If war should occur between the U.S. & Iran would it be conventional or nuclear?

Answer 1

Totally conventional. No need for nukes, just do the "schlock and aw shuckie darn it didn't work like we thunk it would" thing.

The U.S. would bomb the hell out of Iran's infrastructure and not even bother with boots on the ground. I think we learned our lesson with Iraq, we do not want to run Iran, we just want their nuke program to be history.

Answer 2

Prepare yourself for the unthinkable, war againsty Iran may be a necessity.

The UNIMAGINABLE but ultimately inescapable truth is that we are going to have to get ready for war with Iran.

The rapidly intensifying crisis is like a train on a collision course. While we were chasing phantom nukes in Mesopotamia, next door, Iran was busy building real ones.

The unavoidable reality is that we now need urgently to steel ourselves to the ugly probability that diplomacy will not now suffice, one way or another, unconsciounable acts of war may now be unavoidable.

Those who say war is unthinkable are right. Those who say the US should not send young boys to die in the Middle East far from home are right. Those who say war will foster more violence in the Middle East are right.

Military strikes, even limited, targeted and accurate ones, will have devastating consequences for the region and for the world.

All the argument against a strike are fearfully powerful. But multiplied together, squared, and then cubed, the weight of these arguments do not come close to matching the case for us to stop, by whatever means necessary, Iran from becoming a nuclear power.

If Iran gets safely and unmolested to nuclear status, it will be a threshold moment in the history of the world, up there with the Bolshevik Revolution and the coming of Hitler.

Iran has stated that they will 'wipe Israel off the face of the map." They've stated that the 'holocaust was fake.' And the kind of society we live in and cherish in the West will change beyond recognition if Iran becomes nuclear. We balk now at intrusive government measures to tap our phones or other intrusions into our civil liberties. Imagine how much more our freedoms will be curtailed if our government's fear we are just one telephone call or e-mail, one plane journey or truckload away from another Hiroshima.

Answer 3

it would have allot of implications. If the U.S. declaired war then the scenario would go as follows:
1. US-Iran
2. Syria-US
3. Isreal-Syria
4. Isreal-Iran
5. Lebenon/PLO-Isreal
6. US-Lebenon/PLO
7. Pakistan-US
8. India-Pakistan

And then if that is not enough the following is a list of nations that would be drawn into this scenario due too current alliances

1. Turky
2. Saudi Arabia
3. Egypt
4. Iraq and Afganistan (because we are there)
5. Lybia
6. Italy
7. Russia
8. China
9. the rest of the world
10. Arrmaggedon and we all get ******.

In answer to you question: if the war was limited to US v. Iran there would be no nukes but the chances of the conflict remaining that limited is highly unlikely.
You know this whole problem could be solved if the frenchie's had some guts and sent troops to fight hezbollah instead of just talking. If the world gets ****** blame the french!!!!

Answer 4

Depends on when. And, who fires first. If we went in, we would not use nukes. No need to. Now, if Iran used chemical or biological weapons against us (weather to start the conflict or in response to our actions), then we would respond with tactical nuclear weapons. That has been America's stated policy for years, to prevent such attacks. We are more than happy to keep things nice and conventional.
Iran does not possess the ability to produce true fission weapons yet. At most, they could make a radioactive or 'dirty' bomb, which would prompt the same result: tactical nuclear strikes on suspected facilities, and unlimited war on our part.

Answer 5

It would depend on how many Americans support nuclear weapons being used.
Many callers have called into radio stations saying that nuking Hezzbolah is the answer.
I don't know what will do it or which side but on September 12, 2006 Nuclear War Begins.

It will be a bit of a mess. Our food prices will go up and we will have to deal with fallout.

Answer 6

Conventional. The use of nuclear weapons would spark a global response, no matter who the user was. Only a world class idiot would use nukes.

Answer 7

Conventional. Unless Iran were to use a battlefield nuke and then we might retaliate in kind. It wouldnt be a contest conventionally either. We would mop the floor with them.

Answer 8

Iran has no nuclear weapons, so if the war is nuclear, it would once again be the US commiting crimes against humanity against someone who is innocent.

Answer 9

Bush would have to use nukes! And he probably would, and start WWIII! We certainly don't have the military to take on Iran!

And why should we anyway? They are perfectly within their rights under NPT to develop nuclear energy! Moreover, power plants won't run on 0.7% uranium. It has to be enriched to 5%!

"Article IV

1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do so shall also co-operate in contributing alone or together with other States or international organizations to the further development of the applications of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, especially in the territories of non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty, with due consideration for the needs of the developing areas of the world.

Article V

Each Party to the Treaty undertakes to take appropriate measures to ensure that, in accordance with this Treaty, under appropriate international observation and through appropriate international procedures, potential benefits from any peaceful applications of nuclear explosions will be made available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty on a non-discriminatory basis and that the charge to such Parties for the explosive devices used will be as low as possible and exclude any charge for research and development. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty shall be able to obtain such benefits, pursuant to a special international agreement or agreements, through an appropriate international body with adequate representation of non-nuclear-weapon States. Negotiations on this subject shall commence as soon as possible after the Treaty enters into force. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty so desiring may also obtain such benefits pursuant to bilateral agreements."

http://disarmament.un.org/TreatyStatus.nsf/44e6eeabc9436b78852568770078d9c0/4cf7fb1d2f9d06dd852568770079dd97?OpenDocument

As we learned already, Bush is just crying wolf again!

Answer 10

Conventional, nuclear would destroy the world.