Nukes - are we doomed?

[relaxeus]

When asked about using nukes against Iran, President Bush responded by saying "all options are on the table". Is he totally nuts? The use of nukes would spark world war 3 instantly. It would be total chaos. There would probably be nukes going off all over the world. I don't think it's a good idea for Bush to be in charge anymore, I think hes a complete psychopath. Revolution anyone? Seriously, he might cause world war 3 in which casualties might sky rocket into the hundreds of millions, if not billions... Thoughts?

 

[Mistadobalina]

I believe he's talking about tactical, as opposed to strategic nuclear weapons. So likely no WW3.

 

[PastorMikeJ]

hmmm tactical.... will the fall out around the country be there??? will they harm the eniviroment?? will they dirty the air?? and drift around the world??? will we still be the only nation to use nuclear weapons against people??

is there such a thing as a tactical nuclear weapon??? what is the matter with using just tactical clean weapons???

maybe microwave type weapons would be better..kill people but not damage property...would hate to think of the damage to their oil resources...what would we have to capture and steal?

 

[Stuco]

Actually iv heard a rumor that they are working on a nuclear bunker buster bomb. It would just have enough power to destroy the bunker where they are holding there nuclear manufacturing supplies but nothing else.

 

[neverforsaken]

I dont think any country with nukes would realistically put itself at risk to help iran if we nuked them. We would probably be sanctioned though. Besides, nukes are not good for warfare. Thats not what they are made for. They are a type of insurance. The thing is, there are so many more options that would be better than nukes. Gas, napalm and dont forget the 20,000 lb bombs.

 

[Stuco]

The reason they are making the nuclear bunker buster is because the most powerfull conventional bomb we have would not penetrate it. It would take several hundred of our bunker busters to be able to destroy it becase the bunkers are so far underground .

 

[Lignoba]

Err... microwave radiation is worse than the gamma radiation from nuclear warheads. A tactical nuke woul dbe like a big nuke, except on a smaller scale, only enough to effect maybe one city block or take out a batallion of infantry, but they would most likely be used in sabotaging enemy factories and power plants, simply annihilating everything to make sure they cant just repair what was damaged, they would have to rebuild the entire complex again.

 

[Lignoba]

When asked about using nukes against Iran, President Bush responded by saying "all options are on the table". Is he totally nuts? The use of nukes would spark world war 3 instantly. It would be total chaos. There would probably be nukes going off all over the world. I don't think it's a good idea for Bush to be in charge anymore, I think hes a complete psychopath. Revolution anyone? Seriously, he might cause world war 3 in which casualties might sky rocket into the hundreds of millions, if not billions... Thoughts?

Nuclear weapons are NOT as powerful as people show them in the movies. One of todays BIG bombs would destroy about a half a Denver sized city. More than likely they would not be used, and our missle cruisers out in the ocean would initiate the anti-ballistics program they are testing, basically shoot one missle out of the sky with another missle.

If we were to use nukes against Iran, we probably would not be nukes, we would just be scolded at REALLY bad, our economy would crash and another Great Depression would begin... Im starting to think nuclear holocaust sounds better...

 

[Letalis]

When asked about using nukes against Iran, President Bush responded by saying "all options are on the table". Is he totally nuts? The use of nukes would spark world war 3 instantly. It would be total chaos. There would probably be nukes going off all over the world. I don't think it's a good idea for Bush to be in charge anymore, I think hes a complete psychopath. Revolution anyone? Seriously, he might cause world war 3 in which casualties might sky rocket into the hundreds of millions, if not billions... Thoughts?

Whoa, exaggerate much?

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

When asked about using nukes against Iran, President Bush responded by saying "all options are on the table". Is he totally nuts? The use of nukes would spark world war 3 instantly. It would be total chaos. There would probably be nukes going off all over the world. I don't think it's a good idea for Bush to be in charge anymore, I think hes a complete psychopath. Revolution anyone? Seriously, he might cause world war 3 in which casualties might sky rocket into the hundreds of millions, if not billions... Thoughts?

I think you watch entirely too many movies.

 

[Billnew]

When asked about using nukes against Iran, President Bush responded by saying "all options are on the table". Is he totally nuts? The use of nukes would spark world war 3 instantly. It would be total chaos. There would probably be nukes going off all over the world. I don't think it's a good idea for Bush to be in charge anymore, I think hes a complete psychopath. Revolution anyone? Seriously, he might cause world war 3 in which casualties might sky rocket into the hundreds of millions, if not billions... Thoughts?

President Bush has taken nothing off the table, but also hasn't promised to do anything yet.


More then likely it would be a few cruise missles(conventional) into the facilities, with the threat of more
to come if they rebuild.
About the same as the Isrealis did to Iraq.

NOt a good combonation:
Iran announces they are seeking NUKELEAR weapons for defensive purposes, but then gets missles that can hit Europe?

Irans nuclear threat is not by missles anyway. They can
have people place nukes in places to cause severe destruction.
Nukes weren't meant to be used, but with the extremeists, they will use them to get what they want.
Power and control. "Do as I say, or I will detonate a nuke in some large city, somewhere in the world."
A terrorist with a nuke, is more powerful then any nation.

 

[relaxeus]

Whoa, exaggerate much?

Realism Letalis. The worlds not a magical happyland where everyone is friends with everyone else. And there are crazy people in this world. Leaders of Iran. Leaders of America. Leaders of North Korea. Many other leaders. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it happens.

 

[PastorMikeJ]

and which country has the most loose control on weapons grade nuclear material?? What country is missing about 10% of their weapons grade material??

Guess who!!! us that is who...

 

[ballfan]

and which country has the most loose control on weapons grade nuclear material?? What country is missing about 10% of their weapons grade material??

Guess who!!! us that is who...

Is that an arguement or just an attack on the US? Does that somehow make Iran less of a threat?

 

[Glaz]

When asked about using nukes against Iran, President Bush responded by saying "all options are on the table". Is he totally nuts? The use of nukes would spark world war 3 instantly. It would be total chaos. There would probably be nukes going off all over the world. I don't think it's a good idea for Bush to be in charge anymore, I think hes a complete psychopath. Revolution anyone? Seriously, he might cause world war 3 in which casualties might sky rocket into the hundreds of millions, if not billions... Thoughts?

Thoughts....with all due respect, you're reading too much into it. However, at least you take the possibility of nuclear war seriously, and aren't one of those insane persons who thinks if we give every nation in the world nukes there will be no more war.

 

[PastorMikeJ]

Is that an arguement or just an attack on the US? Does that somehow make Iran less of a threat?

neither just a statement that we are so sloppy with our controls that enemies don't have to have nuclear weapons...just release our own material in our own country..

there is no defense for the use of nuclear weapons by anyone....but to rattle them at opponants is crazy.. neither side can not justify the threats of using nuclear weapons...

just because I don't agree with current government doesn't make me any more anti american than your stand, Ballfan...over 200 years ago we agreed that it was ok to disagree with the government..it is just recently that it has become a crime in the eyes of some...

 

[xMinionX]

Ultimatley? I think so. Seems like it's only a matter of time before nukes or weapons equally devastating are used against the US mainland, be it through terrorism or 'legitimate' methods. How much time? No clue.

 

[arnegrim]

and which country has the most loose control on weapons grade nuclear material??

I believe that would be the former Soviet Union...

 

[arnegrim]

Any President who takes any options off the table... shouldn't be President.

 

[ballfan]

Ultimatley? I think so. Seems like it's only a matter of time before nukes or weapons equally devastating are used against the US mainland, be it through terrorism or 'legitimate' methods. How much time? No clue.

Unfortunately you're correct. What flabbergasts me is the "lets set back and wait" crowd that can't see anything wrong with countries like Iran having nuclear weapons.