The Nuclear question

[Strike For The South]

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?

[Watchman]

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.

[Incongruous]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[lancelot]

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?

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.

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.

[BHCWarman88]

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.

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

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Even a reactionary neanderthal like myself realizes there should be some thought put into a nuclear strike to reduce civilian losses.

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

You, sir, worry me.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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.

[Redleg]

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.

[Kanamori]

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.

[rotorgun]

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?

[Bar Kochba]

ehem... NUKE EM

[Fragony]

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.

[Tribesman]

ehem... NUKE EM
No surprise there since you want the world to end anyhow

[Upxl]

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.

[Rodion Romanovich]

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.

[Watchman]

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.

[BigTex]

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?

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[solypsist]

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.

[yesdachi]

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.

[Watchman]

Okay, what is it with Americans and this "get tough" machobullshit mentality anyway ? It's starting to stick out like sore thumb now.

[rory_20_uk]

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..."

[yesdachi]

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..."

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.

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Kommodus]

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.

[Duke John]

No. The death of 100,000 human beings does not justify the death of another 100,000.

[Watchman]

"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"...

[Kanamori]

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.

[Fragony]

"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"...

Ghandi wasn't a mullah.