http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=77021
“”We also have — are you ready for this – a 700-tonne explosively formed charge that we’re going to be putting in a tunnel in Nevada,” he said.
“And that represents to us the largest single explosive that we could imagine doing conventionally to solve that problem,” he said. “
My question is how the HELL do you get a 700 T-O-N warhead to the target? You’d need an ICBM the size of Nova for crying out loud. I guess Pelikan could do it if you shoved it out the back but we’re not making them. And you’d have to make sure there were ZERO air defense capabilities left.
By: KOBRAFORCES - 15th April 2006 at 03:33
i dont agree to the idea to test the 700 ton explosive this will be very damaging to the earth.
By: SOC - 15th April 2006 at 01:52
The main failure of the UN it seems is for the UN not to be the US’s rubber stamp.
The main failure of the UN is that it relies too much on the US for military might when it’s needed.
Well, that, and the fact that the UN is impotent in dealing with the Isreal/Palestine situation, admittedly at the fault of the USA.
To this day, when push comes to shove, the US does need her allies and ‘coalitions’.
This is true, but I am of the opinion that we need to reassess our foreign policy and look towards new alliances, particularly with China and Russia.
Now don’t come back with some statement about me being anti-american.
I don’t get that impression at all.
Smart Americans do not conduct themselves in this manner as it is this arrogant attitude which gets your country into Vietnams and Iraqs.
Vietnam was a total screw up from the beginning. The main problem I think, in hindsight, was that too many administrations got a chance to try and “solve” the problem, and each one only succeeded in making it a bigger mess.
By: sferrin - 14th April 2006 at 23:28
The main failure of the UN it seems is for the UN not to be the US’s rubber stamp.
Yeah that’s way worse than the oil for food scandel :rolleyes:
By: Arabella-Cox - 12th April 2006 at 09:29
If the UN is a failure, then all involved in it bare responsibility for that failure. FYI, this includes the US.
The main failure of the UN it seems is for the UN not to be the US’s rubber stamp.
By: Wanshan - 11th April 2006 at 08:08
All very well but you are forgetting that the little country of 16 million people that I live in is among the top investors in the US, about equal the amount that French and Germany each have invested in the US. And that is roughly 2/3 of all Asian investments in the US. So, that attitude is not fitting. Not in the last place because my country was the first to recognize the fledging United States and co-financed its struggle for independence. To this day, when push comes to shove, the US does need her allies and ‘coalitions’.
Now don’t come back with some statement about me being anti-american. I have many colleagues, friends and family there and have lived there for. Smart Americans do not conduct themselves in this manner as it is this arrogant attitude which gets your country into Vietnams and Iraqs. The older members of my familiy did not serve in the US and other military and fight Germans and Japanese in WW2 to see the US turn into a nation and state that condones and/or is actively involved in the torture of people, like SS and Gestapo reincarnate. That line is longer than Iraq (e.g. Chili/Pinochet).
Finally, don’t forget who put forward the UN and its predecessors: this included some great American leaders.
————-
The impetus for the founding of the League came from Democratic U.S. President Woodrow Wilson although the United States never joined the League of Nations. The concept of a peaceful community of nations had previously been described in Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace. The idea of the actual League of Nations appears to have originated with British Foreign Secretary Edward Grey, and it was enthusiastically adopted by the Democratic U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and his advisor Colonel Edward M. House as a means of avoiding bloodshed like that of World War I. The creation of the League was a centrepiece of Wilson’s Fourteen Points for Peace, specifically the final point: “A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.”
The League lacked an armed force of its own and so depended on the Great Powers to enforce its resolutions, which they were often very reluctant to do. After a number of notable successes and some early failures, the League ultimately proved incapable of preventing aggression by the Axis Powers in the 1930s. The onset of the Second World War made it clear that the League had failed in its primary purpose—to avoid any future world war. The United Nations effectively replaced it after World War II and inherited a number of agencies and organizations founded by the League.
The United Nations (UN) is an international organization that describes itself as a “global association of governments facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development, and social equity.” It was founded in 1945 by 51 states, replacing The League of Nations.
The UN was founded after the end of World War II by the victorious world powers with the hope that it would act to prevent conflicts between nations and make future wars impossible, by fostering an ideal of collective security. The organization’s structure still reflects in some ways the circumstances of its founding
Winston Churchill first suggested using the name “United Nations” to refer to the wartime Allies: he cited Byron’s use of the phrase “united nations” in Childe Harold’s Pilgrimage, which referred to the Allies at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. United States president Franklin Delano Roosevelt adopted the name and the first official use of the term occurred on January 1, 1942 with the Declaration by the United Nations.. During subsequent phases of World War II the Allies used the term “United Nations” to refer to their alliance.
———-
If the UN is a failure, then all involved in it bare responsibility for that failure. FYI, this includes the US.
By: sferrin - 10th April 2006 at 23:49
It’s amusing that you think you can afford to make such a joke.
Yeah boy, that U.N. is a fearsome bunch. Better watch out for them. :rolleyes: We ought to just boot their worthless asses out of the country.
By: Wanshan - 10th April 2006 at 23:16
It’s amusing that you think that world opinion is going to matter to us 😀
It’s amusing that you think you can afford to make such a joke.
By: SOC - 10th April 2006 at 14:02
US kicked out of the UN and then the UN passes a resolution calling for the destruction of all U.S. nuclear weapons, bans on production of nuclear energy, inspectors from a neutral 3rd nation i.e. Botswana, and the handing over of the entire NEOCON administration to the international courts.
If we get kicked out (we should leave actually, like tomorrow) we then aren’t bound by that idiot organization’s rules and therefore cannot be, what’s the word, “resoluted”?
Oh. And the compensation to the families of every man woman and child killed due to the US or allies of the US for whatever reason over the last 50 years.
Oh yeah, the “millions” :rolleyes: That’s ok, blame the US for all of your society’s inadequacies if it helps you sleep better at night.
By: Arabella-Cox - 10th April 2006 at 11:35
Some posters need to wake up and stop dreaming.
Yah, keep your place… herr Busche vill tell you what you can or cannot say on zee internet!
US kicked out of the UN and then the UN passes a resolution calling for the destruction of all U.S. nuclear
Except the US would just veto it faster than an anti israel bill…
By: jjshep - 10th April 2006 at 09:27
Rofl – keep dreaming my friend. Incase you hadn’t noticed either it highly unlikely UN kicks out USA from it. Considering the UN is based in America and America payes for about a third of it pointless funding. UN should be closed immediatly, nothing but a utter waste of time. Some posters need to wake up and stop dreaming.
By: Chakos - 10th April 2006 at 07:07
SOC, attitutes like that make me believe one day that the rest of the world will have about enough of the US and gang up on them simply because they are too dangerous to be allowed to keep going the way they are.
I can almost see it
US kicked out of the UN and then the UN passes a resolution calling for the destruction of all U.S. nuclear weapons, bans on production of nuclear energy, inspectors from a neutral 3rd nation i.e. Botswana, and the handing over of the entire NEOCON administration to the international courts.
Oh. And the compensation to the families of every man woman and child killed due to the US or allies of the US for whatever reason over the last 50 years.
:dev2:
By: djnik - 9th April 2006 at 22:55
Hehe true true:) Well lets just hope the wind doesnt blow Europe’s way:)
By: SOC - 9th April 2006 at 21:03
There is no way a B-61 nuclear bunker buster weapon use in Iran would go well with the internatioal community.
It’s amusing that you think that world opinion is going to matter to us 😀
By: Spacepope - 9th April 2006 at 14:29
There is no way a B-61 nuclear bunker buster weapon use in Iran would go well with the internatioal community.
I completely agree with you on that one.
By: djnik - 9th April 2006 at 10:26
There is no way a B-61 nuclear bunker buster weapon use in Iran would go well with the internatioal community.
By: jjshep - 9th April 2006 at 09:43
oh christ a Hersh article, full of unnamed sources and ex-officials speaking on condition of anomity no doubt. somethings never change lol.
By: Spacepope - 9th April 2006 at 05:09
New article that mentions the test:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article356679.ece
One option under consideration, Mr Hersh reports, involves the possible use of a B61 nuclear “bunker-buster” bomb against Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz. Last week the Federation of American Scientists alleged that a weapons test to be carried out in the Nevada desert in June was designed to simulate the effects of just such a bomb. Conventional explosives would be used, it said, for “a low-yield nuclear weapon ground shock simulation against an underground target”.
By: Arabella-Cox - 9th April 2006 at 01:43
Probably talking about a shaped charge.
Certainly what I assumed at first but the terminology is wrong… Explosively formed penetrator, or shaped charge would make more sense.
By: sferrin - 8th April 2006 at 18:10
Explanation anybody?
Probably talking about a shaped charge.
By: Wanshan - 8th April 2006 at 12:26
I know what an explosively formed projectile is but what is meant by an “explosively formed charge”. (Sorry if already discussed, didn’t have time to read all prior posts)
Explanation anybody?
Sign In
March 31, 2006 at 4:42 am