Iran Nuclear Watch: United States Considers Use of Nuclear Weapons Against Iran

5 Comments

• 

  Tyler

  April 8, 2006 at 4:36 pm

  Hi Flap –

  Will you actually go on the record as supporting preemptive nuclear war?

  If so, can you please outline what you expect the global ramifications to be, socially, politically, economically and environmentally if we launch a preemptive nuclear attack on a sovereign nation?

  Why is Flap “doubtful that President Bush would authorize a military first strike against Iran”? Bush did it to Iraq.

  It is one thing to rattle sabers – I have no problem with you doing that. It is an entirely different thing to advocate a nuclear holocaust. Please go on the record, Flap – do you support a preemptive nuclear attack?

  Another scenario – a car bomb goes off in NYC, killing 50 people. It is unequivocally tied to Iran. Would you advocate a nuclear retaliation that could kill 20 million people or more?

• 

  Flap

  April 8, 2006 at 5:03 pm

  Tyler,

  Did I say pre-emptive nuclear war? Or did I say use of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy uranium enrichment and nuclear weapon making facilities?

  If diplomatic means end, the point of no return for Iran possessing a nuclear weapon and Iran does not stand down their nuclear weapon making facilities, then Flap supports whatever means it takes to destroy such facilities. Iran WILL NOT have a nuclear weapon.

  Now, if Iran attacks Israel or American troops with biological/chemical warhead laced Shabab -3 missiles, then it is war with Iran and all military installations/personnel may fall peril to America’s nuclear arsenal – more than likely tactical nuclear cruise missiles fired from sea.

  Would you not agree?

  Flap

• 

  Tyler

  April 8, 2006 at 7:41 pm

  Hi Flap –

  Regarding the first point, I would say it is splitting hairs to try and define it as anything different. The “use of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy uranium enrichment and nuclear weapon making facilities” IS preemptive nuclear war. Us firing first = preemptive. Use of nuclear weapons = nuclear war. You may see this as necessary and acceptable, but that does not mean it is NOT preemptive nuclear war.

  Regarding the second point, if Iran uses biological/chemical warheads on us or an ally, then they are begging for their own self-destruction. Totally agreed.

  I am incredibly concerned that the same administration that pounded the drumbeat of war with Iraq, chanting WMD…WMD…WMD over and over, was straight-up wrong (and knew they were going into war), and now almost 2,500 American soldiers are dead, 10,000’s of thousands Iraqis are dead and the country is in civil war. To now make the assumption that bombing the hell out of Iran will result in a regime change that is allied with US policy, as Seymour Hersh documents, seems foolhardy.

• 

  Flap

  April 8, 2006 at 9:36 pm

  Semantics are important and the use of tactical nuclear weapons to destroy underground military targets is NOT nuclear war. It is a tactical nuclear strike not a strategic nuclear war such as was contemplated with the former Soviet Union during the Cold War. A big difference. Iran has no nuclear weapons to retaliate and any American strike would be limited – unless Iran attacks Israel or American troops.

  Tyler, you lefties have to get over the WMD and Iraq. This issue is Iran and their proclivity to hide a nuclear weapons program over a number of decades and most importanty Iran’s refusal to stand down their uranium enrichment facilities. Iran already possesses WMD with biological and chemical weapon capabilities. Plus they have a developing nuclear weapons program with the intermediate range missiles to deliver a nuclear payload. A big difference between Iran and Iraq.

  Bombing will probably not be sufficient to destroy all of their nuclear facilities and deter Iran from their nuclear ambitions. Most Iran War Plans include invasion after a bombing campaign. Regime change would then occur with American troops in Tehran.

  Now, the President is pursuing a diplomatic solution to this crisis. War planning is an exercise and completed all of the time versus many enemies.

  War is always the last option but Iran cannot possess a nuclear weapon and the United States will guarantee this outcome.

  Flap

• 

  Tyler

  April 8, 2006 at 11:15 pm

  Hi Flap –

  1) as i have explained before in previous posts, I am a 15-year registered Libertarian who has been completely polarized by this Administration. Is using nukes really a partisan issue?

  2) where are the troops coming from, Flap? We have stop-loss programs keeping National Guard troops on fourth tours of duty. We cannot control Iraq which has devolved into civil war. This administration was warned by the Pentagon, including General Shinseki and others that it would take over 250,000 troops to secure Iraq. The administration didn’t heed these warnings, did it on the cheap, pushed critics including Shinseki out of the way, and now we are looking at 2 trillion dollars over the next twenty years.

  3) it is painfully clear that for this president, war is NOT the last option. it didn’t need to be the option in Iraq, did it? This administration cherry-picked intelligence to push us into war, and he authorized the leak of classified material, legal or otherwise, to try to discredit a critic, while lying to the American people straight up that any leakers in his administration would be booted. The President LIES. How can anyone, including the 64% who now disapprove of him, according to the latest FOX NEWS poll, trust that this president will do the right thing?

  If we use a preemptive nuclear strike, God save us all. Not just the Americans.