Let's start a Nuclear War

[Kurgan]

At least that's what it sounds like

 

I thought this had to be a sick April Fool's joke, but it was reported today, for an April 17th issue.

 

Blustering or not, that's chilling. Are they crazy?

 

 

Here's the article, at least how it appears now. Let's see if there's any updates on the mass of what-if's:

 

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The administration of

President George W. Bush is planning a massive bombing campaign against

Iran, including use of bunker-buster nuclear bombs to destroy a key Iranian suspected nuclear weapons facility, The New Yorker magazine has reported in its April 17 issue.

ADVERTISEMENT

 

 

The article by investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said that Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.

 

"That's the name they're using," the report quoted a former senior intelligence official as saying.

 

A senior unnamed

Pentagon adviser is quoted in the article as saying that "this White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war."

 

The former intelligence officials depicts planning as "enormous," "hectic" and "operational," Hersh writes.

 

One former defense official said the military planning was premised on a belief that "a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government," The New Yorker pointed out.

 

In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of the House of Representatives, including at least one Democrat, the report said.

 

One of the options under consideration involves the possible use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, to insure the destruction of Iran's main centrifuge plant at Natanz, Hersh writes.

 

But the former senior intelligence official said the attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the military, and some officers have talked about resigning after an attempt to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans in Iran failed, according to the report.

 

"There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries," the magazine quotes the Pentagon adviser as saying.

 

The adviser warned that bombing Iran could provoke "a chain reaction" of attacks on American facilities and citizens throughout the world and might also reignite Hezbollah.

 

"If we go, the southern half of

Iraq will light up like a candle," the adviser is quoted as telling The New Yorker.

 

It wouldn't be the first time threats were made, but seriously, what are they thinking?

[Lathain Valtiel]

Well, at least the explosion would be pretty. It was one of my desires to see a nuclear explosion live, but I digress.

[Alkonium]

And yet, George Bush is still in office. There is no possible way that this could end well.

[Kurgan]

Well, isn't one of the deals with the explosion if you can see it, you're going to be affected by it?

 

But I see your point, something pretty to see before you die, small comfort.

[Lathain Valtiel]

If that were the case, then clearly Oppenheimer would never have made that lovely quote of his... he'd be dead.

 

You're relatively safe if far away and get a nice vantage point to see the fireworks. That'd be picnic worthy.

[Kurgan]

I don't mean instant death, I'm talking cancer from the radiation. Maybe I'm wrong. It's been awhile since I read up on the effects of a nuclear blast.

[Lathain Valtiel]

The cancer issue is most likely negligible UNLESS you decide to sit inside the radiation zone for any appreciable length of time.

 

I just have this morbid desire to see one of the damn things in action. I can't realy appreciate its power otherwise.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

It's too cold where I am anyways...

 

I'm not sure what else to say. I'm actually somewhat saddened that we have nuclear weapons anyway; all that research into quantum mechanics and particle physics going not to help people-but to destroy, maim, and mutilate them.

 

As for this thing in Iran- why use nuclear weapons? They'll irradiate large areas of the country and spew radioactive particles into the atmosphere, spreading the radiation all over the world. Hell, even the areas we used to test the atomic bombs in the 1940s still have above average levels of radioactivity.

[Lathain Valtiel]

Psst... nuclear generators.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Psst... nuclear generators.

Psst... we're talking about nuclear weapons. One is in a controlled enviroment, one is not.

[swphreak]

It saddens me that the people will impeach a president because of some sex scandal, but when the president starts wars and supposidly talks about starting nuclear wars, we just sit back and watch.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

It saddens me that the people will impeach a president because of some sex scandal, but when the president starts wars and supposidly talks about starting nuclear wars, we just sit back and watch.

But he was impeached for perjury!

 

 

[swphreak]

Yeah, I guess that means Bush has never lied! :0

[Good Sir Knight]

Ya know this report is overrated. If you think a bunker buster is anything like a real nuke then your wrong.

 

It's similar technology to dead uranium shells, which are horrid but lets not pretend that these are 'real nukes'. (i.e. in the classical sense, "Hiroshima")

 

If you want some details on why a bunker bomb isn't nearly as bad, I'd be happy to present it.

 

 

Furthermore I couldn't care less if the US wiped out their nuclear facility. They are an intolerant, violent country and their head of state wants to wipe out another countrys people.

 

What better way than a nuclear weapon?

 

Do you trust Iran with a nuclear weapon?

 

Oh and I don't have a particular fondness of Israel either, I have a fondness for democracy and human life.

 

Iran can threaten and black mail Europe with their Shahab missle, do you want Iran having that luxury over the United States? You wouldn't mind? I would.

 

It's amazing that people are more sympathetic to intolerant, biggoted, misogynistic clerics in the East while they denounce religious conservatism in our own country.

 

The Islamic Republic of Iran makes Pat Robertson look like a liberal, so in my oppinion, screw'm.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Yeah, I guess that means Bush has never lied! :0

He could be impeached for perjury if he lied in court-apparently you can lie to the entire nation without fear of prosecution.

 

Ya know this report is overrated. If you think a bunker buster is anything like a real nuke then your wrong.

 

It's similar technology to dead uranium shells, which are horrid but lets not pretend that these are 'real nukes'. (i.e. in the classical sense, "Hiroshima")

 

If you want some details on why a bunker bomb isn't nearly as bad, I'd be happy to present it.

 

 

Furthermore I couldn't care less if the US wiped out their nuclear facility. They are an intolerant, violent country and their head of state wants to wipe out another countrys people.

 

What better way than a nuclear weapon?

 

Do you trust Iran with a nuclear weapon?

 

Oh and I don't have a particular fondness of Israel either, I have a fondness for democracy and human life.

 

Iran can threaten and black mail Europe with their Shahab missle, do you want Iran having that luxury over the United States? You wouldn't mind? I would.

 

It's amazing that people are more sympathetic to intolerant, biggoted, misogynistic clerics in the East while they denounce religious conservatism in our own country.

 

The Islamic Republic of Iran makes Pat Robertson look like a liberal, so in my oppinion, screw'm.

I'm not saying I wouldn't want to stop them, however using a nuclear weapon of any size would be a bad decision. It's bad for the innocent people in Iran, and it's bad for the rest of the world, seeing as radioactive particles in the atmosphere can traverse the globe and are in fact radioactive, as in they aren't good for humans to be surrounded with.

 

There's also the chance that we can negotiate with them, seeing as they're ~10 years away from having weapons-grade uranium (only 2%0.74% of all uranium in the world is weapons-grade, it decays very quickly as it's far more unstable than other types).

[Samnmax221]

Come on kids go outside and play in the black snow!

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Come on kids go outside and play in the black snow!

...and melt!

[Samnmax221]

Fallout won't melt you but its not exactly good for you, kinda like licking a barstool

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Fallout won't melt you but its not exactly good for you, kinda like licking a barstool

I was referring to a Lewis Black joke with that... but yeah, it won't melt anyone.

[Lathain Valtiel]

The Fallout games are awesome.

[ET Warrior]

Remember when this is a Senate topic, and not a thread in the swamp for bull****ting? I remember, so stop it.

[Good Sir Knight]

He could be impeached for perjury if he lied in court-apparently you can lie to the entire nation without fear of prosecution.

 

 

I'm not saying I wouldn't want to stop them, however using a nuclear weapon of any size would be a bad decision. It's bad for the innocent people in Iran, and it's bad for the rest of the world, seeing as radioactive particles in the atmosphere can traverse the globe and are in fact radioactive, as in they aren't good for humans to be surrounded with.

 

There's also the chance that we can negotiate with them, seeing as they're ~10 years away from having weapons-grade uranium (only 2% of all uranium in the world is weapons-grade, it decays very quickly as it's far more unstable than other types).

 

 

True but Israel and the regions stability is at risk soley because Iran wants it's grubby little hands on nuclear weapons. Sure there will be some fallout in their area, arguably the Iranian people share a bit of the blame, across party lines they view nuclear power as a leveling mechanism.

 

I say no because I don't want that despotic government even coming close to nuclear weapons.

 

Their entire nation is behind it and so there is little we can do but to disagree and let the best man win.

 

Would you feel safe with Pat Robertson having a red button on his show?

 

That's how I feel about Iran.

[Kurgan]

Another good topic to bring up... why is it okay for Western nations to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran? Is it because they're intolerant and making threats? (and we're not?)

 

Not saying that Iran is blameless, but really, aren't we being hypocritical and self serving in this? With the high potential of it blowing up in our faces? I mean, isn't this the very definition of "rule by fear"?

 

It's not looking good, in any case. I mean we'll be using the same sorts of slippery justifications this time as we did with the Iraq debacle. Well, someday they might get WMD, that means we need to attack them.

 

I just think that the use of nukes against another nation is a violation of a HUGE cold war taboo. Once we do this act, even if it's a supposedly weaker variant like a "dirty bomb" or tactical nuke, it opens the flood gates. It sets a horrible precedent, and could lead to a global crisis. We let China get nukes. We let North Korea get nukes. We let Europe get nukes. Is it worth another Cuban Missile Crisis over the pissant nation of Iran just because Israel is scared?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

True but Israel and the regions stability is at risk soley because Iran wants it's grubby little hands on nuclear weapons. Sure there will be some fallout in their area, arguably the Iranian people share a bit of the blame, across party lines they view nuclear power as a leveling mechanism.

 

I say no because I don't want that despotic government even coming close to nuclear weapons.

 

Their entire nation is behind it and so there is little we can do but to disagree and let the best man win.

 

Would you feel safe with Pat Robertson having a red button on his show?

 

That's how I feel about Iran.

That region has been unstable since long before there even was a country called Iran.

 

Another good topic to bring up... why is it okay for Western nations to have nuclear weapons, but not Iran? Is it because they're intolerant and making threats? (and we're not?)

I don't agree with anyone having them, however I'd rather we have them, and not Iran.

[Lathain Valtiel]

Remember when this is a Senate topic, and not a thread in the swamp for bull****ting? I remember, so stop it.

 

 

YOU DARE SUPPRESS THE AWESOME THAT IS FALLOUT 1 AND 2!? You have just lost the right to debate anything. Please retire from this forum immediately and don't come back.

 

---

 

On another note...

 

Jmac got it somewhat right here... on principle I'd rather hold all the cards. Who wouldn't?