What would you do if the USA actually nuked Iran?

[capslock]

1 - Did it ever occur to you that a track record of invading/takign out your enemies might cause your other enemies to laucn a pre-emptive strike?

2- I don't think it's a drastic measure when it comes to somethign as serious as using a nuclear bomb. Using a nuke is probably the worst crime a country can commit.

And no one is siding with Iran, thats 'your with us or against us' thinking. It is possiable to dislike both Iran and the current US adminstration you know!

So, in your mind, a surgical strike with a tactical nuke to destroy the facilities is worse than an equal amount of conventional bombs or land invansion + occupation? What are you basing that on?

I don't imagine a nuclear strike on Iran would be at all similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The way I understand it, we wouldn't be targeting population centers, it would just be a really big bunker buster bomb to take out the facilities. If you are comparing in your mind possible nuclear attacks in Iran to the bombs dropped in Japan, then your not really making a fair judgement, IMO. This is one reason i think there would be alot of immideatly after the attacks, but no action following. I don't think it would be near as big a deal as some of you are making it out to be. I have to admit, I don't know a whole lot about modern nukes, so I have to look into that.

And I would say breaking off all diplomatic relations would be taking a very firm stance against the US in the conflict. Thats one step short of war, isn't it?

 

[HannibalBarka]

Take a look at all the horrible things people think would happen to America for taking on Iran. There is clearly something there beyond disliking the use of tactical nukes against Iranian nuclear facilities to make them side with Iran and so heavily against the US on this one. I mean, wanting to cut off all diplomatic realations with us?? That is a very drastic measure, isn't it?

I don't know if you are serious or being sarcastic, but using nuclear weapons against Iran, or anyone else for that matter, is a crime, a horrible crime that is. First, it will cause horrible countless deaths, and don't talk about collateral damage. Second it will break a taboo and that by itself is really a huge crime against humanity. And more importantly it used for no valid and serious reasons. the US will use nuclear bomb against Iran because Iran may some day have a nuclear bomb, isn't that unbelievable !!!
If Iran drops a nuclear bomb on the US, not only France would stop any diplomatic relation with Iran, but most probably will declare war on them. So asking my country to stop diplomatic relations with the US if they use NB bomb isn't drastic at all. I would have supported a war against the US to disarm them if that was possible

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

So, in your mind, a surgical strike with a tactical nuke to destroy the facilities is worse than an equal amount of conventional bombs or land invansion + occupation? What are you basing that on?

It doesn't reek of hypocracy for one.

 

[Kayak]

So, in your mind, a surgical strike with a tactical nuke to destroy the facilities is worse than an equal amount of conventional bombs or land invansion + occupation? What are you basing that on?

I don't imagine a nuclear strike on Iran would be at all similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The way I understand it, we wouldn't be targeting population centers, it would just be a really big bunker buster bomb to take out the facilities. If you are comparing in your mind possible nuclear attacks in Iran to the bombs dropped in Japan, then your not really making a fair judgement, IMO. This is one reason i think there would be alot of immideatly after the attacks, but no action following. I don't think it would be near as big a deal as some of you are making it out to be. I have to admit, I don't know a whole lot about modern nukes, so I have to look into that.

And I would say breaking off all diplomatic relations would be taking a very firm stance against the US in the conflict. Thats one step short of war, isn't it?

And when they built the next one underneath a major city, what then? If Iran really wants to develop a nulear bomb it will get one eventually. Attacking will only give them a grudge that would be repayed at a later date.

Because of the way in which we look at nuclear weapons, it would be a very big deal.

 

[bathsheba666]

Because everyone knows that nuclear weapons are deadly as hell and that one nuclear strike could potentially start off a nuclear war.

Well, naturally I agree, but the question was more.. would he?

 

[capslock]

It doesn't reek of hypocracy for one.

Ahhh so thats why Europe did nothing to stop Hitler from building his empire. They would have been hypocrites for using tanks and machine guns to keep Germany from getting them!

 

[classical_hero]

I love these Doomsday scenarios. It is a chance for people to get out what they really want to say about things.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

Ahhh so thats why Europe did nothing to stop Hitler from building his empire. They would have been hypocrites for using tanks and machine guns to keep Germany from getting them!

Sorry, I was under the impression we declared war on Germany when they attacked Poland. It's a very pale comparison in any event but feel free to make it if you choose. I think it's fair to say that Europe shares much of the blame for the problems in the Middle East.

I was talking about the hypocracy of demanding that a sovereign nation halt it's nuclear weapons programme and then, when they do not, using nuclear weapons to destroy them

I may support an attack on Iran using convential weapons if all other avenues have been exhausted. But even then given that other nations of the world have nukes including, it is generally thought, Israel, I wouldn't blame the Middle East for screaming 'hypocrite' at the West then either.

 

[capslock]

I don't know if you are serious or being sarcastic, but using nuclear weapons against Iran, or anyone else for that matter, is a crime, a horrible crime that is. First, it will cause horrible countless deaths, and don't talk about collateral damage. Second it will break a taboo and that by itself is really a huge crime against humanity. And more importantly it used for no valid and serious reasons. the US will use nuclear bomb against Iran because Iran may some day have a nuclear bomb, isn't that unbelievable !!!
If Iran drops a nuclear bomb on the US, not only France would stop any diplomatic relation with Iran, but most probably will declare war on them. So asking my country to stop diplomatic relations with the US if they use NB bomb isn't drastic at all. I would have supported a war against the US to disarm them if that was possible

So, you would support a war to keep Iran from developing nukes, then? Thats actually in the realm of possibility.

The problem I have with your point of view, is you seem to lump the US right in the same pile as Iraq, Iran, etc. and judge us the same as them, without consideration of history, place in world order, or current affairs, such as constant terrorrism and terrorist rhetoric coming from that part of the world every day.

Anyway, its nice to know you might declare war on Iran if they nuke us. That could maybe make up for your opposition of our efforts to prevent them form getting nukes in the first place.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Ahhh so thats why Europe did nothing to stop Hitler from building his empire. They would have been hypocrites for using tanks and machine guns to keep Germany from getting them!

Before Germany invaded Check Republic and later on Poland, I wouldn't had supported a war against them. You just can't send some one to the death raw before he commits murder. All the pre-emptive doctrine for me is bs. You can't invade a country because you think he may invade you let alone nuking it. If the US nuke Iran, than for me they become worse than the fundies of Iran.

 

[HannibalBarka]

So, you would support a war to keep Iran from developing nukes, then? Thats actually in the realm of possibility.

Don't know, maybe if all other possibilities won't work and only if there is a agreement by the UN. I will however oppose any use of nuclear weapon against a nation to stop them from having nuclear weapon, because it is disproportionate, unhuman and more importantly counter-productive. The next day all nations on earth will start building nuclear weapons, wich is no good news for the world.

The problem I have with your point of view, is you seem to lump the US right in the same pile as Iraq, Iran, etc. and judge us the same as them, without consideration of history, place in world order, or current affairs, such as constant terrorrism and terrorist rhetoric coming from that part of the world every day.
Anyway, its nice to know you might declare war on Iran if they nuke us. That could maybe make up for your opposition of our efforts to prevent them form getting nukes in the first place.

I am not lumping the US right in the same pile as Iraq, Iran, etc. I know they are a democracy, are much more stable than Iran for example, and I think their leaders are more responsible because in a democracy power is held by a lot of people even if technically the President of the US is the one who will ultimmatly press the nuclear button. But if they start nuking other nations, than all that respect I have for them is gone.

 

[Neomega]

1. Say... "Oh, you stupid ****, you done it now!"

2. Stockpile weapons and ammuntion

3. Sell my stock, no matter how much I lose.

4. Buy a bunch of bicycle tires, as the "John Titor" writer suggested.

5. Protest, armed.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Move to one of the big square shaped states out West. Im too close to NYC, Id be in the blast radius. Too many targets around here.

 

[alco75]

If Bush does that, the monkey should be made to suffer the slowest and most painful possible death by radiation sickness. Then, his head should be presented to the Middle East to be skull f**ked for the next few hundred years.

Believe me, I'm no fundaMENTAList apologist.

If America and the Middle East want to fight their risible Christianity vs Islam Holy War, please do it without irradiating the rest of the planet in the process. Cheers.

 

[ComradeDavo]

So, in your mind, a surgical strike with a tactical nuke to destroy the facilities is worse than an equal amount of conventional bombs or land invansion + occupation? What are you basing that on?

I don't imagine a nuclear strike on Iran would be at all similar to Hiroshima or Nagasaki. The way I understand it, we wouldn't be targeting population centers, it would just be a really big bunker buster bomb to take out the facilities. If you are comparing in your mind possible nuclear attacks in Iran to the bombs dropped in Japan, then your not really making a fair judgement, IMO. This is one reason i think there would be alot of immideatly after the attacks, but no action following. I don't think it would be near as big a deal as some of you are making it out to be. I have to admit, I don't know a whole lot about modern nukes, so I have to look into that.

And I would say breaking off all diplomatic relations would be taking a very firm stance against the US in the conflict. Thats one step short of war, isn't it?

1- I am basing it on the fact that nuclear weapons are much more poweful than convential weapons, and radiation and so forth. Plus it ricks nuclear retaliation from other countries/rouge groups and so forth. It's a line that should never be crossed.

2-Reagring breaking off of relations, well relations could still be kept with the Democrats and other political parties, just not the Republican government.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I love these Doomsday scenarios. It is a chance for people to get out what they really want to say about things.

Well, naturally I agree, but the question was more.. would he?

Ah I see hehe. You have a point there, Bush isn't the most rational of people...

 

[Truronian]

I'd be glad that Cornwall is in no way a target (excepts maybe the American military base near Newquay), should MAD come into effect. Then I'd hope Blair maintains neutrality on the issue rather than volunteering Britain as a closer retaliatory target.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I'd be glad that Cornwall is in no way a target (excepts maybe the American military base near Newquay), should MAD come into effect. Then I'd hope Blair maintains neutrality on the issue rather than volunteering Britain as a closer retaliatory target.

Don't worry, Cornwall would soon be flooded by the rising sea levels when the polar caps melt!

 

[amadeus]

Launching a nuke is one thing of course, but do people realise that if military strikes are carried away against Teheran's nuclear facilities it would cause as much harm as a nuke in terms of human life? Certainly not in a day but on the long term.

What sort of evidence do you have to support that view? Either you've assumed that all of Iran's nuclear facilities are inside children's hospitals or you greatly underestimate the power of nuclear weapons.

 

[EdwardTking]

1. Say... "Oh, you stupid ****, you done it now!"

2. Stockpile weapons and ammuntion

3. Sell my stock, no matter how much I lose.

4. Buy a bunch of bicycle tires, as the "John Titor" writer suggested.

5. Protest, armed.

I plan to buy a bicycle next month just in case.