Man Portable Fissables, oh my!

On Fri, 24 Sep 1999, Los wrote:

> WHat you don't think standard SG PA can't carry a 4 round Nuke MLP
like it's
> a wooden broom? Ever see one of those figures?

Ok perhaps a Power armoured troop could carry it around with a few 
reloads. I still question the logic of a tactical employment of a nuke
by 
any grunt. SF or otherwise. 

> You seem to completely rooted in historical analogy. Battalions used
to be
> pretty analy tight with night vision goggles too back in the early
eighties.

Using nightvison goggles to look at a russian soldier won't result in 
WWIII. There is a bit of difference.

> Second why assume every nuke is this huge yield weapon. It only has to
be
> more powerful than a conventional equivalent. I'd see these things as
being
> clean and low yield. .3 kiloton or less. Enough to ruin something's
day. ANd

the .1 or .2 KT yield is way more powerfull than the truck bomb that 
blew up the federal bldg a few years back. Davy Crockett was .01 and
.02. 
and more powerful than that truck load of fertilizer and fuel oil. 

> if people are going to cruise around in unsecured territory and hug
landers
> sure a small nuke would be worth a battalion of invaders. Obviously
this is
> driven by political issues also, but then again given the cleanliness
of
> nukes or some other cleaner high yield (antimatter?) weaponry, maybe
not.

Nuke his forces and expect worse back. Allowing a grunt to excalate 
things isn't the best idea. I think it would still be subject to the 
"_every_one_ takes a conf check" rule. 

------------------------------------------------------------------
- Ryan Montieth Gill		DoD# 0780 (Smug #1) / AMA / SOHC -
- ryan.gill@turner.com	    I speak not for CNN, nor they for me -
- rmgill@mindspring.com 	     www.mindspring.com/~rmgill/ -
- '85 Honda CB700S  -  '72 Honda CB750K  - '76 Chevy MonteCarlo  -
------------------------------------------------------------------