What is the best way to defeat the Iranian threat? A surgical nuclear strike?

Question

It's clear that unless we attack Iran, they will attack us- WMD were found in Iraq- but most of them were shipped to Iran with the help of Syrians- The question is -with our troops spread so thin, would a surgical nuclear attack be the best way to neutralize Iran? We could target thier WMD stockpiles, and any nuclear research facities- We could do the same with Syria at the time- Isnt it time we bring out the big guns and go nuclear? I just think we wouldnt be as effective with ground troops. Libs would rather wait for them to attack us first

Answer 1

Carpet bombing.

Answer 2

First, WMD were not found in Iraq. Not one. Had they been found the Bush leaguers would have made sure the pictures ran on the six o'clock news every day for a year. Not one WMD was found. How many times does that need to be said before the partisan neocons admit they made a huge mistake?

Second, given the relationship between the Syrian/Iraq governments and the Iranis, there is not one chance in a million that they would have been shipped there. I suggest a little research on the relationships between the different muslim cultures would spare you the embarrassment of making statements like that without any support in fact.

Finally, there is no such thing as a "surgical" nuclear strike. Surgery is precise, and does not leave a hundred thousand collateral casualties. I am sure that does not concern you, however, since you seem to be planning a nuclear war against both Syria and Iran.

Why not North Korea and Vermont at the same time?

The rest of the world is watching. Do you think the United States is strong enough to defeat the entire planet? Hitler thought the same of Germany, and Tojo of Japan.

I strongly suggest a lot of history. Read two hours a day for a month, and then consider asking another question. We have enough people in Washington making stupid decisions already.

My apologies for the bluntness of my response, but you are advocating a world war to revenge a single terrorist act already years gone. The national overreaction has gone on long enough.

Answer 3

"Surgical nuclear strike", that's an oxymoron if I have ever heard one! There is nothing surgical about nuclear weapons, that is why everybody is trying to get rid of them. There are side effects like nuclear fallout. OK maybe you don't buy global warming, but nuclear fall out is real stuff.

Let's say that you launch a couple of 20 mega tons at Iran, and then a 20 mega ton at Syria. Sure maybe you would knock out some serious weapons caches, but at the same time you would be killing millions of innocent locals, and the fallout would spread over a huge area (Afghanistan, Iraq, ex-Soviet Union states, Pakistan, and India). The former two listed have nukes of there own and may try to bomb us considering the fallout just killed 99,000,000 of their own people.

You think we have problems with terrorists now, an act like that would throw the rest of the world against the USA. And if you think we would win, you are crazy.

Not to mention fallout could end up in the continental US and leave our country with high cancer rates (which we would deserve).

The best way to deal with Iran and Syria is to make friends with them. It may sound dumb to you but it beats nuking them.

And by the way if we killed that many innocent women and children who would be the Axis of evil then? WE WOULD!

But you are of course just joking?

Answer 4

No. Here is what you do. You say, "Alright, you want nuclear power? How about we (Americans) build a nuclear power plant in Iraq and share the electricity generated from it with you Iranians. That way you will have the nuclear energy you want, and we will not have to worry about you making bombs. But if you reject this, then it is obvious you are not interested in the nuclear power for peaceful purposes, and all your claims about such were merely lies and deceit" Then the politics and negotiations will be over.

Answer 5

No. identity quite have it Vice versa, yet i don't think of thats taking position! The Israelis have oppressed the Palestinians for too lengthy and could pay for each and each of the youngsters, women individuals, and threat free adult males they deliberately ethnically cleansed thousands of thousands over the perfect 60 years. And them "protests". those are the foo foo iranians. in case you particularly flow to Iran (it truly is an particularly massive u . s .) maximum of her voters are for Ahmedinejad, no longer the oppostion. Teran is one city out of thousands of thousands!. the reason why the protests look so "massive" is because human beings are protesting different issues (no longer having to do with the competition) and the few opositionists make it look like they are serious about them. properly I say to them strengthen up because Ahmedinejad gained, stop throwing a tantrum and attempting to create yet another revolution and burning homes and causin all kinds of chaos. It gained't artwork with the authorities the individuals elected.

Answer 6

Get the Isreali's to bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran. We would have plausible denialbility. The US could publically slap Isreal for the action and behind the scenes give them something for it. Isreal has bombed nuclear sites in Iran before.

Answer 7

I don't know whether to take you seriously or not. Visit Iraq if you think we need another war. I'm guessing you don't follow the news, if you actually still have delusions about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The rest of us learned the falsehood of that idea about, oh, three years ago or so.

Answer 8

Eucation.

Answer 9

No way, war is never the answer! I say we just hand over Israel. That'll get those Arab countries off our backs!!

Answer 10

wow, you are so right man, there is only one course of action, based on what's going on so far, yes yea yes do it, do it, do it, it's the way

Answer 11

you have to understand...Iran is Russia's & China's cash cow !!!