Nuking Iran

[Nocturnal]

Is Bush just bluffing by saying "All options are on the table." in regards to using a nuclear weapon on Iran's nuclear facilities or do you guys think he's speaking the truth and may possibly use nuclear weapons in the near distant future.

 

[ntdz]

There's no truth to it, but no President ever takes any option off the table, no matter how far fetched it is.

 

[Aimster]

It's not even an option. It's too far fetched and it will make the U.S look horrible to the rest of the world and from inside.

What he meant by that is that attacking Iran (airstrikes, invasion) is an option. Not nuking Iran.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

He doesn't want to use nukes, as when the place is one big radioactive wasteland he cannot put a puppetgovernment in place anymore either.

 

[B00ne]

It's not an option - not even Bush wants destroy the world - it would not just make the US look bad it would probably lead to all out WW3

Actually I doubt that using any force against Iran is an option atm - that would be a loose-loose situatuation that would make Iraq look like the biggest succes ever in comparison

 

[43st]

Considering the Republican's invasion track record nothing is beyond them. The Republican's will just make up some story about WMD's or human rights and pull the trigger.

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
Is Bush just bluffing by saying "All options are on the table." in regards to using a nuclear weapon on Iran's nuclear facilities or do you guys think he's speaking the truth and may possibly use nuclear weapons in the near distant future.

Propaganda war. Rumsfeld's propaganda war comment is starting to make sense.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Nocturnal
Is Bush just bluffing by saying "All options are on the table." in regards to using a nuclear weapon on Iran's nuclear facilities or do you guys think he's speaking the truth and may possibly use nuclear weapons in the near distant future.

bluffing

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: ntdz
There's no truth to it, but no President ever takes any option off the table, no matter how far fetched it is.

what he said... except Iran must be led to believe that it is still an option, as our nukes remain one of our nation's strongest deterrents against those who would do us harm.

thinktanks and analysts of all kinds are paid to brainstom, plan for, and simulate EVERY fathomable option; and all of them must be considered viable in any situation. there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing so. After all, dont you WANT the military and government to plan for every contingency? I know that I do... all to often they are blamed for not doing so, which is what makes this particular issue funny (ironic) to me.

that said, I dont believe that we'll ever pre-emptively nuke anyone, no. not even Bush.

Anyone promoting the idea that Bush is seriously considering nuclear attack, as a first option, is a sensationalist propoganda whore.

 

[Moonbeam]

Of course he will. Bush is a disaster and like all disasters he seeks it in order to feel alive again. In chaos and destruction the dead soul unconsciously seeks resurrection and therefore unconsciously creates that which he unconsciously thinks he needs for that to happen. Bush is a devotee of Shiva. He must gaze upon the bodies of millions he has killed before he can wonder if he is wrong. His unconscious hope is that he will, but did the Devil? He will not. Of course, we are all disasters so we will all go along for the ride. We all have the same unconscious hope that in complete destruction there is rebirth. We will never see that it is the ego, not the world that must die.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: ntdz
There's no truth to it, but no President ever takes any option off the table, no matter how far fetched it is.

Yeah, that's why several high-ranking military commanders are talking of resigning if nukes are not taken off the table.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: ntdz
There's no truth to it, but no President ever takes any option off the table, no matter how far fetched it is.

Yeah, that's why several high-ranking military commanders are talking of resigning if nukes are not taken off the table.

like i said in my previous post, in the last sentence... the shoe definately fits this guy!

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74


that said, I dont believe that we'll ever pre-emptively nuke anyone, no. not even Bush.

I never believed we would pre-emptively invade a soverign country unless we had 100% solid evidence that it was nessecary either. Better check you hole cards there palehorse, you may be going for quite a ride.

 

[Darkhawk28]

After all this bullsh*t about Iran, there has been ZERO conclusive proof that Iran is any sort of threat to us now or in the future.

Going into Iran will cause a major global conflict.

 

[piasabird]

If we nuked Iran that might contaminate Iraq or other neighboring countries. Wind tends to blow the nuclear fallout in whatever direction the wind blows. Plus if it contaminated a large area where there was oil no one would want to go in and get the oil. It just does not make sense. It would make more sense to make a dirty bomb that contaminates a small area with radiation so the people could not access the site without the threat of contamination.

We could probably develop some kind of weapon designed to break down the cement in the bunkers. Maybe repeated napalm or some incendiary material could melt through a bunker like acid or heat it up so much it would just burn. I could imagine some kind of armor plated boring device that bores through the bunker and then explodes when it gets through. If you are in a bunker you have to have clean air so it would not take much nerve gas to contaminate a below ground complex.

Iran will never be made to see reason. They elect the path of pain and sufferring. Iran chooses to pursue the path of nuclear power and weapons proliferation so they can arm palistinians and support terrorists. If they support terror they deserve terror in their own country. I say give them terror. If they like killing civilians and supporting the terrorists in Palestine and in Iraq, we should terrorize their civilian population in retaliation. That is what they understand, and that is what they should get.

 

[conjur]

Why do you think Divine Strake was scheduled for Nevada? They wanted to test fallout.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74


that said, I dont believe that we'll ever pre-emptively nuke anyone, no. not even Bush.

I never believed we would pre-emptively invade a soverign country unless we had 100% solid evidence that it was nessecary either. Better check you hole cards there palehorse, you may be going for quite a ride.

blah blah blah.. apples and oranges. just another example of the "anti" tendency to exagerate and sensationalize everything.

Comparing our invasion and liberation of Iraq to the use of nukes is fvcking ridiculous. And some might argue, correctly, that Saddam's 17 breeches of the ceasefire agreement prior to our invasion are enough to eliminate "pre-emptive" from any description. Some may even go so far as to describe the entire invasion as justified on those merits alone! And the irony is that in terms of legality, they'd be correct!

that's gotta suck, eh?

But, please, stop trying to promote the idea that the President is seriously considering nuclear attack as a first option in any military strike on Iran. That only makes you look like a sensationalist tool. (ala Hersh).

g'day.

 

[smashp]

well rummy wanted smaller scale low yield tactical nukes. Preferably in bunker busting bombs that detonate underground.

they take out a 3-17 mile radius

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74


that said, I dont believe that we'll ever pre-emptively nuke anyone, no. not even Bush.

I never believed we would pre-emptively invade a soverign country unless we had 100% solid evidence that it was nessecary either. Better check you hole cards there palehorse, you may be going for quite a ride.

Then you haven't been keeping up with history. The US has been pulling the same sort of BS it did in Iraq for over 100-years.

As for the rest, the fed has explicitly defined the reasons why it MUST use nukes under some circumstances. They say, for instance, that Natanz, a major Iranian nuclear facility, can't be destroyed using conventional munitions. I'm sure Iran has other buried and hardened facilities as well, having learned from Osirak. Why even bother attacking Iran if the stated reason (Iran can?t be trusted with nuclear technology) for the attack won't be accomplished? I remember reading that the NPR (Nuclear Posture Review) includes the idea that nukes can be legitimately used by the US to sterilize suspected biological\chemical weapons production facilities. Remember also that Rumsfeld has said that he "believes" weapons like the B61 can be used without much danger of fallout, because the weapon detonates so far under ground.

So yeah, Bush could indeed by stupid enough to nuke Iran. His administration has already laid the (pseudo)legal justification for it.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74


that said, I dont believe that we'll ever pre-emptively nuke anyone, no. not even Bush.

I never believed we would pre-emptively invade a soverign country unless we had 100% solid evidence that it was nessecary either. Better check you hole cards there palehorse, you may be going for quite a ride.

blah blah blah.. apples and oranges. just another example of the "anti" tendency to exagerate and sensationalize everything.

Comparing our invasion and liberation of Iraq to the use of nukes is fvcking ridiculous. And some might argue, correctly, that Saddam's 17 breeches of the ceasefire agreement prior to our invasion are enough to eliminate "pre-emptive" from any description. Some may even go so far as to describe the entire invasion as justified on those merits alone! And the irony is that in terms of legality, they'd be correct!

that's gotta suck, eh?

But, please, stop trying to promote the idea that the President is seriously considering nuclear attack as a first option in any military strike on Iran. That only makes you look like a sensationalist tool. (ala Hersh).

g'day.

blah blah blah the truth hurts. It amazes me the way people like you try to rewrite the reasons for going into Iraq AFTER THE FACT. Now you sit there and expect me to take anything you say seriously?

I would hope that Bush is smarter then to use a nuke, but unfortunately his reputation proceeds him. The very fact that he is so stubborn as not not take that option of the table in the spirit of diplomacy shows what a dickhead he really is.

Hey, he can always still use a nuke if it really came down to it and he knows that. The fact he won't take the option "off the table" in the spirit of working out a solution speaks to his real intents as far as I'm concerned.

I'm an "anti" alright, anti-bush, anti-war, and most importantly anti-NUKES!! Having to put up with arrogant, military know-it-alls like yourself is soon going to force me to be anti-military as well.

 

[jackschmittusa]

a letter to GWB

Thirteen of the nation?s most prominent physicists have written a letter to President Bush, calling U.S. plans to reportedly use nuclear weapons against Iran ?gravely irresponsible? and warning that such action would have ?disastrous consequences for the security of the United States and the world.?

It notes that there are no sharp lines between small and large nuclear weapons, nor between nuclear weapons targeting facilities and those targeting armies or cities, and that the use by the United States of nuclear weapons after 60 years of non-use will make the use of nuclear weapons by others more likely.

?Once the U.S. uses a nuclear weapon again, it will heighten the probability that others will too,? the physicists write. ?In a world with many more nuclear nations and no longer a ?taboo? against the use of nuclear weapons, there will be a greatly enhanced risk that regional conflicts could expand into global nuclear war, with the potential to destroy our civilization.?

Maybe this will help some of you understand.

Bush has had a fetish for tactical nukes for a long time. I am not anti-war, or even anti-nuke, but Bush does not seem to grasp the potential pitfalls of of even threatening to use tactical nukes, let alone actually using them. And sorry, but I have no faith at all that GWB has enough sense to make good decisions for the country or the world.

 

[Gravity]

Our pre-emptive policy indicates we can use whatever force we consider adequate to do the job. Our policy on getting attacked is a bit different. For example, if Iraq had used chem/bio warfare on us during the gulf war, we would have doctrinally been justified to nuke them or use chem/bio on them x3.

I'm not supporting pre-emptive nukes, just pointing out that they could be considered.

Is it possible that Iran, like Iraq, is exagerating their nuclear capabilities? Couldn't they be bluffing much like Saddam was? Perhaps their scientists are just telling their bosses they have enriched uranium and only have stuff they put in their secret containers that looks and smellls like it but it's only really p00p.

Just a thought.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74


that said, I dont believe that we'll ever pre-emptively nuke anyone, no. not even Bush.

I never believed we would pre-emptively invade a soverign country unless we had 100% solid evidence that it was nessecary either. Better check you hole cards there palehorse, you may be going for quite a ride.

Then you haven't been keeping up with history. The US has been pulling the same sort of BS it did in Iraq for over 100-years.

As for the rest, the fed has explicitly defined the reasons why it MUST use nukes under some circumstances. They say, for instance, that Natanz, a major Iranian nuclear facility, can't be destroyed using conventional munitions. I'm sure Iran has other buried and hardened facilities as well, having learned from Osirak. Why even bother attacking Iran if the stated reason (Iran can?t be trusted with nuclear technology) for the attack won't be accomplished? I remember reading that the NPR (Nuclear Posture Review) includes the idea that nukes can be legitimately used by the US to sterilize suspected biological\chemical weapons production facilities. Remember also that Rumsfeld has said that he "believes" weapons like the B61 can be used without much danger of fallout, because the weapon detonates so far under ground.

So yeah, Bush could indeed by stupid enough to nuke Iran. His administration has already laid the (pseudo)legal justification for it.

Which I think is why Bush refuses to get rid of Rummy. So nukes REALLY are being considered, irregardless of what the majority of Bush supporters think.

Standard Operating Procedure for this administration.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: palehorse74


that said, I dont believe that we'll ever pre-emptively nuke anyone, no. not even Bush.

I never believed we would pre-emptively invade a soverign country unless we had 100% solid evidence that it was nessecary either. Better check you hole cards there palehorse, you may be going for quite a ride.

Then you haven't been keeping up with history. The US has been pulling the same sort of BS it did in Iraq for over 100-years.

As for the rest, the fed has explicitly defined the reasons why it MUST use nukes under some circumstances. They say, for instance, that Natanz, a major Iranian nuclear facility, can't be destroyed using conventional munitions. I'm sure Iran has other buried and hardened facilities as well, having learned from Osirak. Why even bother attacking Iran if the stated reason (Iran can?t be trusted with nuclear technology) for the attack won't be accomplished? I remember reading that the NPR (Nuclear Posture Review) includes the idea that nukes can be legitimately used by the US to sterilize suspected biological\chemical weapons production facilities. Remember also that Rumsfeld has said that he "believes" weapons like the B61 can be used without much danger of fallout, because the weapon detonates so far under ground.

So yeah, Bush could indeed by stupid enough to nuke Iran. His administration has already laid the (pseudo)legal justification for it.

Which I think is why Bush refuses to get rid of Rummy. So nukes REALLY are being considered, irregardless of what the majority of Bush supporters think.

Standard Operating Procedure for this administration.

Rumsfeld is still around for at least a few reasons I think, and this would be one of them.
I find it surpising that Bush supporters don't seem to know very much about his administration, even after almost 6-years. SOP? For sure.

 

[catnap1972]

Being that all of his other crusades have failed, I'd say it's very likely that Iran will be turned into a parking lot, if only to throw some red meat to Bush's base (fundies) who are rapture craven.