1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

U.S Special Forces in Iraq Armed with Nukes

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Gary H, Dec 31, 2002.

  1. Gary H

    Gary H Well-Known Member

    Debka either has the best creative minds, or the most impressive intel. on the planet. Anyone know what ADM's are and why special forces would be armed with same????? Sounds a bit fishy to me.

    "According to US military sources, 3rd Army commander has direct authority to use tactical (theater) nuclear weapons if Saddam employs WMD

    US Col. (retired) Hackworth to Fox TV: US special forces already in Iraq are armed with ADMs -“nuclear suitcasesâ€"

    Found at: http://www.debka.com
  2. Blackhawk

    Blackhawk Member In Memoriam

    DEBKA and Hackworth....

    Forgive me if I consider neither a reliable source.
  3. 2dogs

    2dogs Well-Known Member

    ADM= Air Defense Missles
  4. JimP

    JimP Well-Known Member

    ADM does NOT stand for air defense missiles. And, Hackworth is - indeed - full of Blarney. The days of SADM are through. Went out with the hula-hoop.
  5. 2dogs

    2dogs Well-Known Member

    ADM does NOT stand for air defense missiles..... Went out with the hula-hoop.

    Best not mention that to the Israelis who seem to think the Patriot will protect them from Scuds.;)
  6. Bahadur

    Bahadur Well-Known Member

    The Israelis do not think that the Patriot system protects Israel from Scuds armed with WMD. They think the Samson Option does. They are right.
  7. KP95DAO

    KP95DAO member

    SADM and MADM.

    Though it has been 27 years since I dealt with the above items, I sincerely doubt that they are relegated to history. Because of a few technical details they are long lived with little maintenance required.

    Whether they would be the proper tool for the job is another matter. I cannot picture a scenario in Iraq where their use would be advantageous over other systems currently available.
  8. JimP

    JimP Well-Known Member

    Please - someone - explain to me the need for a team to "jump" a sadm into a taget with the current delivery devices we have. Ain't gonna happen.
  9. PATH

    PATH Well-Known Member

    I don't think nukes will be a happening thing in Iraq.
  10. ACP

    ACP Well-Known Member

    ADM stands for Atomic Demolition Munition (aka "suitcase nuke"), a 60-100 lb. bomb with a nominal 10-kiloton yield (think Hiroshima) that can be carried in an 8X16X24 container. Also possible to contain a "dirty" nuclear bomb.
  11. Hkmp5sd

    Hkmp5sd Well-Known Member

    Anyone ever think the US leaked this "information" to increase the pressure on Iraq to give up and as a polite way of telling the other countries in the mid-East to keep their nose out of it?

    Besides, there is no reason to take man-portable nukes into the area. The Naval vessels sitting in the Gulf have the capability of launching nuclear tipped cruise missiles that can hit anywhere in the theater.
  12. Schuey2002

    Schuey2002 Well-Known Member

    You can bet your bottom dollar that if Isreal gets attacked by Iraq or any other hostile neighboring country with WMD's, they will use this "option"..
  13. 2dogs

    2dogs Well-Known Member

    ADM stands for Atomic Demolition Munition


    Quite right, mea culpa. I should have read the story instead of jumping into a search.:eek:
  14. Preacherman

    Preacherman Well-Known Member

    This story makes no sense to me - and as another poster has commented, Debka is not exactly the world's most reliable source of news... A backpack nuke was designed in the days when terminal guidance for weapons was in its infancy. These backpacks could be precisely placed by special forces in the immediate vicinity of their targets, when the latter were too well defended to risk aircraft against them, or too remote for aircraft to reach them, or too "hardened" for conventionally-dropped weapons (even nuclear weapons) to guarantee success (e.g. a dam wall, etc.) Nowadays, cruise missiles are accurate to within 20 or 30 feet; they don't risk pilot's lives in getting to the target; and they're a lot quicker than sending in a Special Forces team.

    Also, of course, nukes are not the weapon of choice against most targets - if one can place a precision-guided conventional-explosive munition in exactly the right place, it does the job surgically, without overkill by taking out several square miles of the surrounding neighborhood and rendering the vicinity radioactive for months or years to come. However, one area where small nukes might be viable could be a factory or storage depot containing large quantities of chemical or biological agents. Put a nuke in the storage area, and most or all of the dangerous stuff would be destroyed in the fireball.
  15. Sean Smith

    Sean Smith Well-Known Member

    Consider the source. Hackworth was mental ever since he wrote the last chapters of About Face. He's become more shrill and dippy ever since.
  16. Tamara

    Tamara Senior Member

    ...and as far as using silver bullets against Iraq if they make use of NBC warfare, that's been our stated position since time immemorial: Any attack on US troops or territory with chemical or biological weapons will be responded to with nukes.

    Would we actually do it? Depends, probably, on more variables than I can count...
  17. Bahadur

    Bahadur Well-Known Member

    That's why I followed up with "They are right."

    Not quite...

    Before Desert Shield and Desert Storm, the threat of nuclear retaliation against any Iraqi use of bio-chem weapons was "nuanced" and "ambiguous." That is to say, the US threatened Iraq with "a serious consequence," implying a nuclear retaliation, but that threat was not made in an explicit fashion.

    SOME Bush (Sr.) administration officials later stated that the US never would have exercised the nuclear option against Iraq.

Share This Page