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.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Yaacov who wrote (4253)	9/23/2001 2:10:54 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23908

small tactical nulcear weapon Isn't that an oxymoron? :0) And the Afghans despise what the Taleban have brought to their country (destruction, war, and oppression)... I'm all for the apparent strategy that we're proposing, the reinstatement of the Afghan monarchy and gradual liberalization to a parlimentary form of government in that country. But it's going to take bucks... big bucks.. to replace the opium that currently provides their largest economic commodity they produce. The majority of afghani people didn't conduct this attack. And those that did, well.... they made their bed and now they can sleep in it. Hawkmoon

To: Yaacov who wrote (4253)	9/23/2001 5:14:10 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

Hi Yaacov; Re tactical nukes. We have conventional weapons that are sufficiently destructive. The larger FAEs are supposed to kill everyone (even in bunkers) within 1/2 mile of the center. And there are lots of smaller ones. The only difference between those and theatre nukes is that theatre nukes are smaller, and therefore easier to transport. Flight 800 was probably taken out with an accidental FAE type explosion in its fuselage fuel cell. Try these out for unclassified information: (2) A minimum of 1,000 meters safe separation distance shall be used for all aviation-delivered ordnance with the following exceptions: ... (f) Fuel Air Explosives (FAE): 2,000 meters ... mcagcc.usmc.mil More official military links mentioning FAEs: doctrine.quantico.usmc.mil doctrine.quantico.usmc.mil fas.org au.af.mil dtic.mil After you've read the above links and realized that FAEs exist but public information on them is kind of ummmmm limited, you can read BS links about them here: csis.org www2b.abc.net.au nawcwpns.navy.mil nawcwpns.navy.mil fas.org zianet.com Sure nukes are smaller, but the US has plenty of transport capability, so we don't have to use them. *So quit talking about using nukes, you're going to scare people. It's scary enough as it is.* Conventional weapons have advanced by incredible leaps since the last major war (WW2). It's very fortunate that all the major powers appear to be lining up on the same side on this one. Right now, it looks to me like it will be a religious / class war, where the losing side will be the lower class Moslem religious fanatics, while the winning side will be the other 95% of the world. It could get very, very, very ugly, but no nukes will be needed. -- Carl