Will the United States nuke Iran?

[gilliam]

manualman:

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.

Like they did with the Anthrax spores?

 

[rlg94086]

BioCatholic:

ever wonder why the cities and states that were attacked, NY and DC voted for Kerry? DC voted i think a 6:1 Kerry:Bush, and NYC voted almost double for Kerry. that says something.

all of the sudden the conservatives now loved and wanted to defend areas they considered evil and sinful areas of liberalism? THEIR country was attacked, be it in a city they considered the “devil’s home”? .

Um…it says voters in NY and DC tend to be liberal Democrats? Where have you been? How big of a margin did Gore win those locations in 2000?

Conservatives love and want to defend their country. Last I checked, NY is still part of our country. The whole country mourned the losses from 9/11. What are you saying? If the “heartland” is hit, New Yorkers wouldn’t care?

BioCatholic:

as far as Iran, HA. Bush has tied our military up, and Iran will get what Iran wants. we simply do not have the power to stop them from developing Uranium. and we have lost complete credibility in the international community, so no one is going to jump to your side when Iranian fighters pound our ground troops if we do invade. Iran is not Iraq, and their military isnt something to laugh at. we have to just sit back and watch, and hope that sanctions work.

We are strained, but I don’t think Iran would fall into the same fallacy that you have. If we need to, we will engage them. If I remember correctly, Iraq’s military was supposed to be formiddable. That’s what all the anti-Bush crowd said pre-invasion…

 

[walstan]

Of course America is a peace loving country full of people who only want to live their lives peacefully. So would somebody please explain the following link?

newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3414

And pleeeeese… don’t lets go down the “It must be a left wing magazine!!!” it isn’t.

 

[Snicker]

A nuke strike against Iran by the US is more than likely to happen than not. As support for the war in Iraq continues to drop and more and more evidence comes out that the US could have easily prevented the 9/11 attacks, (Actually the evidence has been out there all along). the present administratin will become more desperate to keep their vision of world domination in order. So what will happen is the US government will step aside, as per 9/11, allow another major attack to happen, probably bio in nature, blame it on Iran, and then use this attack as a pretext for using nukes in Iran.

 

[vern_humphrey]

walstan:

Of course America is a peace loving country full of people who only want to live their lives peacefully. So would somebody please explain the following link?

newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn3414

And pleeeeese… don’t lets go down the “It must be a left wing magazine!!!” it isn’t.

As virtually everyone admits, MAD has worked. Nuclear weapons have been available to both sides for some 55 years, and we have managed to avoid nuclear war – something no one would have thought possible in the early '50s.

The nuclear paradox is that to prevent nuclear weapons from being used, we must be prepared to use them.

Are you proposing we abandon the strategy that has worked to prevent nuclear war for over 50 years? Are you saying that as the world changes, we should not modify, expand and improve that strategy?

 

[Snicker]

vern humphrey:

As virtually everyone admits, MAD has worked. Nuclear weapons have been available to both sides for some 55 years, and we have managed to avoid nuclear war – something no one would have thought possible in the early '50s.

The nuclear paradox is that to prevent nuclear weapons from being used, we must be prepared to use them.

Are you proposing we abandon the strategy that has worked to prevent nuclear war for over 50 years? Are you saying that as the world changes, we should not modify, expand and improve that strategy?

Possesing nuclear weapons is an intrinsic evil. The US should lead the word in destroying all nuclear weapons and making illegal to have or use. If there are no nuclear weapons then they’ll be no nuclear war.

 

[walstan]

vern humphrey:

As virtually everyone admits, MAD has worked. Nuclear weapons have been available to both sides for some 55 years, and we have managed to avoid nuclear war – something no one would have thought possible in the early '50s.

The nuclear paradox is that to prevent nuclear weapons from being used, we must be prepared to use them.

Are you proposing we abandon the strategy that has worked to prevent nuclear war for over 50 years? Are you saying that as the world changes, we should not modify, expand and improve that strategy?

Hellooo… is there anyone with at least one working synapse out there? Who the hell IS the other side who have nuclear weapons?

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

As virtually everyone admits, MAD has worked. Nuclear weapons have been available to both sides for some 55 years, and we have managed to avoid nuclear war – something no one would have thought possible in the early '50s.

The nuclear paradox is that to prevent nuclear weapons from being used, we must be prepared to use them.

Are you proposing we abandon the strategy that has worked to prevent nuclear war for over 50 years? Are you saying that as the world changes, we should not modify, expand and improve that strategy?

MAD only works if there are two nuclear powers (yes, France and other countries also had nukes, but everyone with nukes was either effectively on the US side or USSR side).

With the proliferation of nukes, MAD can no longer work. If a nuke blows up NYC, how do we know who it was? How does our possession of nuclear weapons deter a terrorist who has no home or resources to be retaliated against? MAD doesn’t work against a suicidal, undeterrable opponent.

 

[gilliam]

We are talking in this thread about Iran folks, please stay on topic.

 

[walstan]

gilliam:

We are talking in this thread about Iran folks, please stay on topic.

Did I not see NUKE in the title?, must be missing something somewhere.

 

[gilliam]

walstan:

Did I not see NUKE in the title?, must be missing something somewhere.

I saw the word Will in the title too, but that doesn’t mean anything having to do with what someone will do relates to the thread

The topic of the thread is “Will the United States nuke Iran?”

Can we stay on topic please?

 

[Wolseley]

Snicker:

Possesing nuclear weapons is an intrinsic evil. The US should lead the word in destroying all nuclear weapons and making illegal to have or use. If there are no nuclear weapons then they’ll be no nuclear war.

The naivete of this post boggles my mind.

 

[geezerbob]

Originally Posted by Snicker
Possesing nuclear weapons is an intrinsic evil. The US should lead the word in destroying all nuclear weapons and making illegal to have or use. If there are no nuclear weapons then they’ll be no nuclear war.
Blowing up civilians is an intrinsic evil. It is also illegal. Is that stopping the terrorists? Is that stopping Iran from supplying the terrorists with shaped charges? If all nukes were outlawed, how would you deal with those who insist on having them anyway? This ain’t Utopia we live in, you know.

 

[vern_humphrey]

walstan:

Hellooo… is there anyone with at least one working synapse out there? Who the hell IS the other side who have nuclear weapons?

You don’t remember the Cold War, when the United States was eyeball-to-eyeball with the former Soviet Union?

What DO they teach in schools these days?

 

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

MAD only works if there are two nuclear powers (yes, France and other countries also had nukes, but everyone with nukes was either effectively on the US side or USSR side).

Phillip? That doesn’t make sense. You say MAD only works with there are only two nuclear powers, and then admit in the same sentence that there were more than two nuclear powers.

MAD works because EVERYONE knows a thermo-nuclear war would destroy everyone, not just the prime combatants. France – not a member of NATO in those days – was just as constrained by MAD as the US and the USSR.
Philip P:

With the proliferation of nukes, MAD can no longer work. If a nuke blows up NYC, how do we know who it was? How does our possession of nuclear weapons deter a terrorist who has no home or resources to be retaliated against? MAD doesn’t work against a suicidal, undeterrable opponent.

People keep begging for me to tell the parable of the sky diver.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

The answer is that nuclear weapons are not for sale in Wal Mart. They have to come FROM somewhere – and that somewhere is a country, because no private organization can muster all the resources to produce them.

That’s why countries like Iran and North Korea are dangerous – they might serve as sources for terrorists. One essential step in preventing nuclear terrorism is to prevent rogue nations from developing nuclear weapons. Another essential step is to hold nations responsible for aiding terrorist.

Your own comments on the dangers of nuclear terrorism explain why nations that harbor or assist terrorists are so dangerous to the rest of us.

 

[Ani_Ibi]

Richardols:

Not ignoring anything

Yep, ignoring it.

Richardols:

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?

Rhetorical questions, Richard? Those won’t go very far.

 

[walstan]

The only problem you have justifying MAD is that MAD assumes a balance of terror; i.e.

**“if you blow us up we will blow you up” **

but,

when they blow themselves up blowing us up, it don’t work!!!

The balance of terror only works when BOTH sides are terrified. If one side ain’t, bang goes the balance as they say. (pun intended!!!)

 

[vern_humphrey]

walstan:

The only problem you have justifying MAD is that MAD assumes a balance of terror; i.e.

**“if you blow us up we will blow you up” **

but,

when they blow themselves up blowing us up, it don’t work!!!

The balance of terror only works when BOTH sides are terrified. If one side ain’t, bang goes the balance as they say. (pun intended!!!)

You need to tell us who “they” are.

If you are thinking of a terrorist who already has a nuclear weapon, you might be right. But a terrorist cannot MAKE a nuclear weapon – that’s such a huge undertaking that only a nation can do it.

Therefore we need to ensure that rogue nations do not obtain nuclear capabilities. Which explains why we may need to use force to stop a rogue nation.

 

[walstan]

vern humphrey:

You need to tell us who “they” are.

If you are thinking of a terrorist who already has a nuclear weapon, you might be right. But a terrorist cannot MAKE a nuclear weapon – that’s such a huge undertaking that only a nation can do it.

Therefore we need to ensure that rogue nations do not obtain nuclear capabilities. Which explains why we may need to use force to stop a rogue nation.

Considering a student from, I think Berkeley State University a couple of years ago designed a perfectly workable nuclear weapon from information gained from the net I don’t think they have to gain nuclear capability, just tap into the internet. Frightening really but true non the less. So much for deterents.

 

[Richardols]

walstan:

Considering a student from, I think Berkeley State University a couple of years ago designed a perfectly workable nuclear weapon from information gained from the net I don’t think they have to gain nuclear capability, just tap into the internet. Frightening really but true non the less. So much for deterents.

Yes. There was a long piece in my local newspaper a Sunday or two ago, saying that making a nuclear device is easily within the capability of any graduate student.

What is still impossible for you local insurgent cell is to produce the fissionable material. That has to be stolen or obtained clandestinely. It’s beyond the capability of even a university level laboratory to produce.