Will the United States nuke Iran?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Steve_O_Brien
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Richardols:
The use of any nuclear weapons by the United States, after 60 years of non-use would destroy any claims the United States ever had for being the nation holding the moral high ground.

It doesn’t matter that the devices would go off hundreds of feet below the surface. They’re still NUCLEAR weapons - and we’d be the ones who went back to using them.

Not even Soviet Russia or Communist China could be accused of such an enormity.
Click to expand...
Relevance?
 
Steve O'Brien:
Just a second, ROTC cadet. In journalism and general discussion, it’s perfectly legitimate to use common-parlance phrases that don’t match technical definitions, including those in The Oxford Essential Dictionary of the U.S. Military. In common parlance, an "air assault’ is any attack involving aircraft or missiles flying through the air.

Moreover, in logic, there’s no conflict between using nuclear weapons to destory targets in a country and deploying troops to other regions of the same country after the attacks. U.S. troops occupied Japan after the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

Keep and spread the Faith.
Click to expand...
Only problem with your point, the term air assualt comes not from the author of the article, but from the unnamed pentagon sources, which means we are dealing with the military term air assault, which describes aerial insertion ala Grenada.
 
40.png
Richardols:
The use of any nuclear weapons by the United States, after 60 years of non-use would destroy any claims the United States ever had for being the nation holding the moral high ground.

It doesn’t matter that the devices would go off hundreds of feet below the surface. They’re still NUCLEAR weapons - and we’d be the ones who went back to using them.

Not even Soviet Russia or Communist China could be accused of such an enormity.
Click to expand...
When did we use these nuclear weapons?

Did we attack another country last week and the news media not pick up on it?

The United States Armed Forces prepare contingency plans – that’s their duty. Those plans include dealing with almost unthinkable contingencies. That’s their duty.
 
vern humphrey:
When did we use these nuclear weapons?
Click to expand...
No one claimed that such use occurred recently or will be imminently employed.
Did we attack another country last week and the news media not pick up on it?
Click to expand...
See my response above.
The United States Armed Forces prepare contingency plans – that’s their duty. Those plans include dealing with almost unthinkable contingencies. That’s their duty.
Click to expand...
I’d love to see the contingency plan that discusses our nuking Ottawa or London, given that those possibilities are also surely almost unthinkable.
 
40.png
Richardols:
No one claimed that such use occurred recently or will be imminently employed.
Click to expand...
Then what’s all the hoopla about?

The nuclear paradox is that to avoid use of nuclear weapons, you have to be prepared to use them.

That’s served us well for well over half a century. Why abandon it now? Why condemn the government for pursuing a policy that works?
40.png
Richardols:
I’d love to see the contingency plan that discusses our nuking Ottawa or London, given that those possibilities are also surely almost unthinkable.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, Richard, you will probably not be allowed to browse through Top Secret contingency plans.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
vern humphrey:
Then what’s all the hoopla about?

The nuclear paradox is that to avoid use of nuclear weapons, you have to be prepared to use them.

That’s served us well for well over half a century. Why abandon it now? Why condemn the government for pursuing a policy that works?
Click to expand...
You misunderstand. I’m all for the MAD Doctrine. It has kept the Soviet Union and us at bay quite well.
Unfortunately, Richard, you will probably not be allowed to browse through Top Secret contingency plans.
Click to expand...
Quite correct. I did help prepare the Top Secret AF SIOP (Single Integrated Operational Plan) for war back in the 70s, but those were operational, not contingency. And that’s a lot of water under the bridge since.
 
40.png
Richardols:
You misunderstand. I’m all for the MAD Doctrine. It has kept the Soviet Union and us at bay quite well.
Click to expand...
Then why complain about it now?

We all know a lot of contingencies are planned for – and most of them never occurr.

We also know that being prepared is the best way not to have to use nukes.
 
40.png
Richardols:
Responding to the suggestion that some small nuclear devices might be employable against some targets.
Click to expand...
And ignoring that the most imminent probability is the one which identifies ourselves as the target.
 
Ani Ibi:
And ignoring that the most imminent probability is the one which identifies ourselves as the target.
Click to expand...
Not ignoring anything, just commenting on Post #15 mainly.

And, in response to the horror scenario that some fellows might explode a big one in Chicago, say, whom do we retaliate against? Nuke Riyadh? Damascus? Islamabad?
 
40.png
Richardols:
Not ignoring anything, just commenting on Post #15 mainly.

And, in response to the horror scenario that some fellows might explode a big one in Chicago, say, whom do we retaliate against? Nuke Riyadh? Damascus? Islamabad?
Click to expand...
You know better than to play silly games like this, Richard.
 
vern humphrey:
You know better than to play silly games like this, Richard.
Click to expand...
It was a valid comment, though hardly original, regardless what you think. I read a columnist’s similar observation. “Whom do we attack if some unsavory types set off a nuke in one of our major cities?”
 
40.png
Richardols:
It was a valid comment, though hardly original, regardless what you think. I read a columnist’s similar observation. “Whom do we attack if some unsavory types set off a nuke in one of our major cities?”
Click to expand...
The columnist should also know better.

Shall I tell you the parable of the skydivers?
 
My, my.

All of this hue and cry, all of this heated argument, all of this spilled ink and clogged webspace, and all, all of it, over an article written by one Philip Giraldi, who doesn’t even provide any proof our sources for his allegations. It all comes down to “You have to believe this on my say-so, because I was once in the CIA.”

I’m going to need a lot more hard credibility on sources than a retired spook before I’ll believe the United States is preparing to nuke Iran.
 
40.png
NWUArmyROTC:
Only problem with your point, the term air assualt comes not from the author of the article, but from the unnamed pentagon sources, which means we are dealing with the military term air assault, which describes aerial insertion ala Grenada.
Click to expand...
Nobody heard about tactical battle field nuclear weapons? The’re the ones set of just before the Air Assualt teams go in!! and whatever you say, they are still nuclear weapons with all the political ramifications that entails.
 
40.png
walstan:
Nobody heard about tactical battle field nuclear weapons? The’re the ones set of just before the Air Assualt teams go in!! and whatever you say, they are still nuclear weapons with all the political ramifications that entails.
Click to expand...
You don’t nuke an area, even with low-yield nuclear warheads and send infantry in. And you speak like we’ve done that before, are you alleging facts not in evidence? The article is hardly credible.
 
40.png
walstan:
Nobody heard about tactical battle field nuclear weapons? The’re the ones set of just before the Air Assualt teams go in!! and whatever you say, they are still nuclear weapons with all the political ramifications that entails.
Click to expand...
This makes no sense at all – and I’ve got 22 years in the Army, plus another 13 or so as a consultant in Operations and Training. If you like, I can call on a Prefix-5 officer (Nuclear Weapons Employment Specialist).

You don’t employ nuclear weapons and then “Air Assualt (sic)” into the target area.
 
If a nuke goes off and erases NewYork, it will leave behind plentiful radioactive residue. It is my understanding that the government can analyze the elemental makeup of such residue and determine where the original radioactive ore came from, and precisely what kind of processing was used to refine it and what type of weapon design ignited the fission.

Imagine this were the case, and a conclusive case was made that Iran did it, and intelligence indicated that they likely had MORE in remote deep underground bunkers that could only be destroyed with the type of buster weapon I described above. You are the President. Are you saying that fear of world opinion would stop you from taking out those nukes? You think it frightening that the president wants to have this card to play if it becomes necessary?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top