Wouldn't that end the discussions? And wouldn't that be more affordable? I think Iran would think twice then? After all why make this a Vietnam thing? I believe our men and women should be of the first concern here always.
2007-01-16 15:46:15 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Depending on the kiloton yield, the outcry would be numbing. 500 kiloton strategic nukes would have global suicide implications, while tactical nukes will have regional implications.
Strategic nukes, at least a dozen of them in the 500 kiloton range would take out the middle east and vaporize around 190 million (3% of the world). Another 200 million in nearby countries would die from radioactive poisoning, and their only crime would be living next door to the Middle East.
Carl Sagan estimated a very low threshold for nuclear winter, a 100 megaton blast would ignite fires that would cause a nuclear winter....ie, the sun would be blotted out due to the dust and ash from the fires and all plant life would cease to exist....followed shortly thereafter by animal life.
So the option of eliminating the middle east by nukes is global suicide....which is why nukes have been a deterrent to total war for the past 60 years
2007-01-16 19:12:55 · answer #1 · answered by Its not me Its u 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
What is it with people actually *wanting* to use nuclear weapons? Are you people all insane?
Look, pick up a history book and read about the aftermath of the last time they were used. Then pick up a physics book so you can actually understand what a nuclear weapon does besides make a pretty flash and an interesting cloud. It *is not* like pressing an "I win" button and all your enemies go away. At best you would have some incredibly upset people to explain your actions to and at worst you would likely set off a much larger conflict.
2007-01-16 15:53:32 · answer #2 · answered by Digital Haruspex 5 · 5⤊ 0⤋
Bloody good idea, I've been saying that for a long time. Nuke them, get rid of them and start again in 30,000 years. Pull the troops out first though.
2007-01-16 16:02:47 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Totally impratical and immoral. Besides that that expense of exvacuating millions of people would big stagering and why wouldn't irsurgents leave also if they had a warning? Also, the fallout would kill innocents in other countires also.and make the country uninhabitable for years. If your concerned about our men and women being killed why not just get out?
I think that's a sick idea.
2007-01-16 15:54:35 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Besides the obvious...you think that we lack much support in the Arab world now think what would happen to that support if we nuked an Arab/Muslim country. Cheaper in dollars yes....in the long run, no.
2007-01-16 16:05:50 · answer #5 · answered by iraq51 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Why make it Vietnam why not more DOPE? We dropped more bombs there for nothing and now good buddy trading ?While the Country you live in is being Stole No oversight and shipped to good buddy`s that nail people to poles and shoot them for BAD credit ?
2007-01-16 15:53:47 · answer #6 · answered by wyear 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because liberals have this hangup about not making war "sporting" enough. Remember how they whined about the excessive number of troops deployed to kill Udai and Qusay Hussein?
2007-01-16 16:05:16 · answer #7 · answered by Evita Rodham Clinton 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
In that case I think you will bring number of your living days and existence of a country by under the name of America to ZERO, the same for Israel.
2007-01-16 18:31:25 · answer #8 · answered by Judge 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
For Babygirl,
Nukes were the answer....twice, but not the answer now.
2007-01-16 18:41:09 · answer #9 · answered by shaqle2001 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wow noone has ever asked this exact question before. Totally original. Anyway you should familiarize yourself with the term "deterrent force".
2007-01-16 15:50:54 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋