Let's start a Nuclear War

[Alkonium]

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

That statement seems self-contradictory, doesn't it?

[TK-8252]

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

 

He essentially does... his red button is George W. Bush.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

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

That statement seems self-contradictory, doesn't it?

No, due to the fact that I'd like it if no one had them (idealism), but I realize the fact that they're here to stay, and would prefer that we had them and not Iran.

 

He essentially does... his red button is George W. Bush.

Bush talks to God directly. He (Bush) said so, so it must be true.

[Alkonium]

Bush talks to God directly. He (Bush) said so, so it must be true.

And that is one of the reasons why Bush should be impeached. Government is supposed to be secular, with no religious bias. And besides, fighting won't solve anything. It will simply leave the enemy more vengeful, and more inclined to fight back. If anything, the US should not be the agressor in any war, since it makes them out to be the "bad guy".

[swphreak]

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?)

 

If I was a leader, I'd try to get my hands on Nuclear Weapons. Some country started invading, BAM made them regret it.

 

I don't see why N.K. and Iran can't have nukes, while we have loads of them. Heck, we actually dropped some. Although, seeing as how N.K. and Iran don't have a very good track record, I wouldn't want them tog et their hands on nukes.

 

I guess it's reletive or something.

 

"You have nukes, why can't I have one?"

[Samnmax221]

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

Well if he promised only to nuke Hugo Chavez, who happens to be a free speach stifling peice of authoritarian ****.

 

No because I'd be wiped off the map for not taking christainity seiruisly

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

If I was a leader, I'd try to get my hands on Nuclear Weapons. Some country started invading, BAM made them regret it.

 

I don't see why N.K. and Iran can't have nukes, while we have loads of them. Heck, we actually dropped some. Although, seeing as how N.K. and Iran don't have a very good track record, I wouldn't want them tog et their hands on nukes.

 

I guess it's reletive or something.

 

"You have nukes, why can't I have one?"

I think the general theme of people's responses to this issue can be summed up by saying that they'd rather nuke someone else than be nuked.

[Master_Ginn]

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.

Where it isn't a real nuke as what we're used to, there are varying degrees of bunkerbusters. Most use a depleted uranium shell, which is radio active, but has a half life of like 5 billion years(i'm doing this on memory, so if i'm wrong please tell me) so it's radioactivity at the time of detonation is relatively nothing. Bunker busters can carry anywhere from 1 kiloton of nuclear charge, to a 300 kiloton charge. Just to put this in persepctive, Hiroshima was somewhere around a 15 kiloton charge. So, yes, these can be catagorized as a full nuclear bomb, but only if they are chosen to be.

[Samnmax221]

Well I don't think anybody really wants to be nuked, despite how much of a death wish they seem to have

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Where it isn't a real nuke as what we're used to, there are varying degrees of bunkerbusters. Most use a depleted uranium shell, which is radio active, but has a half life of like 5 billion years(i'm doing this on memory, so if i'm wrong please tell me) so it's radioactivity at the time of detonation is relatively nothing. Bunker busters can carry anywhere from 1 kiloton of nuclear charge, to a 300 kiloton charge. Just to put this in persepctive, Hiroshima was somewhere around a 15 kiloton charge. So, yes, these can be catagorized as a full nuclear bomb, but only if they are chosen to be.

Depleted Uranium (half-life of 4.46 billion years) is only used to reflect neutrons back as the Uranium-235/233 in order to increase the efficiancy of the bomb. Weapons-grade uranium is Uranium-235 or Uranium-233, which was a half-life of 700 million years and can release ~200 MeV in ~0.10000000000000 seconds when it's triggered and becomes unstable by a neutron being fired at it's nucleus (so if the neutron misses, the depleted Uranium-or Uranium-238-reflects the neutron back at the Uranium-235/233).

 

So to sum-up, depleted Uranium (Uranium-238) can't trigger a nuclear explosion, and any nuclear device will irradiate a large area around it as well as send radioactive particles into the atmosphere traveling at near-lightspeed.

[Joe©]

I don't think we should use nukes on Iran. It would just be a really bad idea.

America is a superpower. And what to do with that power? abuse it? We should hold ourselves to a higher standard.

 

Besides, we could make Iran a nice flat desert with conventional weapons. There is no need to nuke them.

[toms]

Here's hoping this is one of those staged leaks in order to threaten Iran while maintatining deniability.... because if its true then the US has just lost any chance of any sort of international coalition against Iran.

[Mike Windu]

[Samuel Dravis]

It's talking about planning. We plan for a lot of things. We planned an exact way to use nukes on Russia. We planned our naval movements during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We no doubt have a plan to use nuclear weapons for every single war we've fought since WW2. Military planning means very little unless that plan will actually be carried out. It's actually irresponsible of them not to plan, because they are supposed to be considering every possible alternative. Executing said strike is quite another matter, and no, I don't think it should happen unless we have real information that makes their use the only viable option and it is then a matter of immediate and justifying danger not to use them.

 

Seriously, get over someone saying "nukes" and "GW" in the same sentence.

[Good Sir Knight]

It's talking about planning. We plan for a lot of things. We planned an exact way to use nukes on Russia. We planned our naval movements during the Cuban Missile Crisis. We no doubt have a plan to use nuclear weapons for every single war we've fought since WW2. Military planning means very little unless that plan will actually be carried out. It's actually irresponsible of them not to plan, because they are supposed to be considering every possible alternative. Executing said strike is quite another matter, and no, I don't think it should happen unless we have real information that makes their use the only viable option and it is then a matter of immediate and justifying danger not to use them.

 

Seriously, get over someone saying "nukes" and "GW" in the same sentence.

 

 

Spot on, alot of the times military plans are purely for theoretical/training purposes.

 

People can say that a bunker buster is a nuke, sure it has nuclear material but it's detonating underground and it doesn't resemble the destruction illustrated by Hiroshima.

 

Besides, why should America care about what people think? Most of the world is rallied against us any way, there is simply no way we could do right.

 

We're either a police man or a coward, a liar or a blow heart.. no one is happy with a super power for one reason or another.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Besides, why should America care about what people think? Most of the world is rallied against us any way, there is simply no way we could do right.

Why you're wrong on the issue of ignoring what the rest of the world thinks:

• Because we're only like 10% of the world's population, probably less than that now that I think about it.*
  
• We should attempt to make it right, just because our credibility is shot because of the current administration doesn't mean we should give up on improving it.
  
• Did I mention we're not the only country in the world?
  
• We aren't the only country in the world with an army.
  

 

*see below...

 

[Mike Windu]

Amen.

 

When will we learn, I wonder, to be progressive once again, and not reactionary...

[toms]

You will always end up annoying some people... but life would go a lot easier if you only annoyed people when you needed to, and not at every opportunity just to show that you can. imho.

[Good Sir Knight]

You will always end up annoying some people... but life would go a lot easier if you only annoyed people when you needed to, and not at every opportunity just to show that you can. imho.

 

You guys are right, I hope you realize that my comment was a little off the cuff.

 

Im just tired of all the anti-Americanism in the world. It's like we're the USSR now or something.

 

Sure we've made huge mistakes but it's my oppinion that America is generally, a force for good in the world. Then you take a step back and look at Europe and alot of the folks generally hate "America" based upon false stereotypes.

 

It's also interesting that there is almost a complete lack of anti-Americanism in Vietnam, a country that has every right to despise us.

 

I don't want to turn this into a debate over the merits of US foreign policy so I'll leave it at that, I hope you can see where I'm coming from.

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Im just tired of all the anti-Americanism in the world. It's like we're the USSR now or something.

I agree with that to some extent, however some things that are said against us are well deserved-and you can blame the Bush administration for that.

[rccar328]

I agree with that to some extent, however some things that are said against us are well deserved-and you can blame the Bush administration for that.

Of course...because before George W. Bush became President, everyone loved the United States.

 

But when it comes to the "planning to use nukes against Iran" thing, I don't see what the big deal is. If they were implementing the plan to use nukes, it would be a big deal...but planning for war is part of the President's job. And with Iran either several years or 16 days away from having a nuclear weapon, if President Bush wasn't drawing up plans to do whatever is necessary to stop Iran from deploying nuclear weapons, he should be impeached.

[TK-8252]

So are all our "allies" planning a similar strike as well? Israel probably is (they likely had a plan to nuke the entire Middle East way before this), but what about Germany, France, UK, etc.? Are they ready to start WWIII?

 

We all know Iran with a nuke is BAD, but what the HELL are they going to actually use it on? Israel? If they do, then Iran will promptly be destroyed. They're smart enough to know they can't just send out nukes willy-nilly. And if they attack our bases in the Middle East, again, they can't do that; Iran has an address, we know where to come for them.

 

I say this is just like the situation with North Korea. We KNOW that North Korea has nukes RIGHT NOW. And they would very much like to use them on us. But they don't, why? Because they know that if they did, they can say goodbye to their little communist "paradise" as they call their country.

 

So basically, the reason why Iran wants nukes is the same reason that North Korea does: they want the prestige. They want to be in the "club" of all the other countries, like us, with nukes. They also want to have leverage over other countries like North Korea has over us.

 

Before attacking Iran's bases, shouldn't we attack North Korea's bases? I mean, they got nukes right now. Aren't they clearly the bigger threat?

[Samuel Dravis]

So are all our "allies" planning a similar strike as well? Israel probably is (they likely had a plan to nuke the entire Middle East way before this), but what about Germany, France, UK, etc.? Are they ready to start WWIII?

It's not quite the same situation for them. They aren't the ones stuck in a very unstable situation in the Middle East, getting a lot of bad publicity in the process. Besides, probably at least France does have a plan - they were talking about using nuclear weapons if attacked, and the only people likely to start a war over there is the Middle Eastern countries (excluding us, of course. ).

 

We all know Iran with a nuke is BAD, but what the HELL are they going to actually use it on? Israel? If they do, then Iran will promptly be destroyed. They're smart enough to know they can't just send out nukes willy-nilly. And if they attack our bases in the Middle East, again, they can't do that; Iran has an address, we know where to come for them.

 

I say this is just like the situation with North Korea. We KNOW that North Korea has nukes RIGHT NOW. And they would very much like to use them on us. But they don't, why? Because they know that if they did, they can say goodbye to their little communist "paradise" as they call their country.

 

So basically, the reason why Iran wants nukes is the same reason that North Korea does: they want the prestige. They want to be in the "club" of all the other countries, like us, with nukes. They also want to have leverage over other countries like North Korea has over us.

Actually, I doubt that Iran would ever use nukes even if it had them. What having them would do, however, is obtain for Iran semi-immunity to invasion. This means they would not be in the same position as Iraq was - they could basically do whatever they liked; they'd be able to push up their terrorism support and similar activities with no consequence because it would be too risky for other nations to try to stop them. Eventually they might do something bad enough to be attacked, but having nuclear weapons changes the risk/benefit balance of an invasion quite a lot.

[rccar328]

So are all our "allies" planning a similar strike as well? Israel probably is (they likely had a plan to nuke the entire Middle East way before this), but what about Germany, France, UK, etc.? Are they ready to start WWIII?

 

We all know Iran with a nuke is BAD, but what the HELL are they going to actually use it on? Israel? If they do, then Iran will promptly be destroyed. They're smart enough to know they can't just send out nukes willy-nilly. And if they attack our bases in the Middle East, again, they can't do that; Iran has an address, we know where to come for them.

 

I say this is just like the situation with North Korea. We KNOW that North Korea has nukes RIGHT NOW. And they would very much like to use them on us. But they don't, why? Because they know that if they did, they can say goodbye to their little communist "paradise" as they call their country.

 

So basically, the reason why Iran wants nukes is the same reason that North Korea does: they want the prestige. They want to be in the "club" of all the other countries, like us, with nukes. They also want to have leverage over other countries like North Korea has over us.

 

Before attacking Iran's bases, shouldn't we attack North Korea's bases? I mean, they got nukes right now. Aren't they clearly the bigger threat?

I don't think you're hearing what I'm saying. Yes, our military has plans on how to attack Iran. They probably also have plans for an attack on North Korea, as well as sevaral other nations that pose potential threats to the United States. Making these plans does not automatically mean that they will be implemented...but the plans are there just in case we do need to implement them. This kind of planning takes time and resources to draw up...and our military needs to have the plans ready and available before they start deploying troops and launching missiles.

 

And I have no doubt that several of our allies militaries have plans drawn up for a potential invation or military action (most especially Israel)...that's just the way things work.

 

The situation with North Korea is different, though. Do they pose a greater threat? Most definitely. But North Korea's nuclear capability is the reason we can't invade. An invasion of Iran is much more likely because they don't have nukes yet, and it is in everyone's best interests to keep it that way...because once Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's a whole different ball game...just like with North Korea. When a nation has nuclear weapons, a new element is added: we have to guarantee that we can destroy all of their nuclear weapons before they can launch them...or the doctrine of "acceptable losses" goes right out the window.

 

I have no doubt that Iran will launch an attack once they get nukes...it's just a question of who they'll attack first: the US or Israel...or somebody else who hacks them off (Denmark, maybe?). I don't know if you've noticed, but Ahmadinejad is more than just a bit off his rocker...all the more reason that it's a good thing that we're drawing up plans to take out their ability to manufacture nuclear weapons.

 

The main question is this: would you rather take out a potential nuclear threat...or go into another cold war? Mutually assured destruction isn't really something I'd like to play with with someone like Ahmadinejad with his finger on the button. At least we can be somewhat certain that Kim Jong Ill would rather keep his communist "paradise" than be annihilated...but when you have 72 virgins just waiting for you...who can say what'll happen?

[TK-8252]

You have some good points and you've almost won me over on this one, but the problem I see is that we could never put such a plan into action without horrible consequences. The Muslims in the Middle East have always wanted to unite - and it would be pretty damn bad if they united against us.

 

Pissing off a country with terrorist ties is not a good idea. Who's to say that they won't turn into another Taliban with terrorist training camps all over and send some of those terrorists over to us - then what do we do? Regime change?