What is Digg?160 Comments
- CamZak, on 10/12/2007, -27/+116He's saying it looks like a lame attempt at propoganda. Which I'd have to agree with. It makes no sense to use a small scale tactical nuke. Why use a nuke on a building when a conventional weapon would work just as well and cost less? Use a nuke where your own troops are fighting within close range? Sure, you could say they don't care about the troops and the effects, but it'd be cheaper just to drop a large bomb. Watch a video of the first nuclear test, it wasn't just a simple flash, the sky lit up for several seconds.
You people that look for conspiracies and absolute evil are beyond retarded. You ignore logic, common sense, and instead only listen to things which justify your beliefs, while you shun the truth just so you can be convinced of some massive global conspiracy. - beejay, on 10/12/2007, -24/+75I believe them less than the BBC but more than Fox.
- meshgiath, on 10/12/2007, -3/+52ffwd to about 3:55 to see the flash+cloud btw
- dziban303, on 10/12/2007, -3/+46I still love the headline, "Nuclear weapons explode over Baghdad, damage estimated in the tens of dollars."
- fgsfds, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44Q: What do you get when you light a nuke on fire?
A: A burning nuke.
Nukes require explosives timed to be so precise that the wires can't vary in length by more than mere millimeters, because the speed of electricity in copper is slow enough that it would skew the detonation and cause it to fail of fizzle. If you light one on fire, then the worst you would get is radioactive gas and a broken bomb. Don't get me wrong, an airborne particulate alpha emitter is all *kinds* of flavors of hazardous, but it's a far cry from a nuclear blast. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+38it was a ammo dump exploding
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1410660598904719984&pr=goog-sl
from the soldiers point a view
and the aftermath
http://www.rense.com/general73/falcphotos.htm
and no it wasnt a nuke.
and the news on it
http://www.estripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=39736&archive=true - Jedi_2, on 10/12/2007, -3/+36If it was a nuke the lights you see in the city near the explosion would have flickered or gone off due to EMP effects. Even tactical nukes have them although small would still be enough to knock out local lights.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -22/+50@appleann1
You are one of the most consistently stupid posters on all of digg.
Read a ***** book. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30@theone3:
as meantioned bellow al jazeera claims no such thing, jsut the random google video poster..
so you can believe him as much as the bbc, but i would rather see it in real print. - TheOtherGuy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+29Al-Jazeera originally started as the Middle-Eastern affiliate of the BBC, and to a large degree they still abide to the same principles of fair reporting (albeit a little more unrefined).
The fact they show 'terrorist messages' is only because they are the most widely watched television network in the region, and so a group is more likely to send them a video - not because they are sympathetic to Islamic fundamentalism.
Are you telling me that CNN and Fox News wouldn't show a terrorist video if it was sent specifically to them? - atdigg, on 10/12/2007, -12/+35Now that's serious journalism *rolls eyes*
- Houssein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+20Do you guys understand arabic?
I do.
The news presenter never said anything about nuclear weapons whatsoever. He doesn't seem to know what is happening, just repeating that an american military base is in fire. The camera is at 20 km far from the fire. The images were taken 2 hours after the first explosion. - bigdt87, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21it may have appeared bigger than it actually was, seeing as how it was night time, the camera was probably set to be more sensitive to light, causing the blast to appear it was humongous. not saying it wasnt a nuke...just a possibility. I find it improbable though, as after the thing went off, there was still movement and things taking place in the area where it went off.
- gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -9/+28"it wasn't just a simple flash, the sky lit up for several seconds."
Tactical nukes are bombs designed to deliver a small but penetrating force into the direction which the bomb is traveling toward. However, should the bomb not be moving, it will have a fairly weak explosion since the force isn't concentrated in any particular direction. Nonetheless, it will still give off a blinding flash (though not one which lights the sky for several seconds).
If you ask me, that looks like it might be a 50 ton bomb. Diffused into the air without moving in any direction, it's no more than a conventional bomb with radioactive fallout.
Oh wait a second, did I say all of that? Did anyone take into account the fact that the camera could have recorded a blinding flash because it was adapted to low light? Screw everything I just said; it's a conventional bomb! (Though SAIC did mention tactical bunker-busting nukes when I overheard one of their presentations).
It could honestly go either way. The only difference at that size is that one produces radioactive fallout whereas the other one doesn't. If it did produce fallout and did sicken people within the immediate vicinity of the blast, it will screw American policy in Iraq (assuming the rest of the Media picks this up). However, if it was conventional, it's no different from the norm despite how depressing such a statement is. - LarianLeQuella, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17Fire does not cause nuclear devices to go off... Of course, anyone that actually knew how nukes worked would know that. I'm surprised all the nuclear scientists on Digg haven't pointed it out with charts and links already. ;) Back in the 50's, numerous aircraft accidents (i.e. crashes) occured with nukes onboard, and none of them detonated (the HE components did, but not the nuke).
http://www.milnet.com/cdiart.htm - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17I'm sorry, when in that video does Al-Jazeera claim it is a nuke?
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -16/+32"Read a ***** book."
Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter 'books' do not count as books. - jpax, on 10/12/2007, -2/+18Al-Jazeera isn't claiming a nuke was fired. Some random dumbass on Google Video took their clip and claimed that's what they said in the title. So clearly Al-Jazeera is full of lies, omg digg it.
I love how the Internet works. - samadam, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17Why would a nuclear weapon be triggered by fire? They can't be triggered by just any impact or heat or flame or fire or anything. They have to be activated by computer.
That, and the camera was just on very high light gain and low shutter speed. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15"More anti-American propoganda"
can you translate the video?
and do you know the comment came from al jazeera and not just the submitter?
google searching their site shows no claims the us had a nuke.
but do remark on the dump being hit by mortar
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/121DC66C-0EC2-4FE2-ACFB-192F6FF6ACB9.htm - drbroccoli, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15This probably wasn't a nuke. Nukes are not set off by fires. They have a very precise firing mechanism in which a neutron is fired at uranium 235 or a similar substance. I doubt fire could do that.
- NiNiCraftOne, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13I once saw all the chemicals in a cosmetics factory explode while it was on fire. Big Kaboom. Big Fiery Mushroom Cloud. Very Cool. Never occurred to me that Revlon was harboring tactical nukes on the lipstick line though. I'm so naive.
- ScorpioKiller, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15nipuL... whatever you're smoking, please share.
Bunker busters are NOT nuclear weapons. They are conventional explosives.
Depleted uranium shells are NOT nuclear weapons. Uranium is used in shells for its hardness, not radioactivity. - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17edit: @powercow - beat again!
original: Hmm.. can anyone who speaks Arabic confirm that Al-Jazeera is actually saying this is a nuke? I can't see anything about it on their english page, ( http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage ) and there's a guy below claiming that no-one in the video actually claimed it was a nuclear blast. - ElectroOverlord, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12In the first gulf war I was a 12B Combat Engineer and believe me...it does not take that much explosives to make a mushroom cloud. We would strap a pound of C4 to a nice collection of artillery shells and get the ***** back.
- dwemer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12This is *****. Here is the story about the ammo dump exploding from their website:
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/121DC66C-0EC2-4FE2-ACFB-192F6FF6ACB9.htm
It says nothing about a nuke. I am amrking this as inaccurate. - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Here is a reposted translation by someone below. Note the complete lack of mention of nuclear weaponry.
"A series of explosions rocked the Iraqi captial Baghdad. The American Army said a fire caught in an ammo warehouse in an American military base in the Dora region south of the Iraqi capital Baghdad. Which caused the explosives that (The American Army) said it didn't result in causualties. This and witnesses pointed out the probablity that Hawn mortar shells fell on this area."
This article is inaccurate, please report it. - Rsulliv1, on 10/12/2007, -8/+19@ nazuraki
I totally agree. I read some of his posts.. It's sad. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11I wonder if words were put in al jazeeras mouth then as well.. as this is the claims of a google vidiot and not of any al jazeera reporters.
- TheIguana, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13A nuke would have fried the ccd on the camera. Why does everyone assume big explosions=nuke. Was this ACME and the Wilde Coyotes doing?
Iggy :) - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13لا اعلم ، انا لا اتكلم العربية.
- Ghazi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Here's an on-the-fly translation of that video. Like I said, a completely stupid and made-up headline, that doesn't in any way reflect what was actually said...
A series of explosions rocked the Iraqi capital Bagdad. A representative of the American military stated that it was due to an explosion in an ammunition dump in one of the American military bases, in the Doora neighborhood close to the Iraqi capital. He also added that there were no casulaties. Some eye-witnesses also claimed to have seen Hawn rockets dropping in the same area. [video interrupted, cut to another voice over the phone] Although some believed that the explosions were due to some Hawn rockets, the Iraqi government denies it and states that the cause of the explosions is still unkown. The local government is warning the neighboring residents of the possibility of rocket attacks and multiple units of the local police, army, and national guard are currently patrolling the capital to secure the areas. A big number of American helicopters are also flying by. Nothing is confirmed as to what have caused the explosions or to what the extent of the damages are. [Back to the host's voice] As you see on your screen the fires are still raging, 2 hours after the explosions, is it going to be hard to subdue them? [Back to the guest's voice] No doubt, the military base is one the main bases in Bagdad and it contains one of the biggest ammunition dumps. Some debris from the explosions have landed as far as 12 miles away from the base (where I live), and that only indicates how big the explosions were. We actually see the fires from 12 miles away. [Back to the host] Right, thank you writer/journalist Nizar Samaraei for speaking to us. The explosions are still going on, and we shall remind you that they were due to a fire that erupted in an American military base in the southern suburbs of Bagdad, close to Aldoora. Until now nobody knows what the official cause of the explosions was and what the extent of the damages is. And this is now a bigger and bigger explosion as you see. Not only is it hard to extinguish this fire but the explosions are getting bigger... I don't know if Nizar is still with us... No he's not. We wanted to ask him if that was heard in the whole capital because he mentioned that he lives in a neighborhood that's 12 miles away from the site of the explosions. He also mentioned that some debris have flown all the way to his own neighborhood, and that the Iraqi police and army forces are out in the streets to try to contain the damages caused by the explosions and the debris and protect the citizens. We may go back to Bagdad if anything new arises, and we'll leave you with these images coming to you live from the Iraqi capital Bagdad. - wisam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Guys, I'm an Arab. I assure you that there's no mention whatsoever of nukes in this video. Shame on you poster. Claiming that AlJazeera claims it's a tactical nuke.
- nwily, on 10/12/2007, -2/+101) It's Iraq. People have geiger counters. We would have heard about radiation.
2) Mushroom clouds can be caused by anything.
3) A bright flash? Are you kidding me? You do know we admit you haveing PHOSPHOROUS ammunition there, right? The stuff used in flares, among other things. - 1337Einstein, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9A depleted uranium shell is pretty much just a chunk of low quality uranium, last I checked that doesn't count as a nuclear weapon, maybe you're confusing "nuclear" and "radioactive"
- harley247, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Just to let everyone know, it wasn't a tactical nuke, bunker buster, or any of the other things that most of you said. TOW missiles and Artillery shells were cooking off, that's it, nothing more. The iraqi insurgents got a lucky shot with a mortar round to start all of this. How do I know this? I am sitting about 500 meters from the ammo point here on FOB Falcon.
- tadda, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8@ Houssein: Thanks for the trans.
@nixonrichard: are you for real, or did you just not get enough attention as a child? - dudeB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Ok i know arabic and aljazeera NEVER claimed that this was a nuclear explosion or anything , they just said that these were ammunitions exploding at the camp, and it was not yet clear whether it was an attack that triggered the explosions or not.
that was just the live feed of this news story:
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2552679
see guys this is just one of the scenes you guys don't get to see on US tv - wisam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Here's what the newscater said.
"A series of explosions rocked the Iraqi captial Baghdad. The American Army said a fire caught in an ammo warehouse in an American military base in the Dora region south of the Iraqi capital Baghdad. Which caused the explosives that (The American Army) said it didn't result in causualties. This and witnesses pointed out the probablity that Hawn mortar shells fell on this area."
Then then guest who is an Iraqi journalist basicly said the same only to add that officially it's not announced whether it's because of falling mortars or due to warehouse explosives. The newscaster then nearly assured it was an ammo warehouse exploding.
No mention of nukes at all. - theone3, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Skip to 3:55
- theone3, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8"the worst thing fox news viewers do when they get riled up is go take their SUV for a spin around the block"
No, the worst thing they do is vote Republican. - Ghazi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7INACCURATE and just plain wrong and deceitful. Shame on the submitter for lying and for all other diggers for just taking his/her word for it. No one in the video even mentioned the words "tactical" or "nuke."
- stevets, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Roger that, Lets run like hell!
-Barney - wurzelgummage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5They wouldn't store a tactical nuke on the ground in Iraq anyway - imagine if the base got overrun by insurgents, and they got a hold of it?!
- hematose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5As someone who has studied nuclear engineering and weaponry in some detail, to set the record straight:
Only the most basic nuclear weapons are likely to be set off by fire. The cannon design used in the "little boy" U235 weapon, is initiated by a single conventional charge that fired a U235 slug into three precisely shaped U235 rings. Detonate that single charge at any time and you make the critical assembly. Because of this danger, nobody in their right minds would ever make such a weapon again. Modern weapons are exclusively based on implosion which requires many detonators to be activated at just the right time to create a critical assembly. A fire would detonate the explosives asymmetrically and there would be no nuclear blast, or at best a fizzle. This would spread radioactive material over some area, but no atomic yield. It would also be easily detectable by anyone in the region downwind from them with a brain and an x-ray spectrometer available from Wal-Mart. There would also a sea of glass and hundreds of people with burns.
This is one of the big problems with people's understanding of atomic weapons. Most people have no concept of how destructive they really are. If that had been a nuke going off, the explosion would have been MANY times greater. - EdgeOfEpsilon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8The problem is that depleted uranium ordinances are quite often contaminated with higher radioactivity isotopes.
If Al-Qaeda used a depleted uranium ordinance, our guys would call it a "dirty bomb" and condemn them for using "radiological weapons." - Pile, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Check this out:
http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2601410
Someone wants to hide something fast! - DocLee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I don't think that's the same video seeing as that one has been up on google video since January 15, 2006. The video here is from October 10th or 11th, when Camp Falcon was either attacked or munitions were going off because of heat...whichever you believe is beside the point. Hard to tell seeing as it's obviously between days and some news sources report it as the 10th, others say the 11th, some say morning of the 12th. Different events. It's also interesting to note the difference in media accounts but I'm not even going to venture into that realm this evening suffice to say that this is probably going to come up again at a later date.
- spiralspirit, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5would probably effect the camera though.
- limitedmoon, on 10/12/2007, -15/+18This is at least the third time in the past year Aljazeera has accused the US military of using tactical nuclear weapons in Iraq. It's just as false now as it was those two others.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 158 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is