In your opinion, do you think the U. S. Military should nuke Iraq and Iran simultaneously?

Answer 1

This question has been plaguing the US Military for months now. What to do? With over 79,000 nuclear warheads sitting at their disposal, the temptation is strong to use them to save money. The chiefs of staff have been scratching their heads over this dilemma. Should they nuke only Iraq, and let the radioactive fallout wipe out Iran, or vice versa? And how many warheads should they deploy? The general consensus is to deploy 37 of them, mostly in the 10 mega-ton range to various locales in Iran, and let the fallout do it’s “dirty work” to Iraq. The reasoning behind this is that it is not an act of war on Iraq, despite the fact that their country will be uninhabitable for 73 years after the strike. There is some fear in the Pentagon that the radioactive fallout might not necessarily be effective in Iraq, and there should be approximately 20 warheads deployed there as well, which could be perceived as an act of war. This deployment, dubbed “Dr. Strangelove” by top military strategists, has been in the works for several decades; only the targets have been changed.
Scientists and environmental consultants have been investigating the overall effect to the rest of the world with computer simulations and models. There is a 99.2 % chance that the remainder of the world will only be slightly affected by the deploying of 37 warheads of the 10 mega-ton range and a 98.3 percent chance in scenario two (57 warheads deployed). George W Bush and his advisors are leaning towards the second scenario, if only because the radioactive fallout might not work to destroy the second country, in this case Iraq. Rory Emerald, the dashing young celebrity, has been called in is as a special advisor to assist George W Bush with his final decision on this matter.
As a special note to the above, slightly affected includes widespread cancer, radiation poisoning, global climate changes, starvation, famine, and disease.

Answer 2

A lot of people forget that On November 4, 1979, Iranian militants stormed the United States Embassy in Tehran and took approximately seventy Americans hostage. This terrorist act lasted for 444 days. They bombed our embassy on Oct. 23, 1983 killing 243 Marines. Now they are supplying their revolutionary guard to the insurgents in Iraq.

The insurgents in Iraq are nothing but cowards. How come they don't show their faces? Why do they behead their prisoners? (Did the victims ever see their murders faces?) Why do they use IEDs? Look how they treat their women.

What have we done to Iran? Anything? Nothing?
The majority of Iraqi's have it a lot better without Ol' Saddam. Just get rid of those insurgents.

So if you ask me. Make it one big parking lot!!!!!. (Rhetorically speaking).

Answer 3

Why the hell might we would desire to apply nuclear weapons on Iran? i assumed that with Obama being President and a Democrack controlled Congress, the international might appreciate us as quickly as returned and we would have international peace by way of utilising purely sitting down and speaking. Are you asserting somebody lied on the Democrack area throughout the campaign? which could no longer be so, Democracks say Republicans lie, so who's the in charge occasion?

Answer 4

No, the radioactive contamination and fallout would impact other countries and escalate into a regional conflagaration....leading to a show down with N.Korea and/or China.

Answer 5

my dearest snowy dragon. I think you should go back to watching X-men and playing your sony playstation. The latest version of Doom has just been released. That would be more fun than trying to wrack your tiny brain to understand the mechanisms of geopolitics. It is way to comlex for you and people like justanon to understand.

Answer 6

Why not..China,Nth korea and the Russkies as well, get em all at once.Does your tiny brain tell you that america is rght and everyone else is wrong. May'be, just may'be it's america who is disregarding the rest of the world

Answer 7

They should give a 90 day warning so all who are innocent telling them they can leave..then they should bomb the places...but not nukes,as the fallout would be spread worldwide....we're rebulildng hospital.clinics,schools,whole villages & roads already ...

Answer 8

No, America should pull out of the area entirely, and stop sticking their noses into others' affairs.

Answer 9

It would make it very difficult to get the oil out of there.
And let's face it, that's what this is all about.

Answer 10

no... That would send the world into world war 3.. and we would lose al realations with any country that actualy mattered...