What would you do if the USA actually nuked Iran?

[GoodSarmatian]

A highly unlikely scenario, but if it happens I don't expect much response from world governments barring idle talk
I'd probably demonstrate try to boycott as many US products as possible.
That's all I can do.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

You can burn their flag. They really hate that.

 

[LightFang]

I'd just live my life as normal. I mean, there's a war going on in Iraq, and nobody really cares.

 

[Stapel]

In my heart, I truly believe that my nation attempts to do what is right in the world, for the most part. However, our methods are not necessarily the best. The "US Military" whose actions appalled the Muslim world were poorly represented by idiots who do not deserve to carry our flag. Need I remind you that this same US Military is the one which is making Iraq a more democratic area, and has stemmed violence in Baghdad and other areas? Now, I know you will say that the violence was an effect of the invasion. However, the fact that the United States is willing to make a commitment to shape Iraq into a better place for its children makes it better than any of the varied dictatorships and rogue states out there. Iraq under Saddam Hussein saw death. Iraq under a democratically elected government sees hope.

There is one problem with this. Many people in Iraq (and other Arab nations) cannot see why having a democratic government should give more hope dan having a brutal dictator. It might obvious beyond any form of debate why democracy is better than a brutal dictator for us, having grown up in Free democratic nations, but for many Arabs it is not.

I still find that this was vastly underestimated by the US, before, during and after the invasion of Iraq. In fact, the post-invasion-efforts were so unbelievably ill-prepared, that, in hindsight, I draw the conclusion it was all-together a bad idea.

Willing to make a commitment to shape Iraq into a better place for its children, is not enough. Actually being able to do so is quite important too.

 

[Cygnus X-1]

Why do people hate Bush so much?
I mean seriously I have heard people saying we should impeach him. It is his last term he can not run again, and as for people saying he is stupid he is obviously smarter than Al Gore and John Karry for the American people voted for him, sorry the electorial colleges twice even though people did not like him in his first term, they still reelected him.

 

[Yui108]

If that were to happen, I'd kill the nearest American I could get my hands on.

I am not joking or exaggerating.

Sure, because killing American's who didn't choose to launch the weapon makes you so mighty and righteous.

 

[Godwynn]

Why do people hate Bush so much?
I mean seriously I have heard people saying we should impeach him. It is his last term he can not run again, and as for people saying he is stupid he is obviously smarter than Al Gore and John Karry for the American people voted for him, sorry the electorial colleges twice even though people did not like him in his first term, they still reelected him.

Winning the electoral college != smarter.

 

[scy12]

I would be behind this action 98%. I would prefer it if we (or Israel) were able to neutralize Iran using conventional means, but if that is what the administration decides is neccesary to keep me from getting nuked by islamic terrorists, then I support them.

Fascist inhumane terrorist idiot(S). I would be in favor of executing such idiots. As for what the world should do. I think an oil embargo on USA or any other country that did this , would be one measure. I think total embargo would actually be better. And any nation that attempted to brake it would also suffer.

 

[Cygnus X-1]

Winning the electoral college != smarter.

well yes he did make it to become president twice

 

[Godwynn]

well yes he did make it to become president twice

George W. Bush was not his own campaign manager.

 

[scy12]

I would do about the same thing I do every day. Which is precisely what most of you would actually do despite claims otherwise.

That means that you would attempt to justify , then ?

 

[Patroklos]

Fascist inhumane terrorist idiot(S). I would be in favor of executing such idiots. As for what the world should do. I think an oil embargo on USA or any other country that did this , would be one measure. I think total embargo would actually be better. And any nation that attempted to brake it would also suffer.

The only countries that would suffer more than America from such an embargo would be every one participating in it.

As for a tactical attack, civilian casualties would be relatively minor. We wouldn't consider the civilians in the actual facilities as illegitimate targets any more than we would workers in a tank factory. Nukes exploded underground are pretty well contained (and we are talking about bunker buster SMALL nukes here). Collateral civilian casualties are most likely to come from the immediate effect of small earthquakes on local villages/cities, or from long term radiation which will not manifest itself for quite a while (if at all).

 

[scy12]

The only countries that would suffer more than America from such an embargo would be every one participating in it.

As for a tactical attack, civilian casualties would be relatively minor. We wouldn't consider the civilians in the actual facilities as illegitimate targets any more than we would workers in a tank factory. Nukes exploded underground are pretty well contained (and we are talking about bunker buster SMALL nukes here). Collateral civilian casualties are most likely to come from the immediate effect of small earthquakes on local villages/cities, or from long term radiation which will not manifest itself for quite a while (if at all).

Thank you (actually it was not only you) for proving that another thread is suitable of Dr Strangelove's approval.

 

[Patroklos]

Thank you for providing another thread suitable of the Dr Strangelove approval.

God, that is about as lame as saying "1984!"

Feel free to point out the techincal errors of what I said. Note I didn't advocate nuking Iran, but rather pointed out the glaring video game induced errors of understanding concerning everything military and setting people straight. You know, like I always have to do.

 

[scy12]

God, that is about as lame as saying "1984!"

Feel free to point out the techincal errors of what I said. Note I didn't advovate nuking Iran, but rather pointed out the glaring video game induced errors in understanding everything military and setting you straight. You know, like I always have to do.

I did not said that you approved it or that you said obvious techincal wrong things. Your thought process expressed by phrases such as "very small casualties" and the expression as "Collateral damage" as a pretty damn enough of a reason. And your only one small piece of the puzzle that makes this thread what it is.

 

[Patroklos]

Thats because they will be "very small casualties" and "collateral damage" as matters of fact. Pleasse check your semantics at the door.

 

[I'm Cleo!]

Lots of Iran's nuclear facilities are located in cities. Natanz is relatively far away, but the buried facilities in Isfahan are located right there by the city. Other targets are in Tehran and Arak, but they're probably not buried to the extent that nuclear weapons would be used. And the facilities at Natanz and Isfahan are pretty well hardened; the nuclear "bunker buster" bombs would have to be of significant size.

Additionally, nukes detonated underground are not particularly well-contained. Even when we were trying to keep them underground in Nevada during tests, there were mishaps and lots of radiation was released. Naturally, if you were detonating a bomb underground, it will have gotten underground through a hole, so it wouldn't really be contained at all. It would fire out a huge plume of irradiated sand.

The use of nuclear weapons anywhere would be horrific, including on targets part of Iran's nuclear program. The idea that you can responsibly use nuclear weapons anywhere but the middle of the ocean -- much less populated areas -- is fantasy.

Cleo

 

[SharpMango]

The US would be wise not to attack Iran, but I predict it will happen. Not nuclear though. Irans not backing down & the US will not let them have a nuke,considering Ahmadinejad already stated that Israel does'nt have a right to exist.

If anyone's complaining about gas prices now,look out!

Oil prices leapt above $72 a barrel Wednesday, settling at a record high for the third straight day.

wow, i didnt realise how old this thread was till i read this
how i would LOVE oil to cost $50 plus dollars less!!!
( i wonder if anyone will quote this in 2 years wishing they'd love oil to be under $250!)

 

[Patroklos]

the nuclear "bunker buster" bombs would have to be of significant size.

No, they wouldn't. Even a kilaton nuke explosion on site would send ripples through the earth that would liquify the ground in the immediate vicinity. Such a weapon would devestate any underground stucture in at least a square mile probably.

You need to think about how a depth charge, because ground takes on the characterisitcs of a fluid under such forces. Direct contact with a compression wave through a material as dense as dirt/rock would be many times more devastating than air or water. A depth charge will turn a mans bones to dust if they are in the water. Similarly the destuctive power of an air burst comes from the compression wave. Ground is a MUCH more efficient medium for shock waves.

Additionally, nukes detonated underground are not particularly well-contained. Even when we were trying to keep them underground in Nevada during tests, there were mishaps and lots of radiation was released.

"Lots" is relative, which in terms of nuclear weapons is more accurately phrased as "insignificant." In any case, those were for our most powerful nuke tests, these bombs are rated in the single kiloton range or there about.

Naturally, if you were detonating a bomb underground, it will have gotten underground through a hole, so it wouldn't really be contained at all. It would fire out a huge plume of irradiated sand.

Feel free to watch any underground test to see what happens. It creats a crater by compacting and moving the ground at the immediate point of detination into which the surface then falls. No huge plume. I am sure you can find them on youtube.

The use of nuclear weapons anywhere would be horrific, including on targets part of Iran's nuclear program. The idea that you can responsibly use nuclear weapons anywhere but the middle of the ocean -- much less populated areas -- is fantasy.

They are horrific, but to pretend they are automatically more horrific than other forms or warfare because of their magic "nuclear" title is ********. Nukes, like all weapons, are as destructive (explosive wise) as their yield and no more. A kiloton explosion underground is a kiloton explosion underground, regardless of the source.

 

[lovett]

I did not said that you approved it or that you said obvious techincal wrong things. Your thought process expressed by phrases such as "very small casualties" and the expression as "Collateral damage" as a pretty damn enough of a reason. And your only one small piece of the puzzle that makes this thread what it is.

Dr Strangelove was funny and pertinent because it pointed out an absurd disparity in thinking. Most people do not classify '20 million dead- tops' as just getting your hair mussed.

In comparison, by 'very small casualties' Pat probably does mean 'very small casualties'. Presumably countable with less then four numbers. That is not an absurd disparity in thinking. Comparing it to Dr Strangelove is neither funny nor pertinent.