Jerry,

>>Jerry,
>>
>>>>Tom,
>>>>
>>>>>Jerry;
>>>>>
>>>>>I would imagine that a number of U-2’s, similar aircraft and additional technologies are mapping every cave and rock in Afghanistan, before we do anything “serious”. The U-2 at 20 miles altitude can take pictures of people on the ground with remarkable resolution. After mapping the area and the proper logistics are in place I think we will see some very pointed actions.
>>>>>
>>>>>It took about 6 months of planning and logistic build up before we “got serious” during the Gulf War. This is much more complex but I am sure we have only begun to prepare what will occur. Now if we could just have access to the minds of people we would know who is a terrorist!
>>>>>
>>>>>Tom
>>>>
>>>>I would imagine that there are some systems that can see below ground some distance. Ultra low frequency stuff perhaps?
>>>>
>>>>I know we have 1000 lb smart bombs that burrow in and then go 'boom'.
>>>
>>>In the Gulf War we were using 10,000 lb bombs made of old 16" cannon barrels, with laser guidance technology on the front end and rocket boosters on the back end. I read where one penetrated through 3 reinforced concrete barriers, 15' thick spaced at at 50' intervals, (designed to withstand pressure waves from nuclear explosions 3 miles or closer) before exploding more than 15 stories underground, in Saadam's nuclear bunker.
>>>
>>>I think that anyone within 300' of the surface is a viable target with conventional technologies. If low powered neutron bombs air bursting above 1,500 ft are used, the intense neutron radiation can go to depths of a mile or more, delivering LD50 radiation doses, but not doing much damage obove ground, except directly under the blast. So, hiding in caves is no protection. I haven't mentioned columated ultrasonic and microwave weapons, which could turn caves and bunkers into 'Magic Chef' ovens, or subsonic weapons that could drive folks insane no matter where they are hiding.
>>
>>
>>Interesting..
>>
>>Tell me something, if you wouldn't mind... If the US set off a very small neutron bomb with a half-life of a couple days or so do you think there would be more benefit from the shock value in that we are really serious and we'll figuratively punch the bullies in the snout or do you think that the screaming pacifists would gain the upper hand?
>
>
>When the US used the A bomb in WWII, they didn't fully realize its implications, they only wanted to avoid the 1 million American casualities predicted by Operation Cornet, to say nothing of the 7 million Japanese casualities predicted. The Kamikazi pilots and the Bonzii suicide charges didn't offer any hope that the Japanese religious fanaticism would abate following the intial ground invasions. The bomb was used, and at least 500,000 Japanses died from the blast or subsequent radiation poisoning. The predicted 8 million casualities didn't occur. It was a tough call, and I don't think the modern day moralists have a valid criticism of Truman or the military effort.
>
>Having said that, I think it would be insane to use any form of nuclear weapon of mass destruction in any theater, for any reason, except in response to attacks by weapons of mass destruction. The 'shock value' of first use wouldn't be of 'value' to the terrorists and their supporters, nor to the USA. It would invite retalliation in kind, and would, in my opinion, be the beginning of WW3. The net result would be the nuclear destruction of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Packistan, parts of India, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Gaza, some lessor Arab countries, parts or all of Israel, parts of China and Russia. Meanwhile, both China, Russia, Iraq and Pakistan would make sure that radical terrorists would have access to suitcase bombs and biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction. Expect to see New York, Washington DC, LA, Denver, Chicago and Huston experience attacks with such weapons, biolgical plagues, and chemical attacks.
>
>I don't expect to see nuclear weapons being used by the USA unless the terrorists and their supporters use it first. You can be assured that if they have them they are only waiting for the right justification ('provication') to use them. Meanwhile, expect to see the USA use sophisticated high tech weapons that will make the Gulf War weapons look primative. IMO.
>JLK

I think you're correct. I suppose that we could only be justified using something on that scale after we've been hit first. I guess MAD really was a valid position afterall.

I suppose that some will see this as per some of the indications in the book of Revelations and all of it very tragic indeed.

Having said that, then you'd think that some of the high explosive ordinances as you mentioned above would be the choice of the decision makers? It strikes me that whatever method is used that as little collateral damage as possible is inflicted. So, from what you know, we've progressed much further along than the smart cruise missles? Do you think that directed energy weapons are sufficiently advanced to play a role here then?