Well, if conventional bunker busters would work, to avoid fallout, I support using them rather than nuclear weapons. Thank you for the information, Sinanju.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

Perhaps you could show us the full quotes and what it is that you're talking about. Michelle Malkin is no slouch, nor is she a propagandist. She's also just as apt to call President Bush on things she feels he's doing wrong as she would anyone else.

Diplomatically? Like what?
That's odd. It seems to me that he's saying quite the opposite.

__________________
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."
Ecclesiastes 10:2 (NIV)

The point of Bunker Busters is to put a great deal of explosive power into a small area. That is hard to do with conventional weapons; we can make an explosion equal to a mini-nuke with conventional explosives, but it will not be as concentrated.

That is the appeal of the nuclear bunker busters. Penitration.

A lot of people do not like them because they are nuclear, and yes, they do produce fallout just like normal nukes. But the affected area is extremely small compared to normal nukes...measured in a few miles total. They are not meant to be used as precision weapons. You cant use them in the middle of a city. But for situations like what we saw in Afghanistan (hardened bunkers deep in remote mountains) they are useful.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Well, to the best of your knowledge, S-S, are the Iranian nuclear facilities buried too deep to be destroyed by conventional bunker busters?

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

I dont know. That is why no one has committed to actually using them. Only to keeping the option open.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

Okay, then I'll take the same stance. If conventional bunker busters penetrate well enough, then we should use those; but if they don't, we should use nuclear bunker busters.

__________________
"I am a Tory Anarchist. I should like every one to go about doing just as he pleased- short of altering any of the things to which I have grown accustomed." (Max Beerbohm)

"to avoid fallout"

Fallout is bad... unless you are in a nightclub full of hawt chicas!

But the nukulah bunkerbusters have very minute amounts of irradiated fallout. Furthermore, we could just airburst the entire country a few times... minimal fallout... maximum damage.

For the record though, I am against nukulah action in the ME... I would hate to ignite the oil.

I need it for my two SUVs, my volvo, my golf carts, and my boat.


(I am working on getting a pilot's license and a Cessna.)

__________________
I was banned from godlike productions(over 400 times)... and loved it.

"I haven't made you angry, have I?" -Malcolm Reynolds

I think that the Crats should elect themselves a new leader, preferably one that has a personality.
I'd go for Levin... but I'm biased.

__________________
That information is classified and to be given only on a need-to-know basis...

And I do not need to know.

The last competent Democrat with a personality has already served two terms.

Airburst nukes are never an option unless we are effectively under attack. I am unwilling to slaughter people simply so I can drive my SUV. I will never support killing for economic reasons. Ever.

__________________
My Political Blog (Most recent update Oct 3rd) - Which Flame Warrior are you?

I would like you to show me a quote in that article that supports what you "seem" to think.