Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Advanced Micro Devices - Moderated (AMD) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: hmaly who wrote (55509)	9/16/2001 3:18:11 AM
From: Joe NYC	Respond to of 275872

Harry, To hunt down people hiding in the mountains may be a challenge to a naked eye, but with all the surveillance technology, satellites, spy planes, night vision, infrared lenses, I think our technology advantage will surpass the advantage of defensive positions and terrain. The small neutron shells fired in regular artillerary guns is one such weapon, as the neutrons can penetrate stone and kill the guerellas in their hiding places. We may have to chose between heavy loses or using them. It is such a low probability that we would use these, that it is not even worth discussing. These are weapons to be used as last resort. We have a lot of other options before we start using weapons of last resort. While it may have been a sensible weapon to stop columns of 100s of 1,000s of Soviet block tanks in a defensive war, they would be an overkill in Afganistan. Joe

To: hmaly who wrote (55509)	9/16/2001 6:20:28 AM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 275872

Hi hmaly; Your suggestion that neutron bombs are a useful weapon against possible Afghanistan rebels is ridiculous and inflammatory. First of all, Neutron bombs are designed for use against concentrations of well armored or well dug-in enemy. A guerilla commander would have to be completely mindless to concentrate his forces so tightly that they could be hit with neutron bombs. If he did concentrate them that closely, a far less politically destabilizing weapon would be FAEs, which we did use (to good effect) against the Iraqis. Here's a reference for you to read, if you're looking forward to all the death that you will hopefully be able to see brought live to you on CNN. These weapons use blast, not fragments, and so are highly effective against bunkers and the like: bullatomsci.org But the fact is that guerilla forces in mountains get routed out because they eventually run out of food. Without sources of food (as well as other materiel) they are forced to give up. Even if they have food, as they run out of ammunition their threat goes away. There was a Japanese soldier who kept fighting the US after WW2 for what, 25 years, but he didn't kill very many people after 1945. If it were possible to fight a realistic guerilla war from the mountains (without support from a foreign power) we'd be still fighting, for instance, the Mescalero Apache, (like they threatened): cinprograms.org -- Carl