Using neutron bombs on taliban safehavens

Since apparently every nuke power but us possess neutron bombs, why not let PAKISTAN drop the damned things to get rid of the rats in their own teritory. Problem of pissing them off solved. OTHERWISE they eventually fall into extremist hands. The problem is inaccessibility and how to deal with it. The Russians didn't and lost
 
So glad the intellectuals, sitting here at home with a care less about what goes on in Afghanistan because it in no way effects their lives, know much better than the generals in the field as to what to do to win. Basicaly it's cut and run and let the Taliban rule, isn't it? Or is it more of the same slowly going down hill. More chewing gum for kids?

Ah, yes, I knew that something was missing to have a nicely round and complete knuckle-dragging redneck immage. The lashing at intellectuals. Thanks.

And I see you still don't answer the question, you just engage in some chest thumping. Spare me the pseudo-patriotism, buddy.

But one thing I can't let go...

"Basicaly it's cut and run and let the Taliban rule, isn't it?"

And your plan is better in which way? You want to fry more civillians than the Taliban ever killed, to save them from being ruled by the Taliban? Talk about a completely retarded idea...
 
So, the best you can find is a blog about a rabid zealot?
Regardless if the guy was a zealot or not, did or did not the website prove my points about their existence and the blast damage - and from the guy who invented them! Stick to the point
 
Since apparently every nuke power but us possess neutron bombs, why not let PAKISTAN drop the damned things to get rid of the rats in their own teritory. Problem of pissing them off solved. OTHERWISE they eventually fall into extremist hands. The problem is inaccessibility and how to deal with it. The Russians didn't and lost

Right, right. So because even the evil commies never even dreamt of using nukes as a means to keep civillians properly terrorized and under control, of course it would be less evil if the USA did it. They may end up growing tumours left and right, but by Jove at least you kept them safe from the Taliban.

Heh.
 
So glad the intellectuals, sitting here at home with a care less about what goes on in Afghanistan because it in no way effects their lives, know much better than the generals in the field as to what to do to win. Basicaly it's cut and run and let the Taliban rule, isn't it? Or is it more of the same slowly going down hill. More chewing gum for kids?

Given that the Generals in the field aren't advocating the use of non-existant nuclear weapons against a nuclear armed state, one wonders why you think you know more about conducting warfare than they do.
 
Regardless if the guy was a zealot or not, did or did not the website prove my points about their existence and the blast damage - and from the guy who invented them! Stick to the point

So, we should believe him and not, say, the actual blast data from when they were tested. 'Course, silly me ;)
 
Great idea.

But the radiation is a problem.
Now if we could just round up the entire population and put them in "work camps".
But they would not really be work camps because....

...wait, never mind. Forget I said that.

We've had this ridiculous discussion before BTW.
 
Ah, yes, I knew that something was missing to have a nicely round and complete knuckle-dragging redneck immage. The lashing at intellectuals. Thanks.

And I see you still don't answer the question, you just engage in some chest thumping. Spare me the pseudo-patriotism, buddy.

But one thing I can't let go...

"Basicaly it's cut and run and let the Taliban rule, isn't it?"

And your plan is better in which way? You want to fry more civillians than the Taliban ever killed, to save them from being ruled by the Taliban? Talk about a completely retarded idea...
Okay I get the idea. Dropping A bombs on Japan was a bad idea and Truman was a jerk for doing so. Maybe so but the guy was between a rock and a hard place and so is Obama . He cannot win no matter what course he takes, so screw that nice guy stuff, as Truman said. He's got to go for the bigger good, sacrificing some so that many will be saved. Hopefully it won't end up a Truman /MacArthur type confrontation.
 
It's what the great generals of WW2 would have recommended.
History has shown that the way to defeat a ruthless enemy is to outdo them .

. You FORCE them into unconditional surrender using those "magical" air weapons....So you let the ruthless Taliban know that you are wiling to out do them in ruthless and the plan is to eradicate them and completely dismantle their culture - again just like the Japanese- if necessary by whatever means available.....THAT is how you win the damned war over there. You either view it as necessary or you play damned politics with it...

He cannot win no matter what course he takes, so screw that nice guy stuff, as Truman said. He's got to go for the bigger good, sacrificing some so that many will be saved. Hopefully it won't end up a Truman /MacArthur type confrontation.

Wow. Tumbleweed is so tough. When confronted with evil, he doesn't shy away like some intellectual would (picture the intonation of "intellectual" as akin to the way one would say, "that deuce you left in the can was revolting"). We don't have an avatar for him yet but when reading his courageous chest-beating and finger wagging I find it most appropriate to picture a cigar in his mouth.

Tumbleweed, may I suggest an avatar?

how about this one:

WChurchill-2.jpg
 
Last edited:
It boils down to whether or not you think the Taliban can be negotiated with and whether or not ruthless opiated thugs with extremist Dark Age religious views who destroy 1000 year old Buddhist site, throw acid in 10 year old girl's faces who dare to get an eduction, demand that women be subjugated or suffer caning, pray to get nukes to use on NYC, and shamelessly use teenagers with low self esteem for suicide bombers aren't really so bad. I guess you know where I stand. I've drawn my line in the sand with them.
I say not to ethnically cleanse them but to MOST CERTAINLY ethnically cleanse their culture, by whatever it takes. Hey, it's just my nature, my well learned reaction to bullies over the years. You turn around and beat them ferociously about the head when they screw with you. Always worked for me! They went and picked on someone else. I feel guilty about passing them on so now I want to make amends
 
Okay I get the idea. Dropping A bombs on Japan was a bad idea and Truman was a jerk for doing so. Maybe so but the guy was between a rock and a hard place and so is Obama . He cannot win no matter what course he takes, so screw that nice guy stuff, as Truman said. He's got to go for the bigger good, sacrificing some so that many will be saved. Hopefully it won't end up a Truman /MacArthur type confrontation.

Chewbacca defense?

You still don't address the actual question there: so to save them from the Taliban, you want to kill more innocent people than the Taliban ever did? Doesn't it seem like the solution is worse than the problem?

Also, there you go again with that irrelevant WW2 comparison. In WW2 you were fighting a country which had declared war on you. Here you propose nothing less than taking it on civillians of an already puppeted nation, as an act of terror to keep them under control.

If you want a more apt comparison with WW2, here's one: the Nazi idea in France and Russia was that for each partisan attack or sabotage, they'd round up a bunch of civillians in the village square and shoot them. That ought to keep them in line. Your plan is just the 2009 version of that, with nukes instead of rifles.

It boils down to whether or not you think the Taliban can be negotiated with and whether or not ruthless opiated thugs with extremist Dark Age religious views who destroy 1000 year old Buddhist site, throw acid in 10 year old girl's faces who dare to get an eduction, demand that women be subjugated or suffer caning, pray to get nukes to use on NYC, and shamelessly use teenagers with low self esteem for suicide bombers aren't really so bad. I guess you know where I stand. I've drawn my line in the sand with them.

So to save a few innocent girls from acid in the face, you'd give a few thousand of girls (and children, and males, and everyone) hot nuclear death and a few more thousands of cancers? Oh, right, and using nukes is so much better than caning?

Heh.

I say not to ethnically cleanse them but to MOST CERTAINLY ethnically cleanse their culture, by whatever it takes. Hey, it's just my nature, my well learned reaction to bullies over the years. You turn around and beat them ferociously about the head when they screw with you. Always worked for me! They went and picked on someone else. I feel guilty about passing them on so now I want to make amends

Ah, a tough guy. So basically this has nothing to do with the Taliban as such, this is about your penis size and looking tough.

Except you don't even have the balls to go look tough personally, you'd rather someone else dropped a nuke to make you look tough.

You know what? I'm starting to appreciate the actuall school bullies more. They at least had the balls to do it personally and deal with the consequences. You're just the same kind of bully, only want to do it by proxy. Well gee.
 
Tumbleweed, if you are going to use a nuke why start small? You could be using an 100 megaton fusion bomb.
 
Since apparently every nuke power but us possess neutron bombs

Why would Pakistan build a neutron bomb? It's not of any particular strategic utility against their primary adversary, India. Which also probably doesn't have neutron bombs. And you still haven't explained why neutron bombs are preferable to conventional nuclear weapons for the purpose you have in mind. They do not work the way you suggested they work at the beginning of the thread.

why not let PAKISTAN drop the damned things to get rid of the rats in their own teritory.

Let Pakistan drop a nuke on themselves? No, Tumbleweed. We're not preventing them from nuking themselves. But they won't, and we can't make them. Rail all you want to about whatever it is you've got up your backside, but playing these delusional fantasy games where countries nuke themselves doesn't actually help.
 
Okay I get the idea. Dropping A bombs on Japan was a bad idea and Truman was a jerk for doing so. Maybe so but the guy was between a rock and a hard place and so is Obama .

Truman was not a jerk for nuking Japan. But you STILL haven't come to grips with the fact that the rock and hard place that Truman was between were very different from the rock and hard place that Obama is between. Nuking the Taliban won't actually cut the Gordian knot. Mullah Omar is not Hirohito. It won't even take out their bases unless we do it in Pakistan (repeatedly), and even you, sitting behind your keyboard, haven't been brave or stupid enough to suggest we should start using nuclear weapons (plural) against a nuclear power.
 
So glad the intellectuals, sitting here at home with a care less about what goes on in Afghanistan because it in no way effects their lives, know much better than the generals in the field as to what to do to win. Basicaly it's cut and run and let the Taliban rule, isn't it? Or is it more of the same slowly going down hill. More chewing gum for kids?

You really don't know the first thing about what you are discussing here. Really. Not a clue.

First off, you have no idea what is going on in the minds of any general now or through out history. Pick up a book or two. Or at least listen to those here who have put on uniforms with shinny stuff on their collars. (Hint, there are at least two of us in this thread who have had commissions.)

For a very good book on unconventional warfare, I would recommend "The sling and the stone". It was written by a Marine Corps colonel.

http://www.amazon.com/Sling-Stone-War-21st-Century/dp/0760320594

And then read some Mao. Yes, Mao.

http://www.amazon.com/Basic-Tactics-Mao-Tse-Tung/dp/B000NR9CUY

After that start reading up on what else happened around the time we dropped nukes on Japan. The situation was more complex than your understanding of events.

And yes, what we are fighting in Afghanistan is a hearts and minds campaign. But for 7 years we have not put forward a major effort. The good news is that we are now starting to pay attention. The bad news is it is going to take a while no matter what we do.

And if we did use a nuke or two, what do you target? It's not like there is a division of troops out there waiting for us to attack them. They are spread out among civilian populations. Collateral damage from conventional munitions is already a problem. Attempting to terrify people that have spent their entire lives in a war zone will just piss them off and produce more enemies in other countries.
 
So glad the intellectuals, sitting here at home with a care less about what goes on in Afghanistan because it in no way effects their lives, know much better than the generals in the field as to what to do to win. Basicaly it's cut and run and let the Taliban rule, isn't it? Or is it more of the same slowly going down hill. More chewing gum for kids?


Is that four false dichotomies or five?
 
Is that four false dichotomies or five?

Dont be so damned intellectual! Remember the audience to whom you're speaking.

Tumbleweed - think "false choices" instead of that intellectually challenging term "false dichotomies".
 

Back
Top Bottom