have a dozen backpack nukes, nobody DARES
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
Joined
·
10,278 Posts
Backpack nukes have a very limited range and are not the megadeath weapon that you imagine. Tactical in nature, they are best for scaring the sh!t out of the sheeple. The biologicals are much more deadly. BTW, Israel doesn't waste its time with backpacks - they have the biggies that turn cities into glass.
RIKA
RIKA
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
The US has replaced backpack nukes with precision guided muntions. The cruise missile did more to eliminate the need for a backpack nuke than anything else.
What is the purpose of a backpack nuke? to blow something up that you can't get real close too. With precision munitions, there isn't much that we can't get close to (or hit out right)
plus a backpack nuke is going to be very limited in it's yield - I've heard they are in the 1-2 kt range, but am not an expert on this - I'm sure someone has better info on this.
You seem to like to take the lowest, most ineficient weapons and claim they are uber weapons.
A backpack nuke IS a terrorist weapon in today's climate, but they won't leave cities uninhabitable, they won't kill millions of people.
Look at Chernobyl, the world's worst nuclear accident (more contamination that Hirosima and Nagasaki combined) They did a hell of a job cleaning up afterwards (yes, they are STILL doing clean up), and the area is not a total write off.
Biological weapons are a greater concern, because unlike an explosive that once it is used, you are faced with clean up, they can be self-sustaining. Though most weapons are designed not to be.
You can have your little backpack nukes, but any country with cruise missiles will wipe you out long before you can use them.
It's that whole long range shooting thing. you'll be dead before you get close enough to use your weapons.
:devil:
What is the purpose of a backpack nuke? to blow something up that you can't get real close too. With precision munitions, there isn't much that we can't get close to (or hit out right)
plus a backpack nuke is going to be very limited in it's yield - I've heard they are in the 1-2 kt range, but am not an expert on this - I'm sure someone has better info on this.
You seem to like to take the lowest, most ineficient weapons and claim they are uber weapons.
A backpack nuke IS a terrorist weapon in today's climate, but they won't leave cities uninhabitable, they won't kill millions of people.
Look at Chernobyl, the world's worst nuclear accident (more contamination that Hirosima and Nagasaki combined) They did a hell of a job cleaning up afterwards (yes, they are STILL doing clean up), and the area is not a total write off.
Biological weapons are a greater concern, because unlike an explosive that once it is used, you are faced with clean up, they can be self-sustaining. Though most weapons are designed not to be.
You can have your little backpack nukes, but any country with cruise missiles will wipe you out long before you can use them.
It's that whole long range shooting thing. you'll be dead before you get close enough to use your weapons.
:devil:
The Russians had ADU's (atomic demolition units) prepositioned in the West for agents in place to blow vital targets just before or during hostilities.
Just before he died in a questionable helicopter crash in Siberia, where he was the governor, former Russian general Alexander Lebed stated that there were 200 'suitcase nukes' unaccounted for.
While they may not be able to obliterate a city, you could put one in the back of a taxi (no shortage of Arab cab drivers in NYC), rig it with a suicide switch, and then drive it right up to the NY Stock Exchange and set it off right in the middle of a trading day. Imagine what THAT would do to the US economy and to civil rights in this country.
Just before he died in a questionable helicopter crash in Siberia, where he was the governor, former Russian general Alexander Lebed stated that there were 200 'suitcase nukes' unaccounted for.
While they may not be able to obliterate a city, you could put one in the back of a taxi (no shortage of Arab cab drivers in NYC), rig it with a suicide switch, and then drive it right up to the NY Stock Exchange and set it off right in the middle of a trading day. Imagine what THAT would do to the US economy and to civil rights in this country.
Joined
·
4,645 Posts
oh, no doubt they would cause huge problems.
But, if that were to happen, you think we got excited and energized after 9/11 and when after afganastan?
I'm willing to bet that if a terrorist group did have possesion of a backpack nuke, syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. would do everything in their power to PREVENT it from ever being used.
We get nuked, and we will level anyone who even knows a terrorist group. And I think they realize it which is why it hasn't happened.
If a backpack nuke is used, it won't be on US soil.
There is a certain threshold, that once crossed, will cause us to forget playing nice and following rules as a country. A nuke falls into that category, IMHO.
:devil:
But, if that were to happen, you think we got excited and energized after 9/11 and when after afganastan?
I'm willing to bet that if a terrorist group did have possesion of a backpack nuke, syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. would do everything in their power to PREVENT it from ever being used.
We get nuked, and we will level anyone who even knows a terrorist group. And I think they realize it which is why it hasn't happened.
If a backpack nuke is used, it won't be on US soil.
There is a certain threshold, that once crossed, will cause us to forget playing nice and following rules as a country. A nuke falls into that category, IMHO.
:devil:
But, on the other side of the coin, a small nuke would be the ultimate 'Reichstag Fire'.
A lot of the influence directing the course of this country nowadays is globalist in nature and not necessarily for the benefit of this nation or it's people, the insane policy of the US regarding it's southern border being an example.
If a nuke were to ever be used on US soil, then it would get your average American behind a crusade which would put the resources of many countries under the control of the US military and available to those with influence upon the American government.
For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is one of the ultimate insiders in Washington. NSA chief under Carter and stayed on under Reagan to finish implementing FEMA in it's current form.
In the early 1990's, he published a book most Americans have never read, it was called, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives ".
In that book he talked of the absolute need to secure access to the vast oil wealth of the Caspian Basin. To do that would require a pipeline through Afghanistan.
To THAT would probably require American military intervention into Afghanistan. To do that would require the support of the American people.
They would never give their support unless there was an attack upon American soil which could be tied into that area.
Furthermore, a nuke going off on American soil, especially with lots of casualties, could well turn the US into a de-facto dictatorship with a willing nod from a terrified and panicked US public.
A lot of the influence directing the course of this country nowadays is globalist in nature and not necessarily for the benefit of this nation or it's people, the insane policy of the US regarding it's southern border being an example.
If a nuke were to ever be used on US soil, then it would get your average American behind a crusade which would put the resources of many countries under the control of the US military and available to those with influence upon the American government.
For example, Zbigniew Brzezinski, is one of the ultimate insiders in Washington. NSA chief under Carter and stayed on under Reagan to finish implementing FEMA in it's current form.
In the early 1990's, he published a book most Americans have never read, it was called, "The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives ".
In that book he talked of the absolute need to secure access to the vast oil wealth of the Caspian Basin. To do that would require a pipeline through Afghanistan.
To THAT would probably require American military intervention into Afghanistan. To do that would require the support of the American people.
They would never give their support unless there was an attack upon American soil which could be tied into that area.
Furthermore, a nuke going off on American soil, especially with lots of casualties, could well turn the US into a de-facto dictatorship with a willing nod from a terrified and panicked US public.
andy said:
Not true. Israel has cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, SLBMs, artillery nukes (most of their enhanced radiation warheads fall into this category), they certainly do not use mere backpack nukes to hold off the muslim horde.
1-2kT is about as big as they get. Most of the true "backpack" nukes are in the sub-kT range.Aslan said:
I also don't think even the globalist forces would want to try the nuclear "Reichstag" gambit. It's been a well known fact that our policy is to respond to a nuclear, biological or chemical attack with nuclear weapons. That might just backfire for the globalists, with the US just nukeing who it wants in response, and moving in "peacekeeping" forces to contain teh area, and to take direct control of whatever resources are in the area.
I really don't see nukes being used until we're at the Kings of the North campaign in Israel.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
