afghanistan and NBC gear doesn't grow on trees.
So you've got a crater in the side of a mountain that's glowing, the Northern Alliance is probably pissed that you're making their country glow in the dark, and what's the US supposed to do? Thank God that they might have gotten Bin Laden?
Even if he's still alive, by the time the US is able to get NBC gear there, he'll have been gone. And we'll be stuck with a radioactive hole in the ground and a bunch of pissed off Afghans wondering why we just nuked a mountain for no reason.
One thing is for sure. There was a pretty vocal majority on some of the forums I remember would have applauded turning Stan into "a glass parking lot".
I believe that was the expression used at the time. Even saw a contour map of the country photoshopped into a crater published.
No I am not advocating such an action, just recalling how totally outraged most folk were by 911, before the Iraq invasion somehow gave the certain social groups all the excuses they were looking for to attack the US and it's allies, regardless of the fact that the US had been attacked without provocation.
Come, ye flamers, come.
I believe that was the expression used at the time. Even saw a contour map of the country photoshopped into a crater published.
No I am not advocating such an action, just recalling how totally outraged most folk were by 911, before the Iraq invasion somehow gave the certain social groups all the excuses they were looking for to attack the US and it's allies, regardless of the fact that the US had been attacked without provocation.
Come, ye flamers, come.
burmafrd
Banned
Ifit had been dropped right after the Taliban refused to give up Ben Laden then maybe.
Bush could have said"we got the man responsible for it. We will do the same to any country that harbors any terrorist responsible for attacking the US."
Would have been a huge gamble but at the same time it would have been a huge message to all the would be terrorists and just as important a huge message to any country thinking of harboring them.
One can talk about Jihad but when one is contemplating a mushroom cloud its a very different story.
It would have had to have been done very soon after 9/11. The farther away from it the less support it would have had.
Bush could have said"we got the man responsible for it. We will do the same to any country that harbors any terrorist responsible for attacking the US."
Would have been a huge gamble but at the same time it would have been a huge message to all the would be terrorists and just as important a huge message to any country thinking of harboring them.
One can talk about Jihad but when one is contemplating a mushroom cloud its a very different story.
It would have had to have been done very soon after 9/11. The farther away from it the less support it would have had.
Nukes can only be used realistically if a WMD has been used. Even Bush Sr. only threatened them in Desert Storm if the Iraqis had used chemicals. 9/11 while horrible does not equate to a nuclear response. Plus the Taliban wouldn't fear nukes what do they have to lose, the cities, population? If they cared about either of those they wouldn't have been controlling their even move. The fighters would simply head to the hills. Same for Bin Laden, a US nuclear strike would be his wet dream a rallying cry for jihad. He simply heads for the hills and watches the Middle East implode.
Using nukes would also instanlly inflame everyone as the board has stated. Russia and China aren't going to want one going off in their backyard, plus the fact the US is willing to use them are going to make everyone very nervous.
MacCaulay
Banned
I was really hoping this thread was dead. I was really hoping against hope that it was. This isn't an 80s action movie. And I, Georgepatton, and many others pointed out: there's no targets in Afghanistan that are large enough for this.
Believe me: I've been there. We were using tanks against buildings and that was almost overkill for the targets that were there. You don't use nuclear bombs to take out buildings.
We were using hyperbaric bombs to suck the air out of caves so we could clear them easier. Why would we use nuclear weapons to shove the radioactivity in them?
I'll reiterate what I said before: Suppose we dropped a nuke on Tora Bora when we thought Bin Laden was there, then after a week or so (when we were able to fly in NBC/HAZMAT gear), we go in through the radioactive crater and check the tunnel complex and find that he's not there.
That tells us...not a damn thing. Maybe he got out before we were able to check, maybe he wasn't there in the first place, maybe he was buried in a cave in.
But we're damn sure that the Northern Alliance is now pissed: we've got to clean up that mess. We dropped that bomb, and that's our job.
Believe me: I've been there. We were using tanks against buildings and that was almost overkill for the targets that were there. You don't use nuclear bombs to take out buildings.
We were using hyperbaric bombs to suck the air out of caves so we could clear them easier. Why would we use nuclear weapons to shove the radioactivity in them?
I'll reiterate what I said before: Suppose we dropped a nuke on Tora Bora when we thought Bin Laden was there, then after a week or so (when we were able to fly in NBC/HAZMAT gear), we go in through the radioactive crater and check the tunnel complex and find that he's not there.
That tells us...not a damn thing. Maybe he got out before we were able to check, maybe he wasn't there in the first place, maybe he was buried in a cave in.
But we're damn sure that the Northern Alliance is now pissed: we've got to clean up that mess. We dropped that bomb, and that's our job.
Something tells me it's a really poor idea to nuke a site right on the Pakistani border.
Even if it wasn't near the Pakistani border, nuking Afghanistan would almost certainly put Pakistan in the awkward position of being the Muslim world's only nuclear deterrent against the United States.
On top of that Pervez Musharraf would be under extreme criticism from his own conservative generals for allowing such a thing to happen. It would severely jeopardize the US supply line through Pakistan and the prospect of Pakistani cooperation in the war on terror.
Add to this -
What exactly is there that requires a freaking nuke to take out? Seriously - what?
I can see them using a big-ass FAE. Gives a nice big punch (almost as big as a tac nuke) and has the benefit of not being a nuke. So you get all the benefits of a nuke (big boom) and none of the problems (radiation, Pakistan going ape-shit, a couple billion dollars to clean up, rest of the allies thinking you're completely insane, etc).
MacCaulay
Banned
Actually, we dropped the Daisy Cutter. The Taliban thought the USAF had dropped a nuclear bomb for a few days until they realized they still had their hair.
I don't know if there was anyone who supported this idea, or thought it was logical, but I'd really like to know where they figured we could get NBC gear in the middle of post-Apocalyptic Afghanistan in 2001.
I think I may have seen a few videos of those suckers in action.
Just *how* big a boom do they have? Can't seem to find actual figures beyond 'biggest non-nuclear thing rar!' anywhere.
MacCaulay
Banned
They were designed during Vietnam to make instant landing zones in the jungle for helicopters.
Needless to say, it requires a lot of force to blow trees bodily out of the ground in an arc big enough for eight or nine helicopters.
BlairWitch749
Banned
although it wasnt quite available yet you could also with a small pod get the MOAB GBU-43/B (mother of all bombs) involved i saw the testing of this thing off the coast of florida it actually made a hole in the ocean
sick a couple of those on tora bora you get all the death of a nuke without the glow factor
sick a couple of those on tora bora you get all the death of a nuke without the glow factor