War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semi-pacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face as if you were ashamed of it.
The criterion for the use of nuclear weapons was established fifty nine years ago when, after months of deliberation, President Harry S. Truman made the fateful decision to drop atomic bombs on two Japanese cities. For the next eighteen years the Missouri Democrat was criticized for his judgment. But in July 1963 Irv Kupcinet, a columnist for the Chicago Sun Times, wrote favorably about the excruciating decision. Truman, who rarely spoke about the bombing, wrote a letter in response in which he defended his action:
I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war that would have killed a half million youngsters on both sides if those bombs had not been dropped. I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again…
Truman was merely the first President forced to decide when and under what circumstances they would agree to use nuclear weapons. Since 1945 every man who has held the office has had to wrestle with the implications that his answer would bring. And while we can never truly know how a presidential candidate would actually respond when faced with such circumstances, Democratic nominee John Kerry provided a clue to how he would answer the question in a recent foreign policy debate:
You have to put the money into [nuclear nonproliferation] and the funding and the leadership.
And part of that leadership is sending the right message to places like North Korea.
Right now the president is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to research bunker-busting nuclear weapons. The United States is pursuing a new set of nuclear weapons. It doesn't make sense.
You talk about mixed messages. We're telling other people, "You can't have nuclear weapons," but we're pursuing a new nuclear weapon that we might even contemplate using. [emphasis added]
This remarkable comment is already receiving a great deal of scrutiny within the blogosphere (see: Bill Hobbs, Powerline, The American Thinker). Hugh Hewitt is even holding a virtual symposium in which he asks, “Did Kerry blunder in denouncing nuclear bunker busters? If so, why? If so, how great the damage to his candidacy?” While these are certainly important questions that need to be answered, I believe it is even more imperative that Kerry answers the question of when and if he would ever agree to use nuclear weapons.
Like many Christians, I believe that the use of force against evil is not only in keeping with God’s ethical mandate but can even be a positive act of love. For this to be true, however, the use of military force must be justifiable under the parameters of “just war theory” including the requirements for a jus ad bellum (circumstances for using force) and jus in bello (just means in using force). The issues of when and how nuclear weapons should be used fall under this category of “just means” and should be examined it that light.
Unfortunately, the emotional baggage we bring to the topic makes it nearly impossible to rationally discuss the use of nuclear weapons. The threat of global annihilation has so colored the debate that for many people it is considered an axiomatic truth that the use of such weaponry can never be justified. While we should empathize with the anxiety that leads to this conclusion we cannot condone such a morally repugnant stance.
Since the end of WWII, the semi-pacifism described in the previous quote by Lewis has included the propensity to judge weaponry by aesthetic rather than moral standards. Rather than asking under what conditions it would be morally acceptable to use tactical nukes, Kerry appears to want to exclude the use on the basis of our emotional responses to such “ugly” weapons. He is more concerned by how their use would be perceived in global community than he is in their effective use at preventing a greater evil. The error in this approach is that it can lead to the use of unjust and excessive means of force in order to compensate for the reluctance to renounce an inferior principle.
The examination of an all too plausible scenario can help illustrate why this approach is tacitly immoral:
Imagine that upon taking office the newly elected President Kerry signs an executive order requiring that we unilaterally dismantle our current nuclear bunker-busting weapons (such as the B61 gravity bomb) and cease researching any further capabilities. Imagine also that several months later North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il announces he will finally implement his long-stated objective of unifying the Korean peninsula. To ensure that the U.S. does not interfere with his invasion of South Korea, he has hidden his nuclear missiles in the tunnels beneath the DMZ. The dictator threatens that these weapons, which can quickly be moved out of the tunnels, will be launched against both Seoul and Japan if the U.S. interferes with his plan.
President Kerry would be left with only two options. He can concede to North Korea’s demands and allow the enslavement of millions of people or he can launch a preemptive nuclear strike using much more destructive weapons than the ones he eliminated. Since an abhorrence of nuclear weapons appears to be one of the few positions that Kerry holds with any consistency, I have little doubt that he would sacrifice the freedom of the South Koreans on the altar of his principle of nuclear proliferation.
As G.K. Chesterton claimed, "War is not 'the best way of settling differences; it is the only way of preventing their being settled for you." By rejecting a legitimate and just means of using force, Kerry would allow others to settle our differences for us. By repudiating a valuable tool in the nation’s armament, Kerry would acquiesce to a dangerous mindset that puts aesthetic values above justice and security. Our responsibility as citizens, therefore, is unambiguously clear: we must repudiate such a morally reprehensible position; we must reject the semi-pacifism of John Kerry.
Nice post. What's interesting about your example is that it accurately (in my view) captures a dynamic that I think largely escapes Kerry (and folks like him). That is, the reason typically given for not developing weapons systems like the bunker buster or SDI is that it tends to create an arms race and, in fact, make us less secure.
Now, taken one way, this line of reasoning isn't all that kooky. It's entirely plausible to think that if you build a limited missile defense, your enemies will try and find ways to counteract that defense and that might lead to your enemy developing a capability (say MIRV'ed ICBMs - man, are we back in the '80s?) that he wouldn't have otherwise and that can threaten you in ways not covered by your defense capability. (e.g. It can threaten your allies).
But I don't think that's the way that Kerry and the rest of the arms control uber alles crowd sees this. Rather, it seems to me that they think it's the "mixed messages" that are really important. How can you get someone to sign up for the Non-Proliferation Treaty if you're developing new nukes, they'll ask. But those questions only work if the enemy isn't already committed to developing and willing to use nuclear weapons (or other particularly nasty weapons). The great mistake in this line of thinking (and it is the exact same mistake that Kerry and his folks made with the nuclear freeze issue in the 1980s) is believing that what matters is the creation of a kind of "international norm" against the development of certain kinds of weapons. If we can just get everyone together at Davos and hold some summits, we can all agree that these are horrific weapons and just shouldn't be around, they might say (with a bit of mocking exaggeration added).
That is, the reason typically given for not developing weapons systems like the bunker buster or SDI is that it tends to create an arms race and, in fact, make us less secure.
Wasn't that also the underlying argument of the "nuclear freeze" movement of the 70's? If only we stop building newer and better nukes, the Soviets will do likewise. The only problem with the rational is that is assumes that you are dealing with basically good people, like you think of yourself. Does anybody think that if we (and the Israelis) got rid of our nukes, the North Koreans and Iranians would suddenly stop the nuke development? I somehow doubt it.
The logic of a "nuclear" bunker buster is ludicrous. Imagine an intentional Chernobyl being released on multiple regions of a country. You think that sounds like a good idea? There are only a few dozen conventional ways that the problem can be taken care of. Devising a nuclear weapon for destroying bunkers, much less destroying nuclear storage facilities, is not one of them. The argument is moot anyway because the North Korea issue is going to well up long before such a device would even get out of the prototype phase. I therefore agree that Kerry hit the nail on the head.
He also hit the nail in the head about "Star Wars." Bush said so himself that the greatest danger is nuclear proliferation and a possible nuclear attack by terrorists. "Star Wars" does nothing to protect us from a nuclear terrorist attack because terrorists aren't going to launch missiles. If they do launch small scale missiles they would be out of the scope of the "Star Wars" system, which is nuclear attack via ICBM's. The only country that would perform such an attack directly today would be North Korea. North Korea does not have a missile technology with the capability to strike any further out than Japan. The North Koreans aren't going to have such a technology either. The "Star Wars" program therefore did nothing for us besides waste billions of dollars and cause the end of some of our nuclear weapons related treaties with Russia.
On your tunnels problem. I think the South Koreans would like some input into whether we were planning on irradiating the entire Korean peninsula to save them from invasion. Better still would be to use traditional bunker busters to collapse the entrances to these tunnels to make them defacto storage facilities for these North Korean nuclear weapons. They won't do much good if they are locked underground.
Some people feel that there is no way to make nuclear inspections work. But this usually comes form folks who don't understand the processes by which nuclear fuel is enriched to weapons grade material.
Spent fuel or other sources of low grade fissionable material (roughty 5%) is turned into weapons grade material (90% plus) by combining the spent fuel materials chemically to form a gas and then centrifuging that gas to 'frac out' the various isotopes. Because the isotopes vary in atomic weight from each other by tiny amounts, often the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron, you have to spin the living heck out of the sample over and over.
Our boys in Oakridge, TN produced large centrifuges to do this, devices which were several meters tall. They worked well and produced large amount of weapons grade material fairly quickly. However they had a weakness; bearings. Even in the high tech society of the US military/industrial complex the large precision made bearings were at times a bottle neck.
The USSR on the other hand relied on a cruder process. They made small centrifuges, perhaps 3 feet tall, and hooked them up in series. The smaller bearings were much easier to produce and the series could knock out relatively small amounts of material of any grade, you just go to the fuge in the series with the grade you want and take it out. If one of the these small devices breaks down you can simply valve it off and let the others take up the slack until you can replace it. Thus although they did not produce as much material per unit time as the large devices, they could pretty much run continuously like a production line.
That series approach lends itself to smaller, less technologically adept nations. But it comes with it's own weakness; detectability.
If you have a series running and the inspection team is on the way, it looks very suspicious if you have a series of obvious attachments in the floor of the building at the end of a few small centrifuges...it looks like you just took some of them out. And it's easy to lose track of what fuge has been where in the series as you move them around and change locations. If a fuge that was near the end of the series and thus spinning high grade material gets moved to another point in the series closer to the fuel grade stage, and that fuge is examined, it just might have traces of the high grade stuff in it ... and you're busted.
The worst thing about this arguement is that conventional bombs can cause just as much devastation (witness Dresden in WWII vs. Hiroshima or Nagasaki). I don't see that it is somehow more "evil" to use nuclear bunker buster bombs than conventional ones.
His arguement relies on believing that those developing nukes would stop if we stop. History has shown that they won't. It is a convenient excuse to try to convince us to stop developing weapons. North Korea will continue to develop nukes whether we totally disarm, stop development on all weapons and agree to bilateral talks. They are doing this to be a world player and not the pathetic, bankrupt country that they are in reality.
"Thou almost persuadest me to be a Christian." Some of the best and some of the worst websites claim that title.
You turn the conventional wisdom on its head with your just war analysis. You're right. In a given circumstance, if bunker busters work and will significantly shorten a just war, we have a duty to use them.
All of which proves Kerry is a menace to civilization. I knew that.
My (less coherent) thoughts on the bunker-buster issue here.
Joe:
At the time Truman made that decision, we were the only ones who had the atomic bomb. You wonder if he would have made that decision if the enemy also had the weapon at their disposal. There's a reason that nobody has used a nuke in combat since, you know...
Teri:
Are you nuts? Have you ever heard of this thing called "radiaion?" Sure, the buildings are flattened all the same, but with a nuke you contaminate the site for decades afterward.The worst thing about this arguement is that conventional bombs can cause just as much devastation (witness Dresden in WWII vs. Hiroshima or Nagasaki).
There are two problems with this argument. The first problem is that one nuclear bomb has millions of times the destructive power of a conventional bomb. It took one bomb to level those two cities it took thousands of bombs to level Dresden. Along with the leveling of the city you leave behind a radioactive waste land in both the original blast zone and in the surrounding area. This causes massive increases in the rates of cancer and birth defects. Sure that sounds fine while that group is our "enemy." But history has shown tomorrow's enemies are today's allies.
The second problem is that your notion of total city destruction in convention bombing no longer applies. Even our "dumb" bombs are directed ordinance. Surgical striking is the method of bombing in modern war, especially in heavily populated area. There is no such concept in nuclear bombs.
Tgirsch and Moderate:
Tgirsch: Are you nuts? Have you ever heard of this thing called "radiaion?" Sure, the buildings are flattened all the same, but with a nuke you contaminate the site for decades afterward.
Moderate: This causes massive increases in the rates of cancer and birth defects.
This is what I meant by "emotional baggage." I used to have the same misunderstanding about radiation until I became the Radiation Safety Officer for my command and had to take classes on the subject. In my next post I clear up some of these misperceptions. (For example, it is not true that a nuclear blast "causes massive increases in the rates of cancer and birth defects.")
This is what I meant by "emotional baggage." I used to have the same misunderstanding about radiation until I became the Radiation Safety Officer for my command and had to take a class on the subject. In my next post I clear up some of these misperceptions. (For example, it is not true that a nuclear blast "causes massive increases in the rates of cancer and birth defects.")
And beta particle radiation can even increase plant growth, but isn't potent enough to penetrate human skin, which is why Cornell University used a isotope of tin which only generates beta particles to create a "nuclear battery." Even the effects of EMP are not as magical and absolute as most believe.
Joe, I look forward to your next post. I'm sure I learn some new stuff :-)
Mr Moderate,
reconsider you pseudonym w.r.t this issue. As Joe points out, your "emotional baggage" is showing. Spend a little time researching this issue in reviewed literature not rabid anti-nuclear rags.
First, it should be noted that the Christian ought to have no bloodlust. The events of 9/11 move me to wrath and my demand for justice is tempered by awareness of my own imperfection. Nevertheless, unless one is a pacifist, there are times when one fights and an effective fighter arms himself appropriately.
This business of a nuclear bunker-buster bomb bespeaks superstition. We are taught from day one that nuclear anything equals certain death. Probably due to the post-WW2 strategic planning that called for the nuclear equivalent of Curtis LeMay's firebombing campaigns of Tokyo and Dresden. That evolved into Henry Kissinger's strategy of mutual assured destruction. And the superstition was perpetuated.
Precision guided munitions made most nuclear weapons obsolete. It's stupid to smash an egg with a sledgehammer and knock around the kitchen in the process. A 1000lb TNT bomb guided in a window or down a chimney will ruin the bad guy's day as effectively as a megaton nuke set off in his front yard.
Thus, I think we allowed ourselves to become superstitious about nuclear weapons. If you set off an air-burst nuke over a city, you'll irradiate a lot of stuff and you'll start a fire that'll circulate fallout-laden smoke over a wide area. But since WW2 we've had literally hundreds of subterranean nuclear explosions in both the US and former Soviet Union. Yet Nevada does not glow in the dark. And no EMP has burned out the lights in Las Vegas.
A nuclear bunker-buster would most likely work in a fashion similar to those currently in inventory that are powered by conventional explosives. It would drive itself deep into the earth, and explode directing a shock wave at some buried structure in the hopes of collapsing it.
If the US is denied such a weapon, the alternative may entail invading the country and killing a lot of people between you and the bunker in question. (Or perhaps we might ask for a strongly-worded memorandum from the UN.)
The anti-proliferation argument says it is hypocritical to expect others to eschew nuclear weapons development when we are researching nuclear bunker-buster bombs. But the folks we are worried about are not developing nuclear bunker-busters. That would be like learning to run without first learning to walk. The bombs they are building are simpler, closer to those we worried about in the 50s and 60s--ones that would threaten cities, not bunkers.
If anti-proliferation is hypocritical, then the US should unilaterally disarm. Are Mr. Kerry and the Democrats advocating unilateral nuclear disarmament? Even the French don't go that far.
Why do you think Israel hasn't been destroyed by her Arab neighbors? Because they know Israel has nukes and will not hesitate to use them to defend itself.
There are of course, severe technical difficulties in desiging a nuclear bunker-buster if you want it to be a munition that confines its blast effects underground. The technical documentation pointed at by Hugh's "symposium" indicate that the device needs to be driven several hundred feet underground prior to detonation to allow the blast effects to be confined (which is required to contain the radiation effects). Allowing the device to survive the imapct is the rub. If the blast effects are not confined in fact the fallout may be greater than an air burst because of the amount of "stuff" driven into the air.
Given that, however, I can see no imperative to *not* try to overcome those hurdles.
Also, the arguments against development which list the "destablising" effects of an "arms race" are disengenuous. Let's face it, it takes two to run in a race. I don't see any power volunteering to enter this race against the US in today's geo-policital environment.
If the blast effects are not confined in fact the fallout may be greater than an air burst because of the amount of "stuff" driven into the air.
I'm sorry Mark, weren't you just arguing that there is no fallout problem with nuclear devices? Remember there are no increases in cancer rates and birth defect rates, according to you and Joe? Why are you so worried about containing the radiation then? For the fun of the engineering challenge.
For example, it is not true that a nuclear blast "causes massive increases in the rates of cancer and birth defects."
Good. I guess we can stop worry about al Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons then, right? Nice try Joe.
The problem with terrorists using a nuclear device is not the radiation, but the small size which makes it easy to smuggle large yields into crowded areas.
The worry about radiation is indeed overdone. Even the most recent data about Chernobyl (which was mentioned earlier) is largely urban myth. The radiation in the surrounding area was not enough to increase cancer rates.
Those who claim otherwise really need to do their homework.
Also, one might need to drive a large yield weapon deep into the earth to contain its effects, but we're not talking large yields with bunker-busters (at least not large yields when talking about nuclear weapons in general). The problem with large conventional bunker-busters is that by the time the yield is large enough to destroy the bunker, it is too big to drive deep into the ground. The benefit of a nuclear bunker-buster is that the weapon size remains small enough that the energy needed to drive it into the bunker remains strong, while we can pack a relatively large bomb (compared to conventional weapon yield) into a small package. It is the combination of deeper penetration and increased yield vs. size that makes the nuclear option with bunker-busters so appealing. And remember, we're still not talking megaton-yield weapons here, but the equivalent of perhaps the largest conventional yield. Combined with the penetration of the smaller bunker-busters, the issue of ground penetration for containment purposes is not at issue.
Joe says--"For example, it is not true that a nuclear blast "causes massive increases in the rates of cancer and birth defects."
MM says--"Good. I guess we can stop worry about al Qaeda acquiring nuclear weapons then, right? Nice try Joe."
Bit of a non-sequitor isn't it MM? Most people, when they think of Al Qaeda with a nuke worry about NYC or DC becoming huge pile of rubble, with a couple of million vaporized people. Maybe your're strange, but for most concerns about a slightly higher rate of cancer or birth defects are pretty low on the ol' totem pole. Especially since a lot of recent studies have shown the concerns to be pretty well overblown.
We've had almost sixty years to improve the nasty side-effects of nukes-reckon the new BB can be pretty clean, if they want it to be.
I've read this site for a while now, and I'm yet to see Mr. Moderate ever agree with anything Joe says, which would put him on the left in most people's minds. I'm (vaguely) curious on what grounds he has chosen that for his handle.
Even the most recent data about Chernobyl (which was mentioned earlier) is largely urban myth.
THere was just a documentary on the surrounding villages and their birth defect rate et cetera around the Chernobyl site. I suggest you watch it before discussing "urban myth"
Mr. Moderate ever agree with anything Joe says, which would put him on the left in most people's minds.
Joe is pretty much far right. Me being left of him doesn't make me a defacto liberal. "Moderate" is left of right last time I checked David.
Bit of a non-sequitor isn't it MM? Most people, when they think of Al Qaeda with a nuke worry about NYC or DC becoming huge pile of rubble, with a couple of million vaporized people. Maybe your're strange, but for most concerns about a slightly higher rate of cancer or birth defects are pretty low on the ol' totem pole. Especially since a lot of recent studies have shown the concerns to be pretty well overblown.
I'm less concerned about what "most people" think than what the experts think. Experts are concerned about al Qaeda acquiring a fission bomb but they are also concerned about them acquiring and detonating a "dirty bomb." The dirty bomb will have a conventional yield but will also spew radioactive material throughout a city area. Perhaps you forgot about this in your diatribe on cancer rates. Perhaps you don't care about the generation of children after such an event having a "Chernobyl" necklace and worse, or perhaps you'd only care if it happened in your back yard.
And I'll be interested to see Joe's piece about radiation, but then again, here's a guy who dismisses what the latest/best science has to say when it contradicts his worldview, so it could just be that the nuclear scientists who gripe about radiation are every bit as wacky as those silly evolutionist guys.
MM,
I recall hearing a physics colloquia (lecture) about Chernobyl. Although most of the talk was about the cause and evolution of the disaster as it unfolded, there was a finding you might find interesting. The Soviets after the incident had quarantined a large radius around the plant. A group of biologists visited the site some 10 or 15 years later to investigate effects of the radiation on the flora and fauna in the region. They found them to be thriving, in fact most animals (including boar, deer, and bear) were larger than was found elsewhere. They concluded that for the fauna the detrimental radiation effects (if present) were far outweighed by the benefits gained from the absence of human society.
And responding to your response to my earlier post. In referring to the desire to keep the blast confined underground I was not referring to minimal effects of fallout, but to the Physics Today article referrenced in HH's original call to the virtual symposium. In that article much discussion was given to that topic.
And as for fallout effects of a "dirty bomb" (which is I believe often a conventional munition designed to spread radioative waste or material), I would imagine that the clean-up costs required *and* the rioting/panic reaction of people (like yourself) who are educated to treat radiation as a bugbear. This IMHO is what is feared from the attack (as opposed to large number of vaporized citizenry).
MM,
The reason that a "dirty bomb" is scary is not for the damage that it would do or the fall-out it would cause, but rather the fear factor it would provide.
Specifically, you yourself have posted several times here about the effects of radiation which would be amplified if such a device were exploded in downtown NYC. Panic, in short, would ensue because the average Joe doesn't know understand the nature of radiation.
I'm certainly no expert. But on a daily basis I work with P-32 (and the beta particles emitted by this isotope). Betas can travel about 6 feet in air and about 2 inches in water and can be stopped by 1 cm of plastic. So betas to me aren't that scary. But I garauntee if a dirty bomb were set off that spread beta emitting particles, it would be nothing but panic and woe where the event occurred.
MM comments:
This is missing the point. Radiation is nowhere near so significant a problem as most people think; there's a lot of fear and hype, here.
Air-bursting an atomic weapon (or a nuke) is done to get maximum structural damage, but does also suck the fallout higher into the air, so it spreads more. Radiation is not the issue, though there are fallout consequences.
Fallout is irradiated debris scattered in the air; obviously if the bomb is in the middle of a lot more matter (say, a few hundred feet of earth, concrete, and steel) then there will be a lot more irradiated bits of debris stirred up. I'm not sure that they would be more widely dispersed, though.
However, if there's a lot more irradiated matter, and it's not spread as far, then I would expect that the site would be contaminated longer. Any experts out there with facts?
It seems reasonable to use the biggest "boom" we know how to make, scaled down and focussed (however one does that), to prevent despots sitting in bunkers from having the ability to launch larger, less-focused "booms" at unprotected cities and civilians. It is far less destructive and harmful to local populations than a protracted ground war, and also far less likely to get a whole lot of our own killed.
If protecting ourselves and also those of South Korea, Japan, and others in the affected region who we have allowed to depend on us requires turning some bunker into the Kim Jong Il Memorial Radioactive Dunghill, then I for one see no reason not to do it.
As for some of the nuke disinformation repeated in some of the comments above, well,
Cheers,
PGE
Experts are concerned about al Qaeda acquiring a fission bomb but they are also concerned about them acquiring and detonating a "dirty bomb."
Okay, but what is the connection between US research into nuclear "bunker busters" and Al Queda's attempt to get some sort of nuclear weapon? Is it your assertion that if we stopped R&D on nuclear "bunker busters" that Al Queda would stop trying to get a nuke? Maybe I am being obtuse, but I just don't see that happening.
Okay, but what is the connection between US research into nuclear "bunker busters" and Al Queda's attempt to get some sort of nuclear weapon? Is it your assertion that if we stopped R&D on nuclear "bunker busters" that Al Queda would stop trying to get a nuke? Maybe I am being obtuse, but I just don't see that happening.
Both devices will cause a release of radioactive material. Do I have to spell it out? Who is even talking about not pursuing bunker buster bombs to stop al Qaeda from pursuing nuclear bombs. The two are related solely on their impacts to the region in question. While al Qaeda may have no qualms irradiating portions of a country, I'd like to think we do--especially since we are talking about irraditing a friendly country, South Korea, in Joe's scenario.
For all those advocating the development of nuclear bunker buster bombs. Please raise your hand if you would like to buy some property on the edge of the test site? Better yet raise your hand if you want to live on the test site for free? I mean there are no ill effects from such a device correct? No volunteers? Hypocrites.
Moderate,
For all those advocating the development of nuclear bunker buster bombs. Please raise your hand if you would like to buy some property on the edge of the test site? Better yet raise your hand if you want to live on the test site for free?
Um, how many people do you think would choose to live on a site that was hit by a conventional bunker buster? What world do you live in, Moderate?
I mean there are no ill effects from such a device correct? No volunteers? Hypocrites.
I tell you what. If there is a dirty bomb attack in the U.S. I will be the first in line to buy real estate in the area. There will no doubt be fear-mongers like you who will drive down the he price of the properties in the area, making the area a bargain. All I'd have to do is hold on to it until people realized that they have nothing to fear and I'd make a fortune.
Please raise your hand if you would like to buy some property on the edge of the test site?
Since most of the test sites are either underground or in the middle of the desert, I doubt you would have many takers. However, I would point out that Las Vegas is on the edge of a nuclear test site. They certainly don't seem to have any problems with property values.
Um, how many people do you think would choose to live on a site that was hit by a conventional bunker buster? What world do you live in, Moderate?
We used bunker buster bombs in the center of Baghdad. I have feeling there will be buildings on that site before the end of this decade. I can't say the same would be true if we had dropped a fission bomb there.
I tell you what. If there is a dirty bomb attack in the U.S. I will be the first in line to buy real estate in the area. There will no doubt be fear-mongers like you who will drive down the he price of the properties in the area, making the area a bargain. All I'd have to do is hold on to it until people realized that they have nothing to fear and I'd make a fortune.
Good for you joe. I notice you plan on buying real estate. Do you plan on living there as well? If you knew that the land you were buying would expose your children to an environment which will increase their chance of cancer and other ailments significantly will you still be moving in?
Moderate,
Wasn't the point of bringing that up that this was the first study to conclusively show this problem? Science moves forward Joe.
I don’t anyone really disputed the idea that exposing people to obscene amounts of radiation would cause genetic defects.
I'm not saying that a dirty bomb going off in NYC will make NYC a ghost town. I am pointing out that there will be real and not just psychological effects of such a device being detonated.
Who said there wouldn’t be? No one is saying that decontamination and other efforts wouldn’t be necessary. We would want to reduce any unnecessary exposures to radiation. But we shouldn’t overstate the dangers that such exposure would cause.
There would also be a similar effect with the release of nuclear material from the BB in the previous discussion. I submit that the South Koreans should be the one who decide if nuclear weapons are used to collapse DMZ tunnels, not the United States.
Well, of course. That is the way the policy is now. At the request of the ROK government, the U.S. promises to use nuclear weapons to protect against an invasion from the North. The question is whether Kerry would change that policy because of his opposition to using such weaponry.
Again, why not simply collapse the entrances with normal BB's and get rid of the nuclear equation?
Obviously, that would be the best option if it were feasible. The reason we are researching nuclear BB weapons is because conventional types can’t reach the depths (45-100 meters) needed to collapse the tunnels. A paper from the director of the Center for Korean Affairs highlights some of the problems we face:
Good for you joe. I notice you plan on buying real estate. Do you plan on living there as well? If you knew that the land you were buying would expose your children to an environment which will increase their chance of cancer and other ailments significantly will you still be moving in?
Considering the fact that there is no established link between low levels of radiation and cancer I don’t see why I shouldn’t.
Again Joe...you finished the above statement with:
Considering the fact that there is no established link between low levels of radiation and cancer I don’t see why I shouldn’t.
Yet further up you said:
No one is saying that decontamination and other efforts wouldn’t be necessary. We would want to reduce any unnecessary exposures to radiation.
So please explain to me why we are supposde to worry about decontamination and reduction of unnecessary exposure to radiation if you believe there is no correlation between such exposure and the increase in diseases such as cancer?
Most of the underground facilities are drilled into granite rocks and the entrances face north in order to avoid direct hits by American bombs and missiles.
If we don't piss off the Chinese we would have carte blanche to launch northern missions. Just as in Iraq a phase one attack would take out the AA artillery. We could use cruise missiles and other bombs to seal off necessary entrances to the tunnel systems. I don't think the northern face problem is really that much of a problem in that light. Similarly, I thought we were talking about only using nuclear bunker buster bombs to protect the theater against nuclear missile attacks. Do we have data on where these nuclear weapons are stored in NK?
Based on your quote above it sounds like we'd have to carpet bomb Pyongyang with nuclear BB's to effectively destroy the entire tunnel system, not just the entrances to said system, and thus 'chop the head of the snake.' We'd therefore be talking about releasing hundreds or thousands of such nuclear devices. Do you think this is feasible, practical or necessary? I think the average NK is about ready to call it quits on the deluded PM anyway. This would certainly be true if there was a joint invasion from the South with U.S. and South Korean forces and from the north with Chinese and Japanese forces. Remember, no one there likes NK.
Moderate,
So please explain to me why we are supposed to worry about decontamination and reduction of unnecessary exposure to radiation if you believe there is no correlation between such exposure and the increase in diseases such as cancer?
That’s kind of a silly question. Mud and grime doesn’t cause cancer either but that doesn’t mean we want to leave it coated over our property or ourselves. Besides, just because there is no conclusive proof that low levels cause cancer does not mean that it can’t have some lesser harmful effects.
Just as in Iraq a phase one attack would take out the AA artillery.
North Korean artillery can kill 50,000 ROK citizens in the first hour of attack. How much time would you be willing to allow and how many lives would you be willing to sacrifice in order to drop enough conventional munitions to take out these entrenched artillery positions?
We could use cruise missiles and other bombs to seal off necessary entrances to the tunnel systems. I don't think the northern face problem is really that much of a problem in that light.
Why aren’t you working for RAND or the DoD? You obviously have the answers that seem to elude the people who actually study these problems. Seriously, if the U.S. military thought that cruise missile strikes would be enough to seal the tunnels that is what they would be proposing.
Similarly, I thought we were talking about only using nuclear bunker buster bombs to protect the theater against nuclear missile attacks. Do we have data on where these nuclear weapons are stored in NK?
I hate to break it to you, Moderate, but a nuclear strike against North Korea has been the plan for decades. We aren’t talking about anything new here. We are simply talking about adding one more weapon to our arsenal in order to be more effective.
Based on your quote above it sounds like we'd have to carpet bomb Pyongyang with nuclear BB's to effectively destroy the entire tunnel system, not just the entrances to said system, and thus 'chop the head of the snake.' We'd therefore be talking about releasing hundreds or thousands of such nuclear devices. Do you think this is feasible, practical or necessary?
Feasible and practical? Yes. Necessary? Absolutely, if it is required to defend our allies in South Korea from the wanton slaughter by a maniacal dictator. Do you not agree?
I think the average NK is about ready to call it quits on the deluded PM anyway.
And you know this how?
This would certainly be true if there was a joint invasion from the South with U.S. and South Korean forces and from the north with Chinese and Japanese forces. Remember, no one there likes NK.
Invasion? You don’t seem to realize that the NK could destroy all of the ROK and a large part of Japan before we could invade.
North Korean artillery can kill 50,000 ROK citizens in the first hour of attack. How much time would you be willing to allow and how many lives would you be willing to sacrifice in order to drop enough conventional munitions to take out these entrenched artillery positions?
Funny, I never saw people use anti-aircraft artillery to kill people.
Why aren’t you working for RAND or the DoD? You obviously have the answers that seem to elude the people who actually study these problems. Seriously, if the U.S. military thought that cruise missile strikes would be enough to seal the tunnels that is what they would be proposing.
I assure you that only the most inadequate military planner would solely work within a nuclear weapon framework for a war with NK. I wouldn't be surprised if that's all this administration could come up with, but it's just a sign of their further ineptness.
On your casualty counts & the nuclear option...I suppose we could be expedient and turn all of NK into glass. That would certainly stop them from attacking their neighbors any further. Such options would have worked in other wars yet we didn't do it, let me think why...
That’s kind of a silly question. Mud and grime doesn’t cause cancer either but that doesn’t mean we want to leave it coated over our property or ourselves.
Cleanup from a dirty bomb is a lot more thorough and costly than cleaning up "mud and grime." Is it worth the added expense in your mind? Apparently it is, and I argee with you. In fact you then state:
Besides, just because there is no conclusive proof that low levels cause cancer does not mean that it can’t have some lesser harmful effects.
You spent a whole article trying to convince your readers that radiation exposure is really of no risk for people, and then you throw this in when it comes to the hypothetical scenario where it is us the people of the United States that will be affected? So it's okay for us to expose other people to these effects, yet we are to keep ourselves clean of them. Do we have a plan to clean up our newly acquired ally after we drop a few hundred nuclear devices on them? I think we at least should if we want to maintain any good will with the people. History, including present day Iraq, is a great example of why it is important to keep the people on your side. Remember its not the average NK citizen who is putting us at risk it is their maniac PM.
You spent a whole article trying to convince your readers that radiation exposure is really of no risk for people, and then you throw this in when it comes to the hypothetical scenario where it is us the people of the United States that will be affected?
Um, no I didn’t. Why do you even bother to make such statements when what I said is in full view for everyone to see? The point of my article is that the level of exposure that is likely to be caused by a dirty bomb is rather minimal compared to the degree of panic that would be caused.
Let’s assume for the sake of arguement that the detonation of such a bomb would cause 12 more cancer cases per million people. That is certainly a risk, but not necessarily one should cause people to lose sleep at night. You are even more likely to get cancer from the exposure to radiation from second-hand smoke. Yet if you even hinted that we should ban tobacco because of that risk the entire country would be up in arms.
So it's okay for us to expose other people to these effects, yet we are to keep ourselves clean of them.
Let me put it this way. Say you are a South Korean and the North is attacking. You have the choice of calling in a nuclear strike from the U.S. and ending the invasion befo