Does anyone think Iran should be nuked before they start a nuclear war?

Question

At the rate Iran is developing it's nuclear program, and all the genocidal rhetoric coming out of it's leadership, sooner of later, they are going to nuke Israel, Saudi Arabia, and even the U.S. (suitcase bombs). I think either their leadership needs to be eliminated, or the nation nuked (selective targets/cities) in a pre-emptive strike. The most dangerous world, is a world held hostage by a radical muslim nuclear nation. Any thoughts?

Answer 1

~Yeah, and Osama felt the same way about the US, and for more justifiable reasons. Kill for peace, I say. Worked on the redskins, but backfired with the gooks and dinks, so let's try again with the camel jockeys. I presume you are a good neocon christian and can understand the wisdom and justice of pre-emptive annihilation. Let's party. PTL

Answer 2

You deride Islamic extremists, but advocate pre-emptively nuking a country?

O_o

Talk about the pot calling the ketlle black. If nuking a country isn't extremist, I'm not sure what is.

Let's put this in perspective.

Let's say we've made threats against a country X. We are a nuclear power. From country X's perspective, we are a big military nuclear power that is a threat to it's well being.

Would you be in favor of country X launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike against the US to ensure its protection?

Or lets make this more general. Country A has espoused threatening rhetoric against Country B. Do you support country B in performing a pre-emptive strike on country A?

Careful how you answer. The US has made threats against countries before, so an answer of "yes" means you would agree that the countries we threaten have a right to pre-emptively attack us. An answer of "no" means that you do not endorse pre-emptive attacks, from the US or otherwise (which makes Iraq "wrong").

My guess is that your answer would be hypocritical. In other words, you think it's a good thing only if the US does it.

You're passing judgement on an entire country because of the actions of its leaders. Do you think that's fair? Would you want the world to pass judgement on all americans based on the decision of its leaders? The ends does not justify the means.

The world would not be held hostage. If anything, the playing field will be leveled slightly. It doesn't matter what rhetoric they spew, they know that any nuclear attack they performed would be answered by a nuclear attack, probably of much larger proportions.

Having a nuke in this day and age is really nothing more than political grandstanding. No one dares use them. If they did, not only would the entire world turn their backs on them but a retalitory strike would decimate the country.

By the way, some information on nuclear weapons. Uranium bombs are huge. They're the easiest to make, but they have the lowest yields. Plutonium bombs are incredibly difficult to make, are smaller, and deliver higher yields. NEITHER ONE CAN FIT IN A SUITCASE.

~X~

Answer 3

Why do people see nuking a country as such a simple solution? Unless you decide to envelope the whole country of Iran with carpet bombs of nukes you wouldn't be able to prevent suitcase bombs with a nuclear explosion. Now, by preemptively striking a country with nuclear weapons will set an uneasy precedent in the country and the world. Although through diplomatic means as gotten us no where an attack would jeopardize the stability of the Middle East and a major source of the world's oil. This is setting aside the fact that Russia or China doesn't also send nukes to the United States in retaliation. Both of which have very strong economic ties to Iran. If diplomacy was so black and white world peace would of been achieved already. The best chance we have at the moment is stabilizing Iraq. Which would take time, by stalling Iran's enrichment process, then strengthening Iraq's military and government assuming the sectarian violence stops, highly unlikely. Another way is hope that theres a coup or some sort of revolution and with some aid helping the rebels take down the current government.

Answer 4

Suitcase bombs...Why do I keep hearing this so often. Let me make myself VERY VERY clear, there is NOT A SINGLE case of a suitcase bomb. There is no classified or non-classified assessment which indicate that Iran has a suitcase bomb, or any other country for all that matter. There are miniturized tactical nukes for short range deployment, but all of them are secured. EVEN if a terrorist group gets a hold of a tactical nuclear weapon, there would be a complex trigger code which is almost impossible to crack even with multi million dollar supercomputers. To make a suitcase bomb, you need a viable containment system to keep radiation detections around borders from going off, very advanced miniture actiivation device, and lots of money. Iran is simply NOT capable of making a suitcase bomb.

Have you ever thought why we didn't "pre-empt" North Korea? We don't know where their (or their supposed) bomb is. Even if we did a near impossible job of, say.... wiping out 90% of North Korea Nuclear weapons, they could easily infiltrate Tokoyo or Seoul and explode it there in times of war and panic.

Iran is at least a decade away from the "bomb." There is no illusion to the Iran leadership that the moment any part of israel goes up in a mushroom, the whole nation of Iran would turn into a big smoking crater. No one, including the Chinese and Russians, would save Iran from an immediate massive strike by the US and her allies. Do you think that the leaders of Iran, with their nice harems and fancy cars, will give up their splendid life for their fiery BS?

The problem with saying that we should nuke them first is that it increases their fear (Iran) of getting a US preemptive strike. If they really think that the US would strike them anyway, what do they got to lose? They would think that their best bet is to make sure that the US and her allies would pay as much as possible in the event that Iran is attacked. The best course of action, of course, would be to develop nuclear weapons ASAP.

Answer 5

Well,I think it's pretty crappy a situation too

however,the nuclear game is the most dangerous of all

meaning; If one nuke is launched on a country,first

will come the overwhelming retaliatory strike.

Then the Europeans will launch some then the
North Koreans,then the Pakistan India thing will go haywire and they will
nuke themselves into a crater.Then the Chinese will get involved and everyone will have exactly what they didn't want to begin with,World war three,which will be the shortest war ever.It should reduce us back to the stone age in under an hour.

Answer 6

I honestly do not think Iran is stupid enough to nuke anyone. They would have to take out all of our allies in order to get away with it.

Supposedly, Iran is going to allow the UN to read classified information about their nuclear program. This has been the main concern; the not knowing what they are up to. Iran is not a terrorist nation, and as such, should be treated as a sovereign one. Diplomacy is the key to the Iranian situation. A friendlier Iran would help with the Iraqi situation as well.

Basically, there is no proof that Iran is even trying to arm herself with nuclear weapons. Until that is clear, we should not alienate that nation further than we already have. We need to be able to talk openly in order to keep up with what they are doing, as well as keep the peace.

Answer 7

the theory of your question is bogus. Bush did no longer initiate the conflict on terror, Islamic Fascists began the conflict on terror. think of roughly it. Everytime we did no longer something (embassy bombings, united statesCole, first commerce tower bombing, 9/11) we've been attacked lower back. This time we replied with militia tension and, to this point, we've not been attacked in view that. Are you putting out to work out a development right here? It became inevitable that those rogue countries might ultimately initiate enriching uranium - with or without the conflict in Iraq. Even those clowns, with sufficient outdoors help and components, can improve the technologies mandatory to construct a nuclear bomb. It would not ask your self me if their engineers in this challenge have been given their training in an American college. they are no longer pursuing their nuclear objectives because of the fact they're afraid of the U.S. to any extent further than between the richest oil generating countries in the worldwide is working on enrichment so as that they are in a position to construct nuclear ability plant life (and grow to be potential independant????)

Answer 8

Nuke them? aah, no that is a little to extreme and is bad P.R. no but a good old carpet bombing I'm sure will do and about consequences F it, they hate us any way, may be it will make others think again about messing with us, or we can do it by proxy let the Israelis nuke them with our (secret blessing) the Iranians hate the Jews more than they hate us. and may be the Arabs finally will get that if they keep pushing Israel and attacking them sooner or later the Israelis are going to loose it and then a boom boom bye.

Answer 9

The problem is the attack would not be effective. Firstly we don't know where all there nukes are and secondly we can't cut of suppliers of weapons(Russia and China have both made news this way) If we start nuking them they nuke us or more likly Israel right back.

Answer 10

First of all, it has still yet to be proven that they are harnessing nuclear technology for anything other than Energy.

To advocate "nuking" any civilization is nothing more than advocating genocide and is never OK.

Answer 11

I think the US should be nuked before the start another Oil War.