We're gonna nuke Iran!
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Saturday, February 28, 2026 17:47
VIEWED: 4913
PAGE 2 of 7
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
If our policy on Nukes hasn't changed then why did we do a simulated nuke in nevada just recently? I mean, I'll give credit where credit is due...thank god they didn't use a real nuke, but that's more a matter of public outrcry.
From my understanding, (and I'm no expert so if you have some facts on that to dispute this, I'd like to hear them), we detonated a bomb so big, so heavy that we don't have bombers capable of holding such a weapon, meaning...the only likely reason to test such a weapon, would be to do some comparisson -
It's not a crazy leap to suggest that Nuclear 'options' are definitely on the forfront of their collective mind.
Did that test happen already ? Didn't hear the results, but are you complaining we DID a test first, and didn't use nukes? What exactly are you questioning ? Better to know before you use one whether it's gonna work or not, right ? And such a test could be valuable for more scenarios than just Iran. That country isn' the only one which has bunkers deep under ground. Hell, I'll bet the US has a few of its own. Such a test could go far in seeing how well OUR defenses are set up.....
But never mind all that. It's Bush, and so the Bush haters automatically assume that he's going ot use nukes , no matter what.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Auraptor.
You were offering up your view, I was merely countering it with one of my own.
The trouble with you Bushite fanatics is.......
Oh never mind.
I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying and why. But for that, I'm a ' Bushite' fanatic.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You're talking absolutely crazy...what scenarios? What scenarios would it be sane to use nukes at this point or on into the future, At any point, but particularly now, when if we do get hit, it will not likely be by a nation.
Even the craziest of the crazies wouldn't be nuts enough to allow us to get hit with one of their nukes. A city of ours for a nation of theirs? That's not a good ratio, and hardly a succesful jihad. It'll be a group with no borders when it happens.
All we're doing with this stepping-up of ultimatums, threats and bomb tests, is scaring the rest of the world into thinking they need nukes of their own to defend themselves against us!
And lets be honest about such testing shall we? We know how much damage nukes do....a shitload...they aren't testing for use as a response...they are testing for the use of tactical "preemptive" nukes. They want to know how contained they can make them. Or are you going to tell me that America will respond to a nuclear attack by tactically taking out specific areas of a country? Yeah, that's going to happen. That's how rational people and governments are likely to act after getting attacked.
And maybe you think the use of preemptive nukes is justified, but my original post was directed at Hero who assured us that we will not use nukes unless attacked first. Or is that your contention as well?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
They want to know how contained they can make them. Or are you going to tell me that America will respond to a nuclear attack by tactically taking out specific areas of a country? Yeah, that's going to happen. That's how rational people and governments are likely to act after getting attacked.
And maybe you think the use of preemptive nukes is justified, but my original post was directed at Hero who assured us that we will not use nukes unless attacked first. Or is that your contention as well?
It's not crazy in the least to know what it is you're dealing with, especially when it comes to nukes. We didn't test WITH a nuke, for the reasons which are obvious. So the next best thing was done. The POINT , I suspect, in perfroming such a test is to show that we can ( or can't ) destroy a bunker which is X feet below the surface. If we CAN, than that goes a very long way in telegraphing to Iran, or any other country, what our capabilities are. Knowing that, countries should be more likely to seek diplomatic, and not military solutions.
But clearly I'd be against any 1st strike, pre-emptive nuclear option w/ regards to Iran. For all sorts of reasons, but mainly because I don't trust the intel we've gotten to (or from) our military. I don't know where the weak link is, but time after time leading up to the Iraq war, we were told that Saddam was likely taken out by a percission bomb , only to see him pop his head up somewhere else. With a nuke strike, the margin for error would be too great for justification.
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hero- You seem to have a dodgy memory.
Quote:Uh, one minor historical quibble here?? We WERE the first to use them. IN fact, we were the ONLY to use them.
Our policy on nuclear weapons has never changed. We will not be the first to use them (except in defense of Europe should the Soviet's manage to 'break through').
Not that this fact discredits your argument or anything....
---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
AURaptor, IF we do nuke Iran, will THAT be enough to turn you from the 'Bush side'?
Simple question, can you address it directly?
Quick, easy, more seductive it is Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Righteous9:
You're talking absolutely crazy...what scenarios? What scenarios would it be sane to use nukes at this point or on into the future, At any point, but particularly now, when if we do get hit, it will not likely be by a nation.
Do you know (one of the reasons) why we used nukes on Japan? Because it was going to take too many lives and too much time to invade the Japanese home islands.
Consider how many soldiers have died, how many have been permanently crippled, and how much money we have spent on the war. Now consider how many more dead, how many more crippled and how much more money will be wasted before it is over. Now consider that at any point during this time the war could have been ended with the push of a button. Can you think of a scenario where nuclear weapons should be considered now?
Granted multi-megaton warheads have significant issues (I don't like the thought of radiation drifting around any more than the next guy), but smaller, cleaner H-bombs (say high double digit kiloton range) could be used to great effect in certain circumstances (they would have much less radioactive fallout to cause problems). Consider an "accident" involving the dropping of an H-bomb in uninhabited desert in Iran, there might be a couple of casualties but the main effect would probably be the scaring of the Iranian government. Shock and Awe indeed. Course it could always backfire and we would have to be prepared for that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
AURaptor, IF we do nuke Iran, will THAT be enough to turn you from the 'Bush side'?
Simple question, can you address it directly?
Quick, easy, more seductive it is Chrisisall
It would be a colossal mistake and one which I would oppose Bush for doing. I don't see it happening, but sure, I'd turn on Bush for doing that.
Direct enough answer for ya ?
People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Do you know (one of the reasons) why we used nukes on Japan? Because it was going to take too many lives and too much time to invade the Japanese home islands.
Do you know the Japanese were offering their surrender, but the only term, namely don't destroy our culture, was considered too unreasonable?
The Allies (I am under no illusions that Britain rubber stamped the usage thus we are complicit) wanted an unconditional surrender, the nuclear bomb would get that. Britain and America wanted to show Russia "whose boss", the nuclear bomb would do that too.
Well it was supposed to; instead it scared Stalin into a nuclear program of his own and helped spark the cold war, but whatever.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
And as you know, these are open forums, you're able to come and listen to what I have to say.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Thank you. And I hope it don't come to that.
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Direct enough answer for ya ?
Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME