Possible nuclear strike on Iran?

[General Leang 0]

Hey all. I know I have not visted here in months, blame my work, but a friend of mine passed this on and I thought I had to post it.

 

http://www.larouchepub.com/other/20...sneak_attk.html

 

It details about an October surprise planned by the Bush government, that is bombing Iran with bunker buster nuclear payloads, in a bid to keep the Republicans in power in the November elections. I consider this would be government, country, and possibly even world suicide and something too crazy to even contemplate. What are your thoughts?

[Alphabear 11]

We just came out of a long argument about this, and i must say i agree completely with what you just said. There are other methods than the use of nuclear weaponry, methods that the rest of the world are more likely to accept.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

A tactical nuke is far from a nuclear strike. Nuclear strike is synonomous with an atomic warhead, which we ARE NOT going to use again... ever. However, I can't say much past this because the link to the article is broken.

[Dr. Rodney McKay 0]

Fenring is right. Tactical nukes are alot smaller than Strategic Nukes, which we won't use unless we have no other option, which is very unlikely.

[Alphabear 11]

tactical nukes still have an atomic warhead and still do a hell of a lot of damage. Have you seen one go off? There not Small.

[Dr. Rodney McKay 0]

Yes, they do alot of damage, but they're different from a Atomic Warhead in that they don't blow up entire cities at once.

[BWare 0]

tactical nukes still have an atomic warhead and still do a hell of a lot of damage. Have you seen one go off? There not Small.

Have you? They do MASSIVE damage... but in the right place. Do you want those nuclear research bunkers wiped out or not? Do you have a better solution?

 

Leang, why are you overreacting about this? :? Ahmadinejad is a psychopath whose research program MUST be stopped at all costs. The worst case scenario would be him with his finger on the red button. The guy has SWORN the destruction of Israel! For those of you who are so damn eager to draw Nazi parallels to extremist Christians (:roll:), how about taking a look at THIS guy? He is, in his OWN WORDS, hell bent on wiping the Jews off the face of the earth.

[The Nker 0]

tactical nukes still have an atomic warhead and still do a hell of a lot of damage. Have you seen one go off? There not Small.

Have you? They do MASSIVE damage... but in the right place. Do you want those nuclear research bunkers wiped out or not? Do you have a better solution?

 

Leang, why are you overreacting about this? :? Ahmadinejad is a psychopath whose research program MUST be stopped at all costs. The worst case scenario would be him with his finger on the red button. The guy has SWORN the destruction of Israel! For those of you who are so damn eager to draw Nazi parallels to extremist Christians (:roll:), how about taking a look at THIS guy? He is, in his OWN WORDS, hell bent on wiping the Jews off the face of the earth.

 

Maybe the world finds a bit...incoherent using nuclear weapons to prevent another state from building nuclear weapons. But maybe it's just me :roll:

[BWare 0]

Maybe the world finds a bit...incoherent using nuclear weapons to prevent another state from building nuclear weapons. But maybe it's just me :roll:

We've covered this before. It seems ironic to the surface observer. However, when you think hard enough to realize that these psychos have sworn the genocide and destruction of a certain people, are already guilty of horrible atrocities, and are currently racing to develop these NUCLEAR weapons, you start to see things as they are. This isn't a game- the fate of the freaking planet could be in danger. Small, tactical nukes are the only way to definitely wipe out the many underground research facilities he has. Priority one is knocking them out. The way we do it is really pretty irrelevant... unless you're so immature that you can't get past the semi-funny irony. :roll:

 

Your snide little comment is great and all, but how about taking it one step further and proposing another solution? I sure as hell can't think of one.

[Doctor Destiny 41]

omg ub0r invasi0n!!!!!!1111111 lolz!!111111!!!!!!!!!1111!11oneone!!!!eleventyone!!!!!111111

 

 

[/sarcasm]

[Cygnus X-1 12]

Right...invasion....we know how well those go in the Middle East when the Arabs start strapping bombs to kids and dogs to attack US troops because the cowards cant do it themselves.

 

No one wants to use Nuclear bunker busters to wipe out Iran's nukes, yet none of these people have a better solution aside from sitting around holding hands and wearing tye-dye t-shirts from the 60's. Get with the modern times people. This is the information age. Heres yoru informormation. Tactical nukes hit and completley obliterate their targets without exessive spillover damage. Garunteed destruction. Now keep in mind that Irans nuclear research facilities arent under a school building or in a city or anything like that. Even they arent that stupid. A nuclear bunker buster couldnt wipe out a city if it wanted to. Its designed to hit and destroy hardened targets, not dish out mass damage like the Strategic city busters are (these are the big nukes that everyone's afraid of)

[F15pilotX 4]

The thing is, the Arabs HAVE to get nukes, because every time they invade Israel, they get beaten

[Alphabear 11]

Syria and Egypt already had tactical nukes deployed in the Yom Kippur war to prevent israel from invading in their counter-attack.

 

The US does have other weapons in its arsenal that could get the job done, not necessrily in one hit but they could still get the job done. A tactical nuclear strike would still be considered an act of war anyway which would be followed up with an invasion where the facility would be able to be destroyed much easier or even captured.

[BWare 0]

The US does have other weapons in its arsenal that could get the job done, not necessrily in one hit but they could still get the job done.

False.

 

A tactical nuclear strike would still be considered an act of war anyway

Yes.... yes it would. So would a conventional bombing. Your point?

 

...which would be followed up with an invasion where the facility would be able to be destroyed much easier or even captured.

What exactly do you mean by this? Honestly, I can't understand this confusing sentence. Do you mean to say that Iran would invade the US after a preemptive bombing? Call me crazy, but I just don't see that happening.

[rEdaSbLood 1]

so your telling me, BWare, that the US doesn't have nuclear warheads for even retaliation purposes?..which from my knowledge is the only legally justifiable use of a nuclear warhead..?

[Alphabear 11]

A tactical nuclear strike would still be considered an act of war anyway

Yes.... yes it would. So would a conventional bombing. Your point?

maybe you should have read on before you started posting. take anything out of context and it sounds like it doesnt make sence

 

What i was saying is that the US isnt going to just nuke iran and leave them, they will have to follow up with an invasion anyway. During which time the facility could be destroyed much easier or captured.

 

The US does have other weapons in its arsenal that could get the job done, not necessrily in one hit but they could still get the job done.

False.

 

Well if thats your whole rebuttal i will just do the same. False

[Dr. Rodney McKay 0]

They might have ones that can Get-R-Done in a few hits, but tactical nukes are more effective for blowing up hardened targets. Why wouldn't you use the most effective tactic possible?

 

On another note, Stephen Colbert did an interview with Paul Aronsohn asking his opinion of the current invasion of Iran(To be aired when we invade).

[BWare 0]

maybe you should have read on before you started posting. take anything out of context and it sounds like it doesnt make sence

Er, *sense? Anyway, your post was mostly a jumbled mess, and I made out what I could. The problem is your communication here dude.

 

What i was saying is that the US isnt going to just nuke iran and leave them, they will have to follow up with an invasion anyway. During which time the facility could be destroyed much easier or captured.

That's a very strange assumption. Obviously, if invasion was on the table, we wouldn't be having this debate. No... we're talking about a surgical strike and nothing more. Read up a bit on what Israel did in Operation Opera. This would be the same thing. Why are you assuming that an invasion would necessarily occur? :?

 

Well if thats your whole rebuttal i will just do the same. False

Your point was hardly worth more than a word response, but hey, why not. Conventional bunker busters could not possibly take out everything that we need destroyed. I mean, in theory I suppose that it could maybe be done... but we're talking real life here. Just take one second to consider this: We'd be flying bombers into another country's heavily defended airspace. Don't you think that it would be in our best interests to minimize the amount of strikes necessary per facility? One bomb, done. Certain destruction. Doesnt' that beat several uncertain strikes per each of the hundreds of targets?

 

Bottom line: Your point that we could accomplish the same thing without tactical nukes is, in fact, false.

[Alphabear 11]

but you just proved that the same result can be accomplished by other means. If the end justifies the means anyway why not do it in a way that isnt going to cause the US to be isolated from the rest of the world.

[Mario 0]

They might have ones that can Get-R-Done in a few hits, but tactical nukes are more effective for blowing up hardened targets. Why wouldn't you use the most effective tactic possible?

 

they wouldnt use nukes because of the after effects but they could use the new bunker buster that they have developed

[Cygnus X-1 12]

but you just proved that the same result can be accomplished by other means. If the end justifies the means anyway why not do it in a way that isnt going to cause the US to be isolated from the rest of the world.

 

Because we refuse to stoop to level of getting our own pilots killed by bombing a target multiple needless times when we could just do it once nad get it over with. Every strike that doest destroy it gives them another chance to use their nukes, or repair the facility, or move the critical materials. Get your head out of your....(ah hem) and wake up. This isnt a game. You give the futhermucking Radicals one chance, and they'll take it. Why, just look at the CNCNZ homepage.

 

See? They took their one chance, and now Revora is down.

[comander starlin 6]

why does the USA resort to nuclear weaponry? they has got to be something just as effective that doesn't involve nukes.

[Dr. Rodney McKay 0]

Nothing blows up hardened targets like a tactical nuke. We need to get these facilities destroyed as fast as possible, and tactical nukes do the job extremely well.

[BWare 0]

Alphabear, for a smart guy, you can sure be stupid as hell sometimes. I swear....

 

Cygnus explained this one very nicely. But one other thing: WHO CARES what the world thinks, or if we become "isolated"? Yes, I'm being the stereotypical American that the jealous, bitter, lazy, stereotypical European has learned to hate, but America has always been the one to do the RIGHT thing, international politics be damned, and our worthwhile allies respect us becase of it. We're leaders in that regard, and I frankly don't feel any shame because of it... call me crazy.

[The Nker 0]

Alphabear, for a smart guy, you can sure be stupid as hell sometimes. I swear....

 

Cygnus explained this one very nicely. But one other thing: WHO CARES what the world thinks, or if we become "isolated"? Yes, I'm being the stereotypical American that the jealous, bitter, lazy, stereotypical European has learned to hate, but America has always been the one to do the RIGHT thing, international politics be damned, and our worthwhile allies respect us becase of it. We're leaders in that regard, and I frankly don't feel any shame because of it... call me crazy.

 

Crazy. :roll:

 

Assuming that Iran actually wants to make nukes, they're not going to make 1000 ICMBs able to target USA anytime soon. They don't have the resources to do it. All they can do is build 5-7 nukes, that could be able to hit Israel. Yeah, that's WRONG, but they're aiming at Israel, not at you, so let Israelians solve their problems (don't call me selfish, Italy would be in range of Iranian nukes). Iran won't use nukes anyway. A nation doesn't build nukes to use them since WWII. They build them to show they're powerful. Even if Amadinejihad was crazy, he would not be so crazy to use them. They know they'd be immideately blasted to oblivion by French, English, Israeli and American nukes. No nation in the world has the right to attack any other nation, and that does include USA. Remember that the world isn't under American protection, nor it has to be.