Hypothetical sutiation alert
..... If Iran was to luanch a nuke agianst the USA or an ally in the middle east would US nuclear retailation be accetpble?
Printable View
Hypothetical sutiation alert
..... If Iran was to luanch a nuke agianst the USA or an ally in the middle east would US nuclear retailation be accetpble?
Can we drop the first part ? That's not even hypothetical, it's bad science fiction. While I'm no expert on Irani carrier rockets, it is my strong impression they're still waaaaaaay far off from the intercontinental range club.
Uuuuhh It will be a cold day in hell when Iran lauches a Nuke.
If they do then its obviously going to get alot worse for Iran.
No, why nuke a million Iranians? The US has enough conventional firepower available to utterly detroy everybody involved. There is no need to kill innocent civilians.
Well, Id say the only real ally the US has in the middle east is Israel anyway... and they are more than capable of retaliating on their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
And as already stated, the US could flatten Iran without resorting to nukes.
As to justification/acceptability of armed response with nuclear weapons in a theoretical sense...if Iran declared war on USA and launched a nuclear strike (yea right...but I digress) then of course the USA would have legitimacy to respond under the conventional 'jus ad bellum' laws of war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Why? Hmmmm, Three Letter Word. War. another 4 Letter Word, Nukes. Nukes+War = Millions of Deaths
in Every War to date,there been Innocent Civilians Killed. that how War is played, no matter how "careful" you are, Civilians will die,rather you like it or not :sweatdrop: :shame:
Even a reactionary neanderthal like myself realizes there should be some thought put into a nuclear strike to reduce civilian losses.
You, sir, worry me. :stunned:Quote:
Originally Posted by BHCWarman88
Its a pretty big hypothetical "given" Strike.
Just because the nuclear response is justified, does not mean it is practical.
Primary difficulty would be targeting. USA has not considered "counter-value" targeting a valid choice, and where are we going to find a largely "force"-type target for an appropriate strike?
Nuking Tehran, even if it did get all the decision-makers involved would also mean killing hundreds of thousands of people who were largely innocent.
A better hypothetical premise would have been that compelling evidence was available that Iran had supplied a nuclear device for a terrorist group that then took out London or some such. This is a more likely "hook" than a direct strike by Iran -- we'd sorta notice if they put missile tubes on the new subs.
Conventional bombing of Iran by the United States is only realistic on certain targets.
Some people are failing to realize how deverse the terrian in Iran truely is.
A nuclear strike on Iran is un-realistic until such a time that Iran actually uses such a weapon. As I have stated before - welcome into the club and advise them to the nature of the power platform that they have attained. A weapon that if they dare use other then for defending against the possiblity of attack - then they get the worse scenerio - a total relatition (destruction) of their nation.
As far as I know, there isn't much use for nukes beside leveling cities. I'm not in favor of doing that with conventional bombs, so certainly not with nukes. Although they've been doing research into tactical nukes that were 'bunker-busters', or something like that, that had a contained area of effect, I'm pretty certain we wouldn't need a tactical nuke to fix the problem.
If some wacko decides to launch a nuke at us, I'm definitely not in favor of launching a nuke at a bunch of civilians that had nothing to do with it. Time would be better spent finding out where it launched from, and how to deal with them, than it would be with barbaric and grotesque ideas of getting back at a nation by killing millions of civilians.
While I abhor the idea of the indescriminate use of nuclear weapons, or any weapons at that, I feel that a nuclear response would be the only way to get the Iranians, and any other Middle Eastern countries so inclined to take such an action on their part seriously. Enforcement of international law would be a joke if we did not do so. I could not begin to imagine the consequences of "taking it on the chin", if that is what we do, could be. As the bible says in Ecclesiasties:
There is a time for everypurpose under the heavens....a time to love and a time to hate.....a time to kill and a time for peace or something like that. (just paraphrasing a little)
These are trying times that we are in. I pray that we can find a way to resolve this issue of Nuclear proliferation peacefully. I wish my own country would take greater measures to reduce her own stockpiles. It would do more for our credibility when we argue that smaller nations should not be allowed their own. I guess it's a case of the strong doing what they can, while the weak do what they must, as the saying goes.
To be frank, it is all rather frightening. These arrogant people want to gamble millions of lives for what? Good God, can't we just do buisness?
ehem... NUKE EM
I would prefer conventional weapons, nukes are crazy things. But I doubt Iran would throw a nuke on the US, not so sure about Israel though. Best is to get at them now imvho, a few well placed rockets on the nuclair installations with minimal loss of life should do.
ehem... NUKE EM
No surprise there since you want the world to end anyhow :dizzy2:
What about Europe and all adjacent countries?
If Iran would launch a nuke I think they would get their ***** kicked by anyone who can reach them.
No need to also resort to nukes.
Ofcours the question remains if we can keep you Americans from pushing that button.~:confused:
oops i voted wrong, i didn't read the question and assumed it was something else... Gah! I meant option 1 of course. Justified, but maybe not necessary. What would be best for the situation should be chosen. But justified if necessary, assuming they were nuked first, that's the very important key of the question that I didn't see at first, when I voted as I did. However not justified in any other case.
I've serious doubts about European willingness to try to invade a country infamous for its defensive terrain advantage in a politically extremely unstable region. Not that they had the means, anyway.
The chief candidates to be able to do something (besides the US natch) would probably be Turkey (a NATO member, I seem to recall) and Pakistan. The willingness and ability of either to do much, given the geography and geopolitics involved plus in the hypothesis a demonstrated Irani willingness to deploy nukes, seems somewhat suspect though ('course, Pakistan has its own nuke...). Just as a little reminder, the Ottomans and Persia warred for centuries and the former was ever stumped largely by the absolutely horrible geography they had to campaign through... I don't think the frontiers between the two have actually changed too much since then, either.
Israel can presumably send airstrikes plus some nukes if it comes down to it, but other than that they're kind of... far off.
It depends, if the nuke actually hit the USA shores then possibly. I would prefer we immediatly scrambled B-2's fully stocked with nukes and have them prepare to drop on Iran. But I think we should royally bitch slap them back to the dark ages first. If they were to hit us a second time, or if they started using chemical weapons also. Then we should steralize Iran, let no inch go uncovered by nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
So... one commander with a grudge causes the death of 100,000 Americans (after all the Iranian bombs would start off small).
You think America should then "bitch slap them". Killing what? 1 million, possibly more. America hasn't got the troops for another major war right at the moment without massive alterations to world priorities. So, dislocate everything to destroy an entire country, mostly innocent people?
How and who does that help?
And haeven forbid there are two scared jingoistic people in Iran. You'd then kill millions more, with who knows how many dying due to fall out, and destroying the world as we know it to boot...
The diabolical evil genius can't compete with the average person.
~:smoking:
sorry. if the u.s. gets nuked then everybody cries. i would expect massive retaliation on all involved parties, guilty or otherwise, lest any other "rogue" countries get any funny ideas.
that said, if if the u.s. does any "nuclear first strike" monkey business then this works both ways and i wouldn't cry over getting dogpiled by every capable nation who could take us out. that's real politik and it sometimes sucks to be on the losing team.
Hypothetically, if they were to attack the US with a nuke I would consider the civilians just as guilty as the decision makers of their country.
If the US were to want to make a nuclear strike against another country our leaders would have to get the people to agree (or at least the people who represent the people). Therefore we (the citizens of the US) would be as guilty as our decision makers. If we did not want the decision makers to make a nuclear strike against another country but they said they were going to anyway or just did anyway I think the US citizens would freak and run those decision makers out on their rumps. If the citizens go along with it they are as guilty as those who push the button.
That said I would have no qualms about using a nuclear retaliation. Nukes like a dog are best used as a deterrent but if no one is deterred anymore by them perhaps it is time to let the dog bite those that would trespass to show that we still have teeth and are not just a bunch of hug offering burocrates.
Okay, what is it with Americans and this "get tough" machobullshit mentality anyway ? It's starting to stick out like sore thumb now.
So: although a president can rule with 40% people voting for him, which can drop further in his term of office (what is Bush's? 34%) everyone is to blame. Sure, no one alive chose your method of proportional representation, but ALL are to blame if the President nuked someone?
In other countries there may be even less (difficult to imagine I know) correlation between the people and the leader. And there is likely to be less checks and sophistication in firing the weapon.
You appear to be tarring all with the brush to assauge guilt when they are all reduced to cinders. "You're dead - but it's your own fault..."
~:smoking:
Well, the president doesn’t rule, approval ratings don’t really mean much except on Election Day and IMO if our president makes a decision to nuke anyone it is as much my fault as anyone else’s.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
The “Your dead but it is your fault “ comment is reasonable to me. The US has clearly posted “beware of Dog” signs and if another country comes into our yard and gets his leg chewed off it is their own fault.
There lies the rub. I don't think that a person merely lives in the boundries of a state should be killed by what that state does.
If all can move to somewhere else easily then that is a reasonable statement, but most people are stuck regardless of what leaders there are.
In elections, how many would say "vote for me! I'm going to nuke the USA!!"
So, even though masses of people deisgree with Bush to varying degrees (some despise the man) they are complicit although they voted against him? I'll just have to agree to disagree.
Your use of the dog forgets the fact that a nation is not a dog! There is not complete collective desicion. A better one would be: One person goes in the yard. Because of that you kill him, his family, his friends and anyone else who looks remotely like him who happens to live nearby.
~:smoking:
Most of us are probably thinking that a nuclear retaliation would consist of tactical nuclear strikes against military installations, particularly nuclear sites. I doubt anyone here would support massive nuclear attacks against civilian targets. Of course there would still be collateral damage, but when has that ever not been the case in war?
Let's just hope it doesn't come anywhere near that.
No. The death of 100,000 human beings does not justify the death of another 100,000.
"Two evils does not one good make" goes one old proverb, I think. And Gandhi had that rather caustic one about "an eye for an eye will only leave the entire world blind"...
Iranians aren't really human, they're just a whole bunch of scum anyway. Why wait for them to nuke for us to just randomly nuke a bunch of their cities? I say we start now and save ourselves the trouble later. What a waste of life.:shame:
Ghandi wasn't a mullah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Americans aren't really human, they're just a whole bunch of scum anyway. What a waste of life. :shame:
Yes, I'm quite aware of that. I imagine so is anyone who hasn't been living under an Arkansas rock for the past hundred years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Your point ?
You, sir, should join the Iranians if that were the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kanamori
2 wrongs don't make a right. Anyhow, the Iranians probably can't make a nuclear MISSILE, if they could even make a bomb. (how could a missile from Iran make it to the US anyway?) The bomb itself would have to be shot down from a plane, which itself could be shot down before it had a chance of reaching the target. You could simply declare for reasons of security that no Iranian planes are allowed into American airspace, and all who trespass run the risk of being shot down.
Neither are most IraniansQuote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I think Kanamori's statement was meant to be sarcastic (at least I hope so :uhoh:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Duke John
My point would make Ser Clegane a very sad moderator.Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
Developing (or acquiring) the necessary carrier missiles would just be a matter of time, and once Iran actually has nuclear weapons (even if they are not yet capable of reaching the US) any attempts to attack would be a bit late as they could then randomly hit any Western ally in the region (just like North Korea is relatively save from a Western attack by practically holding its neighbours as hostages).Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
That being said, I would fully oppose a pre-emptive nuclear strike against Iran. As frightening as the idea might be - but I fear that we have to get accustomed to the fact that 5 years down the road (or 10 years if somebody decides to launch a small-scale strike on Iran's nuclear facilities) Iran will be have nuclear weapons - my (albeit little) hope is that by that time perhaps the Irani people also manage to rid themselves of the current regime...
naah - I take pride in my job :smug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
Will you elaborate, or shall I interpret that as "none" for convenience ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
If that makes you happy, who am I to denie you that. Nope won't elaborate, still waiting for my edit function and my way to cool signature to show up again. I could give a hint of course, it is a lamb-B, who will get it first, you or the mooses?Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
You forget all the terrorist groups the Iranians created and fund. Wouldn't be to hard with enough tries to smuggle a bomb into a western nation. Iran has already used its terrorist groups to attack Isreal, wouldnt be suprisisng once they got the bomb that a few months later Isreal gets bombed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
It may not make a right, but that second one sure makes you feel a h*ll of alot better.Quote:
2 wrongs don't make a right.
We call them elks over here. And I think they're in the mating season around this time.
So I take they get it first :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
When it comes to funding groups of terrorists America isn't entirely blame free. Often they are of course merely supporting the leaders of the country who are acting like thugs... which is evidently completely different :laugh4:
~:smoking:
My opinion hasn't changed:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showp...&postcount=107
Well, they're busy chasing tail. And making something of a nuisance out of themselves, what with all that testosterone (although I don't think they'll try to stare down buses the way reindeer bucks sometimes do when in rut...).Quote:
Originally Posted by Fragony
I, however, am about equally interested in trying to decipher your little riddle. It appears neither interesting nor amusing enough to merit the effort. So spell it out already.
Ahh...Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
Draw parallels, my fellow Organians, to the rhetoric of Osama bin Laden and his justification against US citizens...
!!Crazy Tangent Alert!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
Weren't the Organians the energy beings (posing as peasant villagers) that stopped Kirk and the Federation, and the Klingons starting a massive intergalactic war over their 'backwater' planet? There's a lovely scene in the episode where Kirk and the Klingon commander both get furious with the mild Organian mayor for simply shutting off their weaponry - "How dare you interfere...We have a right to make war...Legitimate claims..."
Maybe not as off-topic as it seems... ~;)
I am never sarcastic. I think that the whole middle east and all of yurup should be turned into glass from our nukes. Nuke 'em all, nuke 'em all, nuke 'em all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Clegane
ehem.
Its all just a matter of perspective, and who’s is more widely accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Reenk Roink
That degree of moral relativism starts inching on the territory of nihilism, you know.
Honestly, that is one of the dumbest things I ever heard.Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
What did I write that is the dumbest thing you have ever heard? Do you think that an elected official doing the biding of the people negates the people’s responsibility of the official doings? Or that nukes are not best used as a deterrent? Or maybe you think we are a bunch of hug offering burocrates?Quote:
Originally Posted by Upxl
Seriously, if you are going to call what I have written dumb at least try and point out why. Besides, if you are convincing enough I may just change my mind.
What people here are forgetting is the obvious. Future deterence. All the "moral sympathetics" here are ignoring that.
If tomomrow Iran passed a nuke to a terrorist group, or (obviously hypothetical as they won't have this capability for some time) launched a missile at an American city and once struck we did not respond with nukes, that sets a dangerous presedent for future attacks from ANYONE. Have people heard of MAD? You know, that whole idea that kept the US and Russia from going to war for 50 years. Mututally assured destruction.
If a country or leader knows he can nuke us and we won't nuke back because "we won't punish your civilians for your actions", then what deterrent is there for them and most importantly future whackos?
Sorry, but that's the way of the world. It's not an easy place to live. If it's a choice between it being nuclear open season on my countrymen (which again, it would be if anyone with nukes who wanted to knows they can nuke us and we won't nuke back because people would cry "but the civilians didn't do it!!!") or a retalition sorry but it's not up for debate with me.
The whole cold war was based on the premise of "you nuke our civilians we nuke yours" and oddly enough the fear of that prevented two nations with more combined desctructive power than all other nations of the world combined -who both hated each other bitterly- from even a conventional war.
Now, with that said I'm talking purely intentional acts. During the cold war there were numerous instances on both sides where accidental launch was narrowly averted. If a soviet sub had malfunctioned or sank in American waters and it's cargo gone off, that's different and it would be wrong to retaliate because it would serve no purpose and protect no future American lives. You can't "deter" against an accident.
But if any nation on earth, either covertly or overtly intentionally causes the detonation of a nuke against America, anything BUT a retaliation in kind would show weakness to an enemy that would no doubt view it as that, and lead to many more American lives lost.
"To pardon one offense encourages the commision of many".
No. If a father came and killed your kid would you kill his kid?
Should Iran launch some form of nuclear attack on any nation I will fully support targeted attacks on the leaders who perpetrated the attacks. But I will not and cannot support attacks on people whose only crime is not revolting against their leaders.
Saying 'no' to nukes doesn't mean saying 'no' to blowing the **** out of those responsible.
And so if terrorists detonate a nuke in the USA, how would you know where it came from? Pakistan, N. Korea, stolen from Russia? Iran is hardly going to tell you, are they?
~:smoking:
My apologies,Quote:
Originally Posted by yesdachi
I know you are entitled to an explanation but sometimes I lack the energy in these kind of situations.
I know you wont change your mind on the subject because reading this I see that you and I have a completely different view on the issue.
Trying to bring black and white to a more grey is very time, energy and nerve consuming.
Sometimes not even worth the trouble.
But like I said, your entitled to an explanation.
Hypothetically, if they were to attack the US with a nuke I would consider the civilians just as guilty as the decision makers of their country.
I don’t think that you can blame civilians for the decisions that the leaders of state make.
Just because you voted for a man or party doesn’t mean you can control its feelings and actions.
In 1933, the Nazis managed to achieve 44% of the votes.
So by your definition this means that 44% of the German public sought war, slave camps and extermination of ethnic minorities.
f the US were to want to make a nuclear strike against another country our leaders would have to get the people to agree (or at least the people who represent the people). Therefore we (the citizens of the US)…
Yes, let me remind you you’re speaking of the US.
Besides, I’m not so sure about this yet.
How did we find out who perpetrated 9/11, or any other terrorist attack? Why the hell else do we have intelligence agencies, other than to collect intelligence?Quote:
And so if terrorists detonate a nuke in the USA, how would you know where it came from? Pakistan, N. Korea, stolen from Russia? Iran is hardly going to tell you, are they?
Well based on past events in Vietnam the precursor to the CIA was used to destablise the local government to the point that it required outside intervention. (creating terrorists)Quote:
Originally Posted by JimBob
And Ronald Reagan was in charge of the White House while the Iran Contra affair happened. (creating terrorists)
Osama Bin Laden was working with the same gentlemen as the CIA was in Afghanistan, now depending on wordplay they were freedom fighters when they were fighting the SU and terrorists when fighting the US. (creating terrorists)
So at least 3 cases that have been exposed where USA intelligence agencies have spent money on people who later on turn out to be terrorists.
So why not the possibility of the CIA buying a dud nuke from the former SU and setting up Iran with another one of their patsy terrorist groups? Similar things have happened in the past why not in the future?