PDA

View Full Version : The destructive power of a nuclear bomb



InvariantLoop
03-22-2005, 01:03 PM
Very good read, you wont be disappointed.

The Destructive Power Of A Nuclear Bomb
(Just in case you didn’t know)

A "megaton" is the explosive power of one million tons of TNT (1). A "kiloton" is the power of one thousand tons of TNT. Bombs likely to be available to terrorist organizations or governments other than the great military powers would be in the 10- to 100-kiloton range. Bombs made by amateurs might not explode with the full power they were designed for.
The two bombs that have been exploded over cities, Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan in August 1945, were in the ten- to twenty-kiloton range. Pakistan and India currently possess 100-200 kiloton type nuclear bombs.

A ONE-MEGATON BOMB DETONATED IN THE AIR

First, we will look at the result of a single bomb of one megaton detonated at an altitude of 2,500 meters above a city, to cause maximum blast effects.

Flash and fireball
The first effect of a nuclear explosion in the air is an intense flash of light, as quick as a lightning flash but a thousand times as bright. It is accompanied by a powerful pulse of heat radiation, sufficient to set fire to light combustible material out to a distance of fourteen km., and to paint or wood at half that distance. There is also an intense pulse of X-rays, sufficient to be lethal at a distance of three km.; in fact that would be a rather small factor, since people that close would all or nearly all be killed by the blast that follows.
Immediately after the flash, a "fireball" forms in the air and rises for several seconds, blindingly bright and radiating much heat. On a clear day or night, people up to eighty km. away who happened to be facing that way, or who turned their eyes to look where the flash came from, would be temporarily or permanently blinded.
Within ten km. of "ground zero" (which is the point directly under the explosion) all parts of the body exposed to the flash would be burned deeply into the flesh. Superficial burns would be caused at greater distances, out to fifteen km. at least. Clothing that caught fire would cause many more burns. The weather conditions prevailing, and the time of day the bomb exploded, would both influence the degrees of damage. For example, the radii for skin burns and blindness would depend on the weather. Mist or fog reduces the range of the heat and light rays; on the other hand, darkness dilates the pupils of the eyes increasing the probability of severe eye damage from the flash.

Blast
Starting at the same instant, but traveling more slowly (like the sound of thunder following a lightning flash) is an enormously powerful blast wave. It would destroy even reinforced concrete buildings for a radius of two km., and ordinary brick or timber frame houses out to eight km. Major damage to houses would extend out to fourteen km., and windows would be broken at twenty or thirty km. People at a distance, if they realized what had happened when they saw the flash, would have a few seconds to lie down, or even to dive into a ditch or hollow, before the blast hit.
Within three km., almost everyone would be killed, either directly by the blast or by collapsing or flying masonry. At eight km., it is estimated that about fifty per cent of people would be killed by the effects of the blast.
Immediately following the blast wave would be hurricane force winds, first outwards from the explosion, and many seconds later inwards to replace the air that went out. Within four km., the wind would be of tornado force, six hundred km. /hr., sufficient to drive straws into wooden utility poles or glass splinters into people, but of course over a much wider area than a tornado. People in the open would be picked up and hurled into any object strong enough to be still standing.

Firestorm
Many fires would have been started by the first flash. Burst fuel tanks, gas mains, and collapsed buildings would provide more fuel, and it is likely that confluent fires would cause a "firestorm". This is when coalescent fires cause sufficient updraft to form their own wind, blowing inwards from all sides and thereby increasing the intensity of the fire. The temperature even in basements and bomb shelters rises above lethal levels, and all available oxygen is used by the fire.
The wind blowing inwards is of gale force, so that even strong uninjured people would have difficulty walking or trying to run outwards away from the fire.
Delayed Radiation ("fallout")
A nuclear explosion, as well as giving off a great pulse of radiation at the time, leaves everything in the vicinity radioactive. In the case of an "air-burst" as just described, most of the radioactive products would be gaseous, or completely vaporized, and would rise with the fireball and come down slowly, if at all. There might be a rainstorm containing radioactivity, as there was at Hiroshima; and the rubble within a kilometer or two of the ground zero would be radioactive. This might hamper later rescue efforts, and affect the very few survivors from that central area, but would not be a major factor.
In any nuclear bomb explosion, a large fraction (a minimum of one-third) of the original fissile material (plutonium or U-235) does not get destroyed. This would result in widespread contamination, increasing the late risk of cancer for those who survived ten to twenty years. (These amounts of plutonium and uranium would have no immediate toxic effects.)

Rescue Problems
If the bomb exploded squarely over the centre of a city, no rescue services within the area of major structural damage would be able to function. All down-town hospitals would be destroyed, and there would be no electricity, water, or telephone communication in the area served by city utilities.
Rescue services from outside would be hampered by impassable roads and the central area of severe damage would be inaccessible. The number of injured in the peripheral area would be so great that emergency services of surrounding cities would be completely overloaded, as would be any surviving suburban hospitals and all the hospitals of neighboring cities. Even to be seen by a doctor and given analgesics, the injured from one city would need to be distributed among all the hospitals of North America.
The destroyed city would be radioactive. Decisions to attempt rescue work would depend first on a survey of the area by a specialist team with appropriate protection, and then on a policy decision as to how much radiation the rescue teams should be permitted. Willingness of the team members and their unions to accept the risk would be a final factor.

Medical Problems
The estimates for a city of one million or two million struck by a single one-megaton bomb are that around one third of the inhabitants would be killed instantly or fatally injured, one third seriously injured, and the rest uninjured or only slightly injured. That number of injured, if they could be distributed throughout the hospitals of North America, would occupy something like a third of the total number of beds; and of course no hospital can deal adequately with such an influx of urgent cases within a few days.
There might be fifty times as many cases of severe burns as there are burn beds in the whole of North America. A whole year's supply of blood for transfusion would be needed immediately, and of course is not available in storage nor could it be collected from volunteers in a few days.
The injured who reached hospitals would have to be assayed for radioactivity, for the safety of the staff, which would cause a serious bottle-neck and delay in most hospitals.
The result of this huge overload of cases is that most of the injured would die, even though prompt treatment might have saved them. Relatively few would even get reached by rescue teams before they were moribund or dead; the majority would probably die in hours or days without any analgesic, and without food, water, or any assistance.

A ONE-MEGATON BOMB DETONATED AT GROUND LEVEL
If the bomb exploded at ground level instead of high above the city, the main difference would be an enormous crater four hundred meters across and seventy meters deep. All the dirt, rock, or masonry excavated would be made into radioactive dust and small debris. The larger particles would quickly descend in the immediate vicinity, and the finer particles and dust would descend in minutes or hours, mainly downwind from the site of the explosion.
The radiation dose to people exposed to this fallout would depend upon many factors, and would be enough to be lethal to anyone in the open or in a frame house for several hundred kilometers downwind. A simple basement "fallout shelter" would afford good protection. It would be necessary to spend a week or more in a fall-out shelter, and it would be impossible to judge when it would be safe to leave without a radiation survey meter or advice from public health authorities.
The area of blast damage would be smaller by perhaps a half, compared with an air-burst, though an earthquake effect would add to structural damage to buildings. The number of immediate deaths might be about half of those from an air-burst, but unless survivors could find protection from fall-out there would be many deaths from radiation sickness days or weeks after the bomb.

A TEN-KILOTON BOMB DETONATED AT GROUND LEVEL
If a bomb in the 10- to 20-kiloton range (the likeliest terrorist bomb) were to be exploded near ground level or in a ship in the harbor, the areas of blast, heat, and burn damage would be much smaller, perhaps reaching out to only one-tenth of the distances estimated for the one-megaton air-burst. The numbers of immediately killed and severely injured people would be counted in thousands, not hundreds of thousands.
Exploded on land, the bomb would vaporize all people and buildings in the immediate vicinity, and make a crater that might be as much as one hundred meters in diameter. If in the harbor, there would be a crater in the harbor floor and a tidal wave. The outstanding feature would be a radioactive downpour because much of the water in the harbor would be made radioactive and thrown high into the air as fine and coarse spray.
The explosion at ground level of this type of bomb would probably not cause a firestorm, so rescue operations for the injured might have some degree of success.
In either case, radioactive fallout would be serious, and might make the city, and an area of countryside stretching tens of kilometers downwind, uninhabitable for weeks or years. There would be a number of deaths from radiation sickness, for which there is really no effective medical treatment. The total amount of radioactivity might be comparable with the Chernobyl disaster, more or less depending on many circumstances.

THE ENHANCED RADIATION WEAPON OR "NEUTRON BOMB"
This is a small 'hydrogen bomb' in the 1- to 10-kiloton range without the outer casing of depleted uranium, which in an ordinary hydrogen bomb stops the neutrons that are formed and converts them into additional explosive power. The result is a spray of neutrons that is lethal for a distance of a few hundred meters. These neutrons, unlike the X-rays from the explosion, penetrate a considerable thickness of concrete or steel protection, like defense posts or the sides of a tank. They are designed for 'battle-field' use, not for use against cities. It is commonly said that neutron bombs spare buildings, but we believe this is a misconception. The blast effect would be reduced by half, and would still be enormous.

HOW COULD THIS SORT OF "ONE-BOMB" SCENARIO DEVELOP?
It is worth considering what circumstances might result in one or just a few nuclear bombs exploding, as opposed to a major nuclear war.
We hope, but we cannot be sure, that a nuclear attack by one of the "great powers" against a smaller country (which has been threatened several times since 1945) would never be carried out for any reason whatever.
There have been serious risks of war involving smaller military powers with nuclear weapons, such as India, Pakistan, and Israel. Clear or veiled threats of nuclear attack have been made by these countries, and might be again. Such use would most probably be directed at cities, and the bombs delivered by aircraft or relatively short-range rocket. It might be air-burst or ground-burst, with bombs in the ten- to one-hundred kiloton range.
Accidental or unauthorized launch of an intercontinental missile or a submarine-launched missile from one of the big nuclear arsenals might destroy a city with a bomb in the range of 100 kilotons to 1 megaton.
A terrorist type of attack is perhaps the most likely risk, and might be done by criminals for blackmail or ransom, or might be directed by an unidentified hostile government against a country too powerful for a declaration of war to be considered. It is possible that a 'hydrogen bomb' might be acquired from one of the superpower arsenals, and delivered by ship to the harbor of a port. More likely is a bomb in the ten-kiloton range exploded at ground level in a city, or in a ship.
An accident to a nuclear weapon, such as dropping it down a silo or from an aircraft, would not cause a full-scale nuclear explosion, but could scatter kilograms of plutonium by detonation of the high-explosive charge. To cause a nuclear explosion, the charge has to be detonated absolutely simultaneously all round the nuclear core, which is done by special electric circuits. Accidental detonation by a shock would not do this, but one wonders whether an electrical fault or a lightning stroke could ever do it.

FINAL COMMENTS
The above description was set in the context of a North American city. As proliferation of nuclear weapons continues, there is a greater risk that a tropical city may be attacked.
In such circumstances, the deaths and injuries from firestorms and flash burns would be higher than in the North American context, because many of the dwellings would be of light construction, and a higher proportion of the population would be likely to be in the open at the time of the explosion.
The distances quoted from ground zero are derived from a number of secondary sources, which not all agree. Basically the numbers are derived from United States government measurements made during the years before 1963, when test nuclear explosions were permitted in the atmosphere.
It does not really matter if some of these distances are not accurate. Similarly, even if the estimates of deaths and injuries are considerably over-stated, the consequences of exploding a nuclear bomb and giving rise to a disaster even approaching this magnitude - anywhere on earth - remain completely unacceptable.
The only way to abolish this risk is to get rid of all the nuclear bombs in the world.

Govtcheez
03-22-2005, 01:20 PM
This is a really informative thread. Thanks for posting it.

PING
03-22-2005, 03:22 PM
This is a really informative thread. Thanks for posting it
its scary too !

Welshy
03-22-2005, 03:38 PM
scary to think the countrys argueing in the middle east have the power to annihilate each other, literally

no-one
03-22-2005, 04:55 PM
Graphical Illustrations:


http://media.exbyte.net/media/videos/e19d6a912e6ae7ab29ec06d47fc1299e.mpeg

underground detonation.
http://www.big-boys.com/articles/nuketest.html


and just to clarify... 1 Megaton Nukes are nothing

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/content_pages/record.asp?recordid=53275

and there are more effects from a nuclear detonation than those listed...

Darkness
03-22-2005, 06:10 PM
But hey, George Bush is the devil for not wanting terrorists to have this stuff to play with.

PING
03-22-2005, 10:21 PM
But hey, George Bush is the devil for not wanting terrorists to have this stuff to play with

yeah, but i heard that north korea is developing 2 nukes and some paki scientist was selling the secrets of nukes to iran n some other countries !

cgod
03-22-2005, 10:58 PM
I really doubt the terrorists will detonate a nuclear weapon on a north american city it wont further thier cause and the likly consequences of this would be a full out nuclear "counter-strike" against the middle-east.
After 9/11 2 countries were invaded and hundred's of thousands were killed because of 3thousand american dead imagine what it would do if the casulties were 100 times higher.

jverkoey
03-22-2005, 11:18 PM
imagine what it would do if the casulties were 100 times higher.

A whole-out nuclear war would be started, the Earth would be knocked off its axis and we'd shoot in to the sun.

cgod
03-22-2005, 11:35 PM
I hate to say jeff but your guess is probly close to the truth with religous fanatics like bush who knows what would happen.

PING
03-23-2005, 12:42 AM
A whole-out nuclear war would be started, the Earth would be knocked off its axis and we'd shoot in to the sun.

not exactly, the recent earthquake in indonesia, which caused the tsunami was a real strong one, and released a considerable amount of energy, but the earth was just displaced by some 2.5 inches..so i dont guess that we would shoot into the sun as such, but yes, most of us wont be alive to see what happens, if a nuclear war does occur..lets hope for the best :)

nvoigt
03-23-2005, 01:33 AM
But hey, George Bush is the devil for not wanting terrorists to have this stuff to play with.


He's more devilish for invading a country that he accused of having WMDs without proof and without even finding them after conquering said country. As far as WMDs go, this war is waged on the wrong battlefield.



I really doubt the terrorists will detonate a nuclear weapon on a north american city it wont further thier cause and the likly consequences of this would be a full out nuclear "counter-strike" against the middle-east.


Terrorist don't care much for their cause. I don't think killing children is especially good for their cause and they still do. If you go out to kill yourself and take 3K people with you, I guess you would also go kill yourself when you can take 300K with you.

Why would the US nuke the middle east ? The terrorist itself is probably dead by then. Who do you nuke ? The guys who sold the bomb ? Very convincing, I don't think even Bush would nuke the former USSR or India or even Israel or France. It's not like you can build a bomb in a tent at night right between a goat and a camel.

BTW: I read "Debt of Honor" by Clancy in school. Back then, crashing an airliner into a capital building was considered fiction. "The sum of all fears" isn't that bad either. Watch the movie if you have to, for a 90 minutes movie of a 500 pages book it's quite ok.

major_small
03-23-2005, 02:29 AM
I would hope even a religious fanatic like Bush would recognize the danger in launching a "full out nuclear counter-strike". I don't think there is a country in the world that would back that move. if that did happen, I think the UN would (hopefully) invade the USA, and the empire would crumble.

Darkness
03-23-2005, 10:54 AM
He's more devilish for invading a country that he accused of having WMDs without proof and without even finding them after conquering said country. As far as WMDs go, this war is waged on the wrong battlefield.


I do not condone hijacking threads especially when the manifestation of it is political, however Bush was in a particularly difficult situation: do we invade the country of a brutal dictator who has used WMDs in the past and likely wants to develop them in the future, or do we do nothing but take the chance that sometime in the future terrorists *might* be able to get a WMD? Well, the latter option was not something the administration was willing to chance on. As I have said in another thread, if a WMD was used against us it would make the number of deaths incurred in Sept11, Afghanistan, and Iraq look like a turkey shoot...am I the only one that thinks this way and appreciates that?

Also, I actually disagreed with the war and voted for Kerry...I highly preferred to just increase the number of weapons inspectors by about %1000 (a theoretical invasion but with UN support), but, I'm just tired of unfair leftist BS arguments...the way our society works we have someone in charge, they make decisions, and we do what they say even if it's on a 'gut' feeling. Why? Because otherwise we would never get anything done, if we needed to wait for a vote from Congress to use the military (we need one to declare war however) we could be invaded by Cuba over the weekend.
I'm sure I'm going to get flamed, rated down, and shot down with conspiracy theories, but I don't see how any of what I've said is irrational, unfair, or unrealistic.

Govtcheez
03-23-2005, 11:08 AM
I do not condone hijacking threads especially when the manifestation of it is political, however Bush was in a particularly difficult situation: do we invade the country of a brutal dictator who has used WMDs in the past and likely wants to develop them in the future, or do we do nothing but take the chance that sometime in the future terrorists *might* be able to get a WMD?Well, in that case it's a good thing we went after Saddam. After all, we had all that evidence that he still had WMDs and was still developing them. I mean, it's not like we fabricated or twisted what little evidence there was so we could justify the war.

It's certainly obvious that there are no other countries in the world that hate the US and actually possess WMDs (Iran, NK, etc). Thank God for Bush!

no-one
03-23-2005, 11:26 AM
why do people have to be such dumbasses? Saddam had WMD's... period... he never showed or proved in any way he got rid of them... period... just cause they havn't been found doesn't mean they dont or do exist in Iraq, they went somewhere... period... where the ........ are they? why the hell is nobody looking for them?!!?!?!?!!?!?!?! oh yeah, they're to ........ing busy being idiots and haveing a Bush bashing party for the next 10 years. W00T!!!

bottom line is the CIA ........ed up, the Bush Administration ........ed up, the Britts ........ed up, they should have at LEAST had some lock on some WMD's before using that as justification, BUT they're assumtions were valid based on intelligence, etc... depending on your take on it.... hindsite is 20/20... put yourself in that place and time before you jump on your high horse... and under the resolutions passed by the U.N. the U.S. was theoretically justified in its attack for 10 years, and then depending on your take on it like eveything about this the U.S. theoretically did not have "full" U.N. support, and you might sway that as making it non justified...


> if we needed to wait for a vote from Congress to use the military (we need one to declare war however)

if im not mistaken the President has the power of an "emergency military action" for 90 days without Congressional approval.


I'm so tired of the unjustified commentary on Bush... you all are a bunch of ........ing losers... with nothing better to do but play a big stupid game follow the leader.


>But hey, George Bush is the devil for not wanting terrorists to have this stuff to play with.

not hes a fanatical monkey puppet controlled by cheney and the religious right... who only wants oil and revenge...


this thread is about Nukes btw... not how stupid you think bush is.

Darkness
03-23-2005, 03:30 PM
Don't be a douche govt. I definitely didn't go that far, and maybe you didn't read that I friggin voted for Kerry. I'm hardly spreading right wing conservative bs, but it is good to get a different point of view on here. Although sang didn't actually do anything like it, I'm sick of people saying we did it for oil and junk like that. Oh well.

sean
03-23-2005, 05:41 PM
WMD's, Schmubble ewe emm dee's. The dude had rape chambers in his palace, and he's the victim? That doesn't add up. WMD's weren't the only reason for attacking Iraq, whether you think they had them or not.

And sovereign countries with nuclear weapons are not the problem. The concept of Mutually Assured Destruction has held true for quite some time. The only time that threat need even be discussed is if security is a problem for that country, for instance, if that country were to be a likely source for the more-difficult-to-track terrorist organizations.

And by the way, Darkness, saying you voted for Kerry does not make you correct in the eyes of others who may have voted for Kerry, so don't use that as an excuse to spout forth crap.

Darkness
03-23-2005, 05:54 PM
I actually did vote for Kerry, so when I give fair and objective arguments for Bush (not saying he did the right thing, but putting unfair people in their place) people do actually tend to listen. Maybe you don't, but others tend to. I think my point of view tends to be pretty realistic and fair.

I don't like the argument that we went in there to help the people or whatever. We don't just go into countries to 'help the people', it's pretty clear to me we did it because of the WMDs. Saying we went in there to help the people just tends to sound like politics, not something I'd actually expect reasonably intelligent people to believe...

DeepFyre
03-23-2005, 06:46 PM
why do people have to be such dumbasses? Saddam had WMD's... period... he never showed or proved in any way he got rid of them... period... just cause they havn't been found doesn't mean they dont or do exist in Iraq, they went somewhere... period... where the ........ are they? why the hell is nobody looking for them?!!?!?!?!!?!?!?! oh yeah, they're to ........ing busy being idiots and haveing a Bush bashing party for the next 10 years. W00T!!!

bottom line is the CIA ........ed up, the Bush Administration ........ed up, the Britts ........ed up, they should have at LEAST had some lock on some WMD's before using that as justification, BUT they're assumtions were valid based on intelligence, etc... depending on your take on it.... hindsite is 20/20... put yourself in that place and time before you jump on your high horse... and under the resolutions passed by the U.N. the U.S. was theoretically justified in its attack for 10 years, and then depending on your take on it like eveything about this the U.S. theoretically did not have "full" U.N. support, and you might sway that as making it non justified...


> if we needed to wait for a vote from Congress to use the military (we need one to declare war however)

if im not mistaken the President has the power of an "emergency military action" for 90 days without Congressional approval.


I'm so tired of the unjustified commentary on Bush... you all are a bunch of ........ing losers... with nothing better to do but play a big stupid game follow the leader.


>But hey, George Bush is the devil for not wanting terrorists to have this stuff to play with.

not hes a fanatical monkey puppet controlled by cheney and the religious right... who only wants oil and revenge...


this thread is about Nukes btw... not how stupid you think bush is.


why do you have to be such a dumbass? how the ........ do you know he had wmds? your just going off of what bush and the UN said, and neither found any wmds in bush's frenzy to scour iraq. even if he did have a substantial amount of wmds where the hell did they go? you clearly dont know so you clearly cant make conclusions that he had wmds

Darkness
03-23-2005, 06:55 PM
Oh come on you guys aren't supposed to actually get worked up about this stuff...now that's really just plain silly. Oh yeah, mods close threads like this, fyi.

cgod
03-23-2005, 08:33 PM
He's more devilish for invading a country that he accused of having WMDs without proof and without even finding them after conquering said country. As far as WMDs go, this war is waged on the wrong battlefield.



Terrorist don't care much for their cause. I don't think killing children is especially good for their cause and they still do. If you go out to kill yourself and take 3K people with you, I guess you would also go kill yourself when you can take 300K with you.

Why would the US nuke the middle east ? The terrorist itself is probably dead by then. Who do you nuke ? The guys who sold the bomb ? Very convincing, I don't think even Bush would nuke the former USSR or India or even Israel or France. It's not like you can build a bomb in a tent at night right between a goat and a camel.

BTW: I read "Debt of Honor" by Clancy in school. Back then, crashing an airliner into a capital building was considered fiction. "The sum of all fears" isn't that bad either. Watch the movie if you have to, for a 90 minutes movie of a 500 pages book it's quite ok.

We should have left the middle-east and places like it alone we gave 21st century technology to people who had a 12th century mentality they would have been happy with thier camels and now we are probly going to pay the price when some fanatic blows himself up taking 1000s with him and start's a nuclear war.

sean
03-23-2005, 10:10 PM
where the hell did they go?

Jordan

edit: And yes, this thread likely will be closed if it turns into a flame war. I don't think there's a problem with it turning from some information on the effects of a nuclear bomb into a discussion of WMD's, but let's keep it civil.

no-one
03-23-2005, 10:26 PM
>how the ........ do you know he had wmds?

we gave them to him...


:edited for civility:

major_small
03-23-2005, 11:56 PM
>how the ........ do you know he had wmds?

we gave them to him...


:edited for civility:
just to let you know, he did let us know he didn't have them. he did let the inspectors in, and he did dismantle his weapons. sure, there was a shady period before the attack* that we didn't know what he was doing, but the attack proved one thing: whatever he was doing, it wasn't stockpiling weapons.



*by 'attack', I mean the terrorist attack on Iraq headed up by the United States.

no-one
03-24-2005, 12:20 AM
>he did let us know he didn't have them:

cliaming he doest have them != not having them;

>he did let the inspectors in

letting the inspectors into the country != letting them inspect;

>and he did dismantle his weapons

claiming to have dismantled them != having dismantled them;

>whatever he was doing, it wasn't stockpiling weapons.

not being able to find weapons known to once exist != weapons not existing;

not being able to find weapons known to once exist == saddam did something with them, the question is what.

taking Saddams word for anything == ........ing retarded.


:edited for succinctness and clarity:

major_small
03-24-2005, 12:25 AM
»cliaming he doest have them and not accounting for what happened to them != not having them;

but how do you explain the inspectors seeing evidence of dismantled weapons?

»letting the inspectors into the country != letting them inspect;

so, you're saying the inspectors made up their reports?

»claiming to have dismantled them and neither showing nor having any evidence of this != having dismantled his weapons;

again, the inspectors are lying?

»not being able to find weapons known to once exist != weapons not existing;

no, but knowing that he was (albeit very slowly) making progress towards disarmament and no evidence of wmd's anywhere == good possibility they don't exist

»not being able to find weapons known to once exist == saddam did something with them, the question is what.

did you forget that the very country that first made these claims already admitted it was wrong?

no-one
03-24-2005, 12:35 AM
>
but how do you explain the inspectors seeing evidence of dismantled weapons?
<

if i remember correctly they only found evidence of the dismanteling that the previous inspectors had done, i dont remember EVER hearing of ANY evidence of Saddam dismantling anything except people.

>so, you're saying the inspectors made up their reports?

no, im saying i heard a lot of complaints from the inspectors...

>again, the inspectors are lying?

see first paragraph...

>no, but knowing that he was (albeit very slowly) making progress towards disarmament and no evidence of wmd's anywhere == good possibility they don't exist
<

no he showed no progress... there was evidence of they're existence, compounded by the fact that he REFUSED to account for the missing WMD's...

>did you forget that the very country that first made these claims already admitted it was wrong?

about what? about being able to find them... about being able to prove that he still had them and was stockpiling them? yes, but that doesnt prove he didn't bury them in the ........ing desert now does it? doesnt prove that he didnt have them does it? no it only proves that NOBODY knows where the ........ they are and nobody can find them.


edit: lemmie make a note of the fact that a key part of the U.N.s resolutions were that Saddam ACCOUNT for the WMD's he was KNOWN to have, or to have had... he FAILED to do this.

NoUse
03-24-2005, 01:21 AM
How does such a sweet thread that involves nuclear bombs get hijacked and turned into a political debate?

Sturmwaffle
03-24-2005, 02:14 AM
I love the clip of the 280mm atomic connon firing one off. I would have liked to attend that test if I was alive back then :D

BMJ
03-24-2005, 02:46 AM
How does such a sweet thread that involves nuclear bombs get hijacked and turned into a political debate?Welcome to GD. :(