Nuking Iran

[IdioticBuffoon]

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.

Knowing this president, the "war" option is usually the first one on the table. The other "options" are then built around it and built to fail.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: 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.

"Rapture craven", huh? I don't think it matters whether his adventurism has been successful or not. Remember, Bush fastidiously isolates himself away from reality. As far as he's concerned it's all good. The Hersh article said that the fed is "thinking" about hitting some 400+ targets. Some of them in heavily populated areas. I wonder if 100,000 casualties and 70 million hopping-mad Iranians will pop that bubble around his head?

 

[firewall]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

I wonder if 100,000 casualties and 70 million hopping-mad Iranians will pop that bubble around his head?

I doubt it will "pop the bubble".

 

[spikespiegal]

You guys aren't that smart.

The pentagon has been pressuring at least three presidents to concede to the option that at some point our conventional bunker busters won't be that effective as the bad guys build deeper holes. It's rumored that in the battle in Tora Bora in Afganistan several high ranking Pentagon officials actually tabled the option that if we knew where Osama was, and we coulnd't reach him with a IU 2000, then we should consider using a low yield bunker buster to get him.

When one mentions nuclear weapons, the common vision is mushroom clouds and dramatic night explosions leveling cities for miles.

The reality of the situation is not the case. The U.S. administration is simply speaking a bit of code to the Iranians that if they choose to move the enrichment programs under-ground, it doesn't matter how deep they go because if we decide to take the facilities out we might not limit ourselves to conventional weapons.

Note I'm not offering my opinion on the Iranian ordeal, but simply translating what the administration is saying.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: spikespiegal
You guys aren't that smart.
(no more)

This sort of sh1t invalidates anything you might have to say.

 

[5150Joker]

I say nuke Iran and get it over with ASAP! Just be sure to televise it during my day off so I have something entertaining to watch on TV.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I say nuke Iran and get it over with ASAP! Just be sure to televise it during my day off so I have something entertaining to watch on TV.

Glad to see you contributed something worthy with your post to the P&N community.

Thanks.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: 5150Joker
I say nuke Iran and get it over with ASAP! Just be sure to televise it during my day off so I have something entertaining to watch on TV.

Glad to see you contributed something worthy with your post to the P&N community.

Thanks.

It's all e-bluster. He'll see a few dead Iranian kids and it'll be like Niagra falls.

 

[ajf3]

Here's my thoughts... we can't go in conventionally and take out the nuke sites, so...

We will end up goading them into unleashing some of that terror campaign here and abroad. It won't take long for the public to agree that any means are justified to stop the attacks. As a response tactical nukes will be used to take out the nuke sites.

 

[Aimster]

The nuclear sites have Russian engineers and scientists.
They are all around the nuclear sites.

There are hundreds to thousands of them.

Russia will be so happy.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: ajf3
Here's my thoughts... we can't go in conventionally and take out the nuke sites, so...

That's not what Rumsfeld says. There's been some noticeable chatter about how the US can send in Special Ops teams to sabotage Iran's nuclear installations and make it look like "industrial accidents."

We will end up goading them into unleashing some of that terror campaign here and abroad.

So, all it'll take is more US jaw-harping to push them into an open assault on supposed American interests? That doesn't sound right.

It won't take long for the public to agree that any means are justified to stop the attacks.

48% of American's polled already think that Iran is a major threat. Hypocritical propaganda seems to trump even recent history.

As a response tactical nukes will be used to take out the nuke sites.

And make no mistake, the Iranian's and the world at large are NOT going to labor over the difference between tactical and strategic nukes. All they're going to see is the fact that the US has used nuclear weapons on a non-nuclear state, one which the US has the audacity to say can't be trusted with nukes, or even nuclear technology.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: conjur
Why do you think Divine Strake was scheduled for Nevada? They wanted to test fallout.

Actually, no. They want to see how big a hole .6 kt of TNT will make, which is close to the explosive yield of a B61. The fallout won't be radioactive.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: conjur
Why do you think Divine Strake was scheduled for Nevada? They wanted to test fallout.

Actually, no. They want to see how big a hole .6 kt of TNT will make, which is close to the explosive yield of a B61. The fallout won't be radioactive.

They want to see how the fallout (from the conventional explosion which is to mirror a nuclear explosion) will disperse. Remember, Rumsfailed's comments were that there would be no fallout as the bunker-busting nukes would be detonated too far underground.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: conjur
Why do you think Divine Strake was scheduled for Nevada? They wanted to test fallout.

Actually, no. They want to see how big a hole .6 kt of TNT will make, which is close to the explosive yield of a B61. The fallout won't be radioactive.

They want to see how the fallout (from the conventional explosion which is to mirror a nuclear explosion) will disperse. Remember, Rumsfailed's comments were that there would be no fallout as the bunker-busting nukes would be detonated too far underground.

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt what you're saying, it's a damned stupid test. Without some way of tagging the tons of material lofted into the air, how will they be able to tell it from any other sort of surface debris? Satellite imaging perhaps?

Take a look at this. I'd be interested in what you think.

 

[catnap1972]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt what you're saying, it's a damned stupid test. Without some way of tagging the tons of material lofted into the air, how will they be able to tell it from any other sort of surface debris? Satellite imaging perhaps?

Nah, much simpler--as long as no members of the Bushcabal nor their money are glowing, everything would be A-OK.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: catnap1972

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

If this is true, and I have no reason to doubt what you're saying, it's a damned stupid test. Without some way of tagging the tons of material lofted into the air, how will they be able to tell it from any other sort of surface debris? Satellite imaging perhaps?

Nah, much simpler--as long as no members of the Bushcabal nor their money are glowing, everything would be A-OK.

Nothing to contend with here. :thumbsup: