PDA

View Full Version : Would you support a tactical nuclear strike on Iran?


banyon
04-16-2006, 10:45 AM
In light of the embattled Mr. Rumsfeld's recent remarks...

One of the militaryís initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. One target is Iranís main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface. That number of centrifuges could provide enough enriched uranium for about twenty nuclear warheads a year. (Iran has acknowledged that it initially kept the existence of its enrichment program hidden from I.A.E.A. inspectors, but claims that none of its current activity is barred by the Non-Proliferation Treaty.) The elimination of Natanz would be a major setback for Iranís nuclear ambitions, but the conventional weapons in the American arsenal could not insure the destruction of facilities under seventy-five feet of earth and rock, especially if they are reinforced with concrete..

From Seymour Hirsch's article in The New yorker (http://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact)

So, two considerations before you vote:

1) Should we bomb Iran at all?

2) Is there a better way to do it than using nukes?

Adept Havelock
04-16-2006, 11:10 AM
Absolutely not. Conventional strikes should remain a possibility. As I've said numerous times before, I believe MAD combined with "containment" ala Truman/Eisenhower would be an effective tool in a worst-case scenario.

The use of Nuclear Weapons would inflame the ME to a level that would make the reaction to our invasion of Iraq look like a Berkley anti-war demonstration. It would end in the US becoming a pariah among nations, and completely destabilize the ME, IMO. We should not hand the rabble-rousers that kind of ammunition for rhetoric.

jiveturkey
04-16-2006, 11:18 AM
I just saw something somewhere that said the nuclear bunker busters might not actually accomplish anything more than conventional weapons.

We likley know where the entrance to the underground bunkers are but we don't know where the tunnels lead and the bunker buster are unlikely to reach the intended target. The fallout would reach India and then the customer service for my current credit card would get even worse.

Conventional weapons could be dropped on the entrances and this would seal the bunkers up for sometime.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2006, 11:27 AM
I said other.

Mad and containment if anything just like we did with the Russians.
I think Iran having them keeps a balance of power in ME and we can't just bully everybody for Israel.

According to some other sources there is no evidence that Iran is enriching for a bomb. The treaty they signed allows them to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Still contrary facts here.

Also Israel has nukes and hasn't even signed the same treaty and Iran has even called for a non-nuclear ME in the past.

I don't support conventional strikes either but that is less bad than nukes which I could at least live with.

Iran can respond with terror cells around the world...the poor man's military.
They have conventional missiles too and they could hit possibly Europe and Israel and our soldiers. They could also destroy the west economically with soaring oil prices too. They have retaliatory options.

CHIEF4EVER
04-16-2006, 11:47 AM
I said other since the "Yes but only as a last resort" choice wasn't available. Under no circumstances can we allow Iran with its current leadership to procure nukes.

banyon
04-16-2006, 11:50 AM
Absolutely not. Conventional strikes should remain a possibility. As I've said numerous times before, I believe MAD combined with "containment" ala Truman/Eisenhower would be an effective tool in a worst-case scenario.

The use of Nuclear Weapons would inflame the ME to a level that would make the reaction to our invasion of Iraq look like a Berkley anti-war demonstration. It would end in the US becoming a pariah among nations, and completely destabilize the ME, IMO. We should not hand the rabble-rousers that kind of ammunition for rhetoric.

That is exactly right. They would be mui pissed!
:mad: http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/01-lauramac2.gif :cuss: http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/04-chairshot.gif :bang: http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/03-cursin.gif :Bartee: http://www.ncaabbs.com/forums/memphis/phpbb/images/smiles/01-sylviaplath.gif

banyon
04-16-2006, 12:14 PM
I said other since the "Yes but only as a last resort" choice wasn't available. Under no circumstances can we allow Iran with its current leadership to procure nukes.


Is that anything like how we went into Iraq "as a last resort"?
(according to the Congressional support resolution)

Ugly Duck
04-16-2006, 12:30 PM
Mad and containment if anything just like we did with the Russians. I'm with BuckEye on this point. Them Iranians are smart enough to know that if they ever got a nuke (which they are far from having), they could never use it. The US would make them glow brightly for centuries if they lit one off in Israel. This whole thing is a mutual propganda campaign to benefit the mullas in Iran and the neocon regime in Washington. The Iranian nutcase leader gets to hop around and point at little vials of sorta-kinda enriched uranium yelling "I'm a playah! I'm a playah!" The American nutcase leader gets to hop around and recite familiar slogans of "WMDs! Terror supporters! Energency! Vote Republican!" Meanwhile they both support the same leadership in Iraq.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2006, 01:29 PM
Great post Duck!!!

Chiefs Express
04-16-2006, 01:52 PM
I'm with BuckEye on this point. Them Iranians are smart enough to know that if they ever got a nuke (which they are far from having), they could never use it. The US would make them glow brightly for centuries if they lit one off in Israel. This whole thing is a mutual propganda campaign to benefit the mullas in Iran and the neocon regime in Washington. The Iranian nutcase leader gets to hop around and point at little vials of sorta-kinda enriched uranium yelling "I'm a playah! I'm a playah!" The American nutcase leader gets to hop around and recite familiar slogans of "WMDs! Terror supporters! Energency! Vote Republican!" Meanwhile they both support the same leadership in Iraq.

I think that most are missing the point on the nuclear situation. Iran is attempting to goad the U.S. to strike first with nukes. What they don't understand is that we would never do that. Retailation is another question, but if, as everyone here seems to be convinced, they do not and cannot have the capability the question is moot.

The poll is incomplete, thus I did not vote. Other just doesn't seem to be a good option in a poll that would have such an impact on the world.

Ugly Duck
04-16-2006, 03:39 PM
Iran is attempting to goad the U.S. to strike first with nukes. Iran wants to be nuked? They're trying to get us to explode nuclear bombs on them? I have to admit that you are way better at thinking outside the box than I am, CE. It never occured to me that the Iranians want to have alpha particles ripping through their flesh. Maybe we're lucky that they are so far away from developing a nuke.... cuz they might just nuke themselves and then say we did it. You're smarter than I gave you credit for.

Ugly Duck
04-16-2006, 03:45 PM
Great post Duck!!!Why, thank you, BuckEye. I'm touched.... good to know that not everyone skims on past when they see the "Ugly Duck" moniker...

Did you know that the mods once surreptitiously changed my "D" to an "F?" I've been so abused - its very sad...

Bowser
04-16-2006, 03:52 PM
Why, thank you, BuckEye. I'm touched.... good to know that not everyone skims on past when they see the "Ugly Duck" moniker...

Did you know that the mods once surreptitiously changed my "D" to an "F?" I've been so abused - its very sad...

I am 99.99% sure they would not have done that if you were not a fan of the Fade.

Chiefs Express
04-16-2006, 05:16 PM
Iran wants to be nuked? They're trying to get us to explode nuclear bombs on them? I have to admit that you are way better at thinking outside the box than I am, CE. It never occured to me that the Iranians want to have alpha particles ripping through their flesh. Maybe we're lucky that they are so far away from developing a nuke.... cuz they might just nuke themselves and then say we did it. You're smarter than I gave you credit for.

Iran wants us to strike, whether it is actually that they want a nuke strike isn't for any of us to really decide, but their sword rattling surely makes one think that they are begging for one so they can claim that they are the innocent victims of the aggressor, U.S.

Chiefs Express
04-16-2006, 05:16 PM
I am 99.99% sure they would not have done that if you were not a fan of the Fade.

Now Bowser, there is nothing wrong with the Fade that one or two stragetically placed special weapons will not handle!

unlurking
04-16-2006, 05:27 PM
Nope.

They don't have the patience to wait for long range delivery technology. If/when their nuclear capabilities come to fruition, they will use that force locally to the region (likely Israel). At that point, we send 'em back to the dark ages.

You can still drill for oil through several feet of glass right?

Chiefs Express
04-16-2006, 05:48 PM
Nope.

They don't have the patience to wait for long range delivery technology. If/when their nuclear capabilities come to fruition, they will use that force locally to the region (likely Israel). At that point, we send 'em back to the dark ages.

You can still drill for oil through several feet of glass right?

After the radiation hazard has gone away. I'm not sure what the current half life is considered. Try 35 years for starters. By then we should have some kind of alternative fuel available.

Bowser
04-16-2006, 05:56 PM
After the radiation hazard has gone away. I'm not sure what the current half life is considered. Try 35 years for starters. By then we should have some kind of alternative fuel available.

I'm sure someone somewhere said that 35 years ago.

memyselfI
04-16-2006, 08:32 PM
We shouldn't bomb Iran ever and not just for the 'time being.'

Why?

First off, Iran is not Iraq. If there is one thing that will unite disenfranchised Iranians will be their nation being attacked. People who would otherwise want their government gone will rally behind it because they cannot allow another country to violate their sovereignty and dignity.

Secondly, we'd be going it alone. Even DUHbya's poodle wants nothing to do with this.* We will not have one single ally on our side if even the Brits won't support us. It will truly be seen as the US invading yet a third Islamic country in the new century's first decade.

Third, it will start WWIII. If that is not reason enough then I don't know what is.

*http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=577092006

Amnorix
04-16-2006, 08:34 PM
Tactical nukes are for p***ies. Balls to the wall full on IBM strategic assault is the way to go. Show those fugging ragheads whose running this goddamn world... Once we take out Iran, the rest of 'em will go back to hiding in the deepest hole they can find like the rats they are, and we'll have no more worries.

Adept Havelock
04-16-2006, 08:47 PM
Tactical nukes are for p***ies. Balls to the wall full on IBM strategic assault is the way to go. Show those fugging ragheads whose running this goddamn world... Once we take out Iran, the rest of 'em will go back to hiding in the deepest hole they can find like the rats they are, and we'll have no more worries.


Are we channeling the late Gen. Curtis Lemay tonight, Amnorix? Perhaps Genghis Khan or Timur the lame? I think you forgot the part where we build towers out of their skulls and sow the ground with salt while listening to the wailing of their surviving children and lamentations of the women as we take them as spoils. I can appreciate that sentiment, I've always been a classical guy. ROFL

Chiefs Express
04-16-2006, 09:58 PM
I'm sure someone somewhere said that 35 years ago.

What nuclear bomb was dropped 35 years ago? Just curious.

Chiefs Express
04-16-2006, 10:00 PM
We shouldn't bomb Iran ever and not just for the 'time being.'

Why?

First off, Iran is not Iraq. If there is one thing that will unite disenfranchised Iranians will be their nation being attacked. People who would otherwise want their government gone will rally behind it because they cannot allow another country to violate their sovereignty and dignity.

Secondly, we'd be going it alone. Even DUHbya's poodle wants nothing to do with this.* We will not have one single ally on our side if even the Brits won't support us. It will truly be seen as the US invading yet a third Islamic country in the new century's first decade.

Third, it will start WWIII. If that is not reason enough then I don't know what is.

*http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=577092006


WWIII? Who would be the rest of the world involved in your dream sequence? The Soviets are no longer there and all of the splinters that are left have no weaponry that could be considered viable.

Boyceofsummer
04-16-2006, 10:03 PM
I just saw something somewhere that said the nuclear bunker busters might not actually accomplish anything more than conventional weapons.

We likley know where the entrance to the underground bunkers are but we don't know where the tunnels lead and the bunker buster are unlikely to reach the intended target. The fallout would reach India and then the customer service for my current credit card would get even worse.Conventional weapons could be dropped on the entrances and this would seal the bunkers up for sometime.


People of the Soviet Union, there is only one sane policy, for your country and mine, to preserve our civilization in this modern age: A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. The only value in our two nations possessing nuclear weapons is to make sure they will never be used. But then would it not be better to do away with them entirely?

Ronald Reagan 1984 State of The Union speech

http://www.presidentreagan.info/speeches/reagan_sotu_1984.cfm

Taco John
04-17-2006, 01:17 AM
Once we let slip the nuclear option, the world will have permanently changed in a way that none of us will ever be happy about.

Taco John
04-17-2006, 01:20 AM
Tactical nukes are for p***ies. Balls to the wall full on IBM strategic assault is the way to go. Show those fugging ragheads whose running this goddamn world... Once we take out Iran, the rest of 'em will go back to hiding in the deepest hole they can find like the rats they are, and we'll have no more worries.



How the hell did T0m Cash get Amnorix's account?

patteeu
04-17-2006, 11:02 AM
I voted "No, for the time being..."

I'd have to have a pretty well defined hypothetical in order to decide whether or not the use of tactical nuclear weapons was appropriate. The Iranian situation would have to be a lot worse than I think it is today for me to favor that option.