...Via radioactive fallout or some other vector in harmful doses??
How small of a radioactive dose is harmful... it has been proven in the studies done by government radiation releases over the town of Hanford that small exposures to radiation can have highly adverse effects on the human thyroid gland... frequently resulting in thyroid cancer.
Small doses of radiation also cause a high rate of birth defects...
Please try to support your responses with factual information... this is something we should all discuss before advocating use of nuclear force on the middle east with our loved ones deployed in the region.
2007-03-24
09:57:16
·
11 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Politics & Government
➔ Other - Politics & Government
honestly I wanted to ask this question because so many people are eager to shout that we should just nuke Iran, or nuke anyone for that matter that we have a problem with.
Is it such a great idea to advocate nuclear bombing before taking so many important factors into account... and is it patriotic to drop a nuclear bomb next to our troops who are fighting?
I was hoping people would think about this...
Its not just the troops who would be affected... but most people who think its simple enough to just drop a nuke don't care to think about those people anyways... perhaps they can be reached if they understand that their great propositions could place our very own loved ones and patriots in the military in direct danger.
2007-03-24
11:17:53 ·
update #1
Relax. We're NOT going to nuke Iran. If you want to worry about nuclear fallout, I would be more worried about the estimated 1 million pounds of depleted uranium dust in the Iraqi desert right now used by all of our air to ground attack aircraft!
2007-03-24 10:08:49
·
answer #1
·
answered by ? 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
I think the answer to your question could be 'yes', depending on how many, and what size, nuclear weapons we are talking about.
However, there is no way that we will nuke Iran. The U.S. would be kicked out of the UN in a matter of days, and Bush would be impeached.
To attack a sovereign nation with nukes (one that has never attacked us) would be one of the worst acts of unprovoked aggression perpetrated by any nation in history.
2007-03-24 16:15:51
·
answer #2
·
answered by Zezo Zeze Zadfrack 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
not even close to life-threatening amounts. remember that when we nuked japan twice the US was in okinawa and had no ill effects. about a month after the 2 nukes the US went onto mainland japan and occupied that country and we are still there today and there was no known effects from this. The blast in iran would not spill over into iraq, afghanistan or troops in kuwait, qatar, etc. also remember that the US testing nuclear weapons several times in the US...i believe int he NM desert and no ill effects have been shown. the only possibly side effects from nuking iran would be me cracking my my ribs from insane laughter!
2007-03-24 10:07:48
·
answer #3
·
answered by Matt 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Of course they would. A person who even comes within contact with a person affected by radiation has the chance of getting cancer. Damnit, we should have never invented Nuclear Weapons. What a bunch of idiot we were. Stupid Japan, why did they provoke us?
Anyway, they would be because not everyone dies because of radiation automatically. It may take a week or two and if they travel, to uh, the country next door, Iraq, they may infect Iraqis and our troops in the process.
2007-03-24 10:28:52
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Pretty much if ANYONE dropped a nuclear bomb it would set of a chain reaction of other people dropping nuclear bombs which would probably lead to a third world war. So i dont think America would "nuke" anyone soon.
2007-03-24 10:06:38
·
answer #5
·
answered by jimmy5 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
And the millions of innocent civilians who would be directly under the mushroom cloud aren't a consideration?
And no, they won't. Iraq is seperated from Iran by the Zargos mountains, and very little radiation would make it into most of Iraq - certainly not a fatal dose. There would however be a number of birth defects if pregnant women are exposed to radiation; but i haven't heard of any pregnant women posted overseas by the US Army and since we apparently only care about American citizens, everything will be fine.
2007-03-24 10:02:00
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
Yes, they will indeed. So will we here in the USA, believe it or not. That radiation is carried in radioactive particles by the winds ALL OVER THE WORLD. If you don't believe me, go look at what happened with both Hiroshima and Chernobyl.
2007-03-24 10:01:37
·
answer #7
·
answered by cyanne2ak 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
What an interesting question ... America at it best ... I suggest you could nuke after that, North Korea, then Pakistan, Indian and why not end the sequence by Russia, France and your English cousins ... Guess what ? I think you will spare Israel ...
2007-03-24 13:36:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by arnaud 927578 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
The US is already using "new-cue-lar" weapons.
I agree with Drew Blood that our troops are already being exposed to depleted uranium munitions.
"the greatest potential for DU exposure will follow conflict where DU munitions are used." World Health Organization http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs257/en/
http://traprockpeace.org/depleteduranium.html
2007-03-24 10:45:02
·
answer #9
·
answered by 1776_2007 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Yes - when they send terrorists over to our cities with dirty bombs because we've wasted all our time and money in Iraq instead of securing nuclear material that's floating around the world.
2007-03-24 10:08:59
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋