SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Bill Jackson who wrote (1090)3/22/2003 9:53:53 AM
From: greg s  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 21614
 
Bill,

Respectfully, as an ex-ICBM missile launch officer, I find your position on acceptability of nuclear weapons of any type to be insane and totally ludicrous. It is not just the physics and outcome of various payloads. You are not considering the military response of those who hold nuclear weapons which would certainly not be based on a clinical and collegiate analysis such as yours.



To: Bill Jackson who wrote (1090)3/23/2003 9:42:12 AM
From: Doug R  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21614
 
a smaller nuke, say 500 tons explosive yield and used as a bunker buster will probably (nice hedge) 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.

So 20 or 30 of them get used...it adds up


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News