From: "Mark" 


"Steve Ewing"  wrote: So now the terrorists
have nukes *and* missiles??  Exactly who would these
> bunker-busters be aimed at?

That would depend on the source of the threat, wouldn't it? I didn't
mention either terrorists or nukes and missiles, I did mention chemical
weapons though. But all would be potentially in the bunkers, again,
depending on the source of the threat.

> And aren't they classic "first-strike"  weapons?  If we use
them (and we
> are the only country who has ever used  them in war) then all bets are
> off.

I fail to see why a bunker buster that gets the job done in one fell swoop
would be any worse (indeed would be less destructive to adjacent areas)
than 20 times as much bombing with MOAB type ordnance.

> Slippery slope, here we come.

Sounds like the "if it's a nuke, it's Hiroshima" attitude to me.

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5