When I look at this photo of Bin's hood, it seems to me that one well placed nuke of the right intensity might be able to fry them, even if they are hiding in underground bunkers down there. Do you think it could make this whole area into a crater 100 ft. deep or 300 ft. or what?

-- (not@rocket.scientist), October 03, 2001

Answers

If there is one thing the US military has been thinking about for the past 50 years, it is how to build nukes for all occasions.

The majority of nukes are designed for air burst, in order to distribute the blast wave over the largest area and take out surface features like people and buildings. But since we also wanted to take out hardened targets like Soviet command and control bunkers, we developed nukes for that, too.

That much said, taking responsibility for the first use of nukes in a war against an opponent like Afghanistan seems like a bad choice to me. Nukes are for massive retaliation in a national survival situation. We shouldn't use them - unless, of course, we are struck by a weapon of mass destruction by the enemy. Then it's Dr. Strangelove time.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), October 03, 2001.

what a spread. They even have a golf course, kewl.

-- (jack@tiger.woods), October 03, 2001.

Thanks for your opinion LN, but you didn't answer my question.

Is there a genuine Egghead in the house? Please step forward!

-- (not@rocket.scientist), October 03, 2001.

I'm not a rocket scientist either, but I would imagine China, Iran, and Tajikistan just for starters might have a problem with having a nuke set off so close to them.

-- helen (remember@nuclear.reactor.nimby.types), October 03, 2001.

Helen,

You are as dumb as LN. Can you READ the question???

I did NOT ask whether or not we should use a nuke!!

Isn't a guy allowed to have a little fun? Just humor me here, and ANSWER the damn question!!

-- (sheeez@people.are.dense), October 03, 2001.

Speaking as an ex-rocket scientist (Aerospace engineer program before moving to computer science,) I can tell you that this is not a question for "rocket scientists", but more for weapons experts, nuclear engineers, or knowlegable battlefield veterans. But given that scale in that photo (approx 1200 meters), I'd say anyone in any underground bunker down there would be SOL if even a 100 KT nuke detonated - you can't get out of a bunker alive if the tunnel is collapsed and your air supply just went up to 1800 degrees for a couple seconds.

But nukes are out of the question right now. They are a big no-no when you're trying to build an international consensus. And fallout is nasty stuff for the neighbors.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), October 03, 2001.

Screw the nukes. Just cluster bomb em' with pork rinds.

-- Towel (heads@hate.pigs), October 03, 2001.

Oh look its Laura see her in the hole?

-- (ravin@never.more), October 03, 2001.

Yes nukes could blow that deep. But would be very hard to confirm death of the terrorists. Much better to drill into bunkers, and use fire bombs (keroseen bombs) that would suck the air out of the insides, leaving everyone intact for pick-up and idenification later. have no fear we will be able to get them out.

-- wayne johnson (chrisandwaynehappy@home.com), October 04, 2001.

When Wayne recommends "keroseen" bombs, I think he is recommending the use of FAEs, or Fuel-Air Explosives. These bombs emit a finely vaporized mist of combustible fuel, essentially behaving like a carburetor for the ensuing detonation. These weapons produce MASSIVE explosions, and there is a verified case of an FAE detonation during Desert Storm being initially mistaken as a nuclear detonation by British SAS troops who were within sight of the weapon's plume.

I am hopeful that Islama bin Deadmeat will get to meet one of these fine examples of American military know-how up close and personal.

-- Already Done Happened (oh.yeah@it.did.com), October 20, 2001.

Thursday October 18 04:05 PM EDT

Rep. Buyer Suggests Limited Nuclear Retaliation

U.S. Rep. Steve Buyer says that the United States should use tactical nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden's terrorist network in Afghanistan if it is linked to recent anthrax incidents in the United States.

The Indiana Republican said that small, specialized nuclear weapons -- not as powerful as the atom bombs that were used in World War II -- could be used on the caves where members of bin Laden's network have taken shelter.

Buyer, a Gulf War veteran, said that the use of the weapons would be a proper response if bin Laden's people are linked to the anthrax cases in Florida, Washington, New York and elsewhere in the United States.

"Don't send special forces in there to sweep," Buyer said. "We'd be very naïve to believe that biotoxins and chemical agents were not in these caves. Put a tactical nuclear device in, and close these caves for a thousand years."

Buyer said that he hadn't talked with other lawmakers or the Bush administration about the idea, and didn't know how many in the government would support it.

Buyer stresses that he doesn't advocate the use of full-power nuclear bombs, but he acknowledged that much of the world wouldn't see the difference.

"I just want the (Bush) administration to know that I think the United States needs to send a message to the world that we are prepared to do that," Buyer said.

-- (nukes@possible.), October 20, 2001.