or the start of a new global war?
2007-01-18 00:59:04 · 12 answers · asked by Overt Operative 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
is this a serious question?
2007-01-18 01:10:02 · answer #1 · answered by Aleksandr 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Not even close. Political ramifications aside, even a small nuclear device would cause massive amounts of radiation to be dumped into the environment. Iran is pretty centrally located in the Middle East. Even if a nuclear strike goes off "perfectly" and there is no global war, other countires in that area would be affected by the environmental problems caused by such a strike. These lasting effects will stick in the minds of anyone who lived in the area before/after and therefore cause many more problems in the future than it would solve short term.
2007-01-18 01:15:05 · answer #2 · answered by Flynn380 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
A nuclear strike on any country would be an absolute disaster for the whole world.
I don't think that a nuclear option is given much consideration by Bush and the military.
However, I do think they are considering a conventional strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, as is Israel.
Israel faces a critical decision point now. Do they bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, like they did Iraq's back in the 80's, or do they stand by and let a neighboring nation that is sworn to kill all the Jews develop nuclear weapons? Both choices are terrible.
2007-01-18 01:09:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It will be the start of a very messy global war.
The USA will bomb Iraq. And then Iran and North Korea/ russia will bomb the USA. Then Isreal will retaliate against Iran and North Korea/ Russia with some more nuclear bombs. By this stage China would have joined in too. A whole lot of innocent people across the world would die in the process, either immediately or from radiation sickness and other diseases associated with nuclear energy over time.
Violence does not resolve. It always leads to more violence.
2007-01-18 01:28:52 · answer #4 · answered by Ni Ten Ichi Ryu 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Neither.Any nuclear strike in Iran will be tactical and aimed at their nuclear facilities. If we do it it will increase hostilities if we don't do it we will eventually be faced with a nuke going of inside of the U.S.. This is something different than we have ever faced and there is nothing that will appease the Islamists.
2007-01-18 01:18:08 · answer #5 · answered by ? 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The resulting global war would certainly take our minds off the problems in the muddle east. And everything else, for that matter.
2007-01-18 01:24:46 · answer #6 · answered by Mad Roy 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It would start World War 3, China hasa a trade agreement in place and has warned us to back off of Iran, Russia has an arms deal and has issued warnings as well, we'd better pull back here.
2007-01-18 01:03:00 · answer #7 · answered by paulisfree2004 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I think it would be giving permission to use nuclear weapons. We're supposed to be a country that sells good examples, although the apple has fallen way too far from the tree.
2007-01-18 01:05:02 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Only a nut would even suggest a nuclear option.
2007-01-18 01:03:07 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
It would be a start of a global war because the neo-libs and their al qaida allies would spin it as a crusade against Islam. Which it is not.
2007-01-18 01:02:51 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
of course it would start the new world war?
2007-01-18 01:10:28 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋