Originally posted by WulebgrSpending on arms has nothing to do with achiveing low price per death ratios. The arms business is such that higher costs means higher bribes/benefits etc for all involved. Most arms produced in the world today are not ment to kill anyone. That is just a side effect.
Read some history and do the math.
We spend a lot more per death than we once did. When Og bashed in his neighbor's head with a rock, killing was nearly free. When archers used much smaller stones and shafts of wood, killing was still cheap. Now we spend thousands and more per death. No one is worth the price we pay to kill them.
A well placed nuke dro ...[text shortened]... back down to a few hundred dollars per death (and it gets rid of obnoxious architecture, too).
Getting rid of and storing of unneeded nuclear bombs is far more expensive than using them. Except of course from the recipients point of view.
I have always maintained that a well placed bomb or a small team of maries could have taken out Sadam Husein quite easily but of course that would have been 'against the rules' and also have made far less profits for the US arms industry and all the politicians who benefit from that not to mention all the reconstruction etc etc. Did I mention Oil?
Its also a lot harder to have a justification "trial" if your main culprit is dead.
Originally posted by scottishinnzOf course, elctromagnetic radiation moves at 186,000 miles per second, while the shockwaves moves leisurely at the speed of sound.
Surely anything that is in the direct path of the electromagnetic / radiation pulse would also be in the direct path of the shockwave too?
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually, we could have just cruise missiled every one of his 394 palaces similtaniously (I know that is spelled wrong-please correct), then we could have achieved our obvious goal at a cost of only 236.4 million dollars, with no lost American lives and minimal lost Iraqi lives, unlike with a nuke or commando team. After the Iraqis had their civil war, we could befriend the new goverment and still get the oil that our politicians want.
Spending on arms has nothing to do with achiveing low price per death ratios. The arms business is such that higher costs means higher bribes/benefits etc for all involved. Most arms produced in the world today are not ment to kill anyone. That is just a side effect.
Getting rid of and storing of unneeded nuclear bombs is far more expensive than using ...[text shortened]... on Oil?
Its also a lot harder to have a justification "trial" if your main culprit is dead.
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe EMP affects a much greater range than the shockwave. Since we would nuke the cities, the shockwave would disinigrate the building, but weaken when reaching the surrounding countryside. The sheep would be cooked, not blown apart.
Ah yes, cooked briefly BEFORE the shockwave blows you to pieces. Nice.