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 : Stop the War! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Doug R who wrote (1083)	3/21/2003 10:44:50 PM
From: Bill Jackson	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21614

Doug. A nuke is just a bang. A 20,000 ton nuke is a wide area weapon and will probably involve civilians. a smaller nuke, say 500 tons explosive yield and used as a bunker buster will probably be contained locally. Project ploughshare explosions down to 10-100 tons show this. Radiation was minimal as such a small core makes a lot less byproduct wasteage, esp the modern desingns. Nukes were bad at 20,000 and esp bad at 50 megatons, as there are zero military targets for that size. But 100 tons, 500 tones, 100 and 50 tones have valid uses, esp with smart bomb aiming metgods that allow you to use the smallest possible size. small neutron bombs are also acceptable militarily, as long as they are smaller sized. Bill