You go girl!

 

This may be one of those "urban myths", but I heard from a Marine buddy of mine that in the waning days of the Gulf War, we were working on one of the original "bunker buster" bombs. It was built from the barrel of a huge artillery gun, had depleted uranium at the front, and weighed some obscene amount despite its long, slender profile.

It was dropped from a B-52, and when it hit, the delayed fuse didn't detonate until it was 10 stories underground. It was meant to get Saddam in his deep bunkers, and the day it hit was supposed to be the day that Saddam surrendered.

Anyone else heard this?

 

All this to get him out of a hole in the floor of that basement?

Once again, our defense $$ in their finest moment...

 

Given that I grew up just to the north of the Fulda Gap, I am incredibly happy that this kind of weapon did not exist 20 years ago. I believe that this type of weapon will lower the psychological threshold to actually use nuclear weapons, especially if it is on a battle field far away from home where you supposedly don't have to suffer any consequences like fall-out. If this weapon had been around before, I would have been the first one to get blown up by it.

This gets a big from me.

Also, keep this in mind -- if the US develops this weapon, then you know that Russia, China and whoever else will also develop these weapons. With so many suitcase-type bombs around, don't you think the chance of one actually ending up in the hands of terrorists or other groups is not increasing?

 

What about death benefits for troops? What are your (all of you) feelings on this topic?

 

Just to clarify -- my concern is not the develoment of a bunker-busting bomb, as long as it is a "conventional" device (however you define that). My concern is with the development or use of nuclear bomb technology for this application.

 

paS2K,

the original "Bunker Buster" that I talked about was used to end the Gulf War in 1990 with Bush I, NOT recent history. Talk about CHEAP--it was an old artillery barrell (all barrels have limited lifetimes), filled up with heavy stuff and stuff that goes "BOOM".

If it actually did stop the hostilities, I'd say it was worth it.

 

As for death benefits for troops, I'm for it. This is one area of government spending that I approve.

Perhaps we should subsidize this benefit by putting the house and senate BACK onto our Social Security system, instead of their own heavily-padded Golden Parachute. How would you like to retire after six years service with full benefits, full paycheck and cost of living increases?!

When I ALMOST went into the Air Force (Air Force Academy) years ago, one thing that appealed to me was that about 60% or 70% of the military income was non-taxable. It was a while ago, so I don't remember the exact figure. Why not make it 100%, for as long as the person remains in the military?

 

Absolutey agree with you Cordycord. I think they get $2500, if I heard someone correctly. That won't even put you in the ground!!! Years ago I was in the finance business and the troops in Desert Storm were being turned over to collections because they were not paying their payments!!! I mean, really, are they supposed to carry their checkbooks into the foxholes and if so, where are you going to mail it! I questioned this policy and was told "they knew they were in the military and should have planned for it" WHAT! Let's hope one of those hinny-heads gets "down-sized" and then...well.. I am sure he will be just fine because he surely PLANNED for it. Sorry, the weather is so dreary here, I am sliding into the abyss.

 

Was the US thinking of bombing Germany 20 years ago? I thought the military bases at Fulda Gap were bases for peaceful activities. (Ulrich, please correct me if I'm wrong).
I think the issue that should be kept in mind, is we'd better hope the US is the first to develop such a weapon (should it ever be developed) instead of China, North Korea, Iran or some such other place with which we are not the best of friends. I don't know about you, but I sort of think our personal safety will be at risk no matter where we live should such material be in the hands of someone who thinks we're all their enemy (all meaning any American).
Once again, the war-mongering talking head media types would simply love to spill such possibilities whether or not they exist.