They aren't backing down and they've kicked out UN inspectors. It's time to take out the trash. A first strike is definitely in order. In this case, would a nuclear strike be acceptable? Or should we stick to conventional weapons? If a nuclear strike is deemed too environmentally disruptive, do you think the public would sanction a massive nerve gas attack? Thoughts?
2007-01-23 03:13:13 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Current Events
Well it has not been that long that Sadham also kicked out the same inspectors,
2007-01-23 03:38:25 · answer #1 · answered by Ibredd 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I doubt that such an attack is immanent. This tale become probably deliberately released through he Israelis to warn Iran. although, you may wager that each and each body kinds of plans are in position ought to the order receive to the Israeli military to damage Iran's nuclear software. Israel gained't tolerate a nuclear armed Iran. it is that straightforward. So if Iran retains, then finally something has to take position. it is an exceedingly complicated situation - a lot more suitable so as that Iraq. If Iran is sanctioned or attacked, then the international monetary device will be heavily effected through more suitable oil expenditures. And an attack on Iran through all of us would plunge the area into chaos. As for the attack plan being 'nuclear', i wager this can make some experience. Its been reported that the U.S. would ought to apply a minimum of one thousand sorties to damage Iran's nuclear software, or maybe then they'd no longer accomplish the challenge, So for sure Israel would mind-set this example with each and each of the hearth ability they could. Its extraordinarily unlucky, yet i imagine you'll see some bombs dropped on Iran interior the subsequent few years. As for this being 'the properly'... No. it isn't. you should work out a great scale close by conflict interior the midsection east. it will be bloody and chaotic, with ramifications for the finished international, even though it doesn't be the properly.
2016-10-15 23:52:16 · answer #2 · answered by mccarty 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, because it is nothing more than smoke and screens that Bush is doing to perpetuate WW III.
Are you actually THAT gullible to think that it is just mear co-incidence that we are NOW targeting Iran? The country with the SECOND largest cache of sweet crude?
Sure, attack Iran for the very same reason why we don't want THEM to have nuke weapons. Also, you DO realize that plutonium travels on the worlds wind, so what happens over there effects us all the same? The bigger they are the harder they fall and the US isn't going to have anyone, even England if we attack Iran. The US WILL have the whole of Islam after us though.
2007-01-23 03:50:57 · answer #3 · answered by hera 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Any unilateral invasion of Iran would mean an all-out war for Iran is nothing like Iraq or Afghanistan. Its military strength and strategic importance to veto-wielding China and Russia are incomparable to any other Muslim nations. Syria and even Jordan and Egypt will not just watch for despite sectarian differences, Iran is of extreme symbolic, practical and tactical significance to the entire Muslim World. Thus a war against Iran is basically a war against all 1.3 billion Muslims. So try the invaders might, but Iran would stand upright.
God blesses the believers!
Peace and Love
2007-01-23 03:51:09 · answer #4 · answered by mil's 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
A first strike is NOT in order, idiot George's idiology not withstanding.
A lot of countries built their first nuclear bomb, including India, Packistan, China, and probably Isreal, and that did NOT give us grounds to attack them.
While Iran is out there saber rattling with the best of them, they have no history of invading their neighbors the way Iraq did. And they ceratinly are not stupid enough to nuke Israel, no matter what Israel thinks.
If everybody would calm down and shut up a bit, that issue will likely go away of its own accord.
-Dio
2007-01-23 03:26:01 · answer #5 · answered by diogenese19348 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
The public would never sanction illegal chemical warfare, we all know that ;)...Tactical nuke bunker busters are not all that environmentally disruptive......Kind of funny, worrying about the environment while conducting the proper war, a "PC" war.
2007-01-23 03:23:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
War of any kind with Iran is a horrible idea, especially with nukes or nerve gas. Are you joking?
2007-01-23 04:17:21 · answer #7 · answered by Learning Conformity 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Questions like yours are a solid proof that weapons of mass destruction at the hands of the US are dangerous.
2007-01-23 03:23:07 · answer #8 · answered by Avner Eliyahu R 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
By who? USA, Israel, Europe? No nukes
2007-01-23 03:21:55 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO.
2007-01-23 03:37:03 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋