At 9:19 PM -0800 3/3/00, Reese wrote: >At 01:22 PM 3/3/00 -0500, David Honig wrote: >>At 01:26 AM 3/3/00 -0500, Bill Stewart wrote: >>> >>>Must be a typo - isn't it >>>"HOW Should The United States Use Nuclear Threats To Deter >>>Chemical and Biological Attacks? A Debate." :-) >> >>The only way this would be politic (and even then it wouldn't) >>would be to put a small nuke in a bunker buster munition and >>make sure it goes off deep underground. I don't know >>if this is possible; the forces in a BB might exceed that >>of being launched from an artillery shell. >> >>Otherwise you can't use airbursts, for something as >>petty as Osama or Saddam. IMHO. IANADiplomat. > >I thought we developed bunker busters using shot-out gun barrels for the >casing, that overpenetrated the target bunker? (for the gulf war) > >Just make the warhead smaller. Bunker busters predate the Gulf War by many years. (Not counting what were the bunker busters of their day in the 1940s.) Nuclear-tipped bunker busters were developed at Lawrence Livermore, amongst other places. Designed to perform the usual decapitation of command missions. The gun barrel bunker busters used in the Gulf War were ad hoc, and designed to be non-nuclear. Also for decapitation of command missions. Or burning up 500 cowering civilians. --Tim May ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, "Cyphernomicon" | black markets, collapse of governments.
