When do we attack Iran? Will we use tactical nukes?

Answer 1

lets hope so

Answer 2

Iran will not be attacked by the U.S. The Iraq conflict will not allow us to have a multiple conflict with two countries at the same time. The next President will most likely be a Democrat and the idea of attacking any Country will be a lost cause .They believe that talking will settle all issues. The use of Tactical Nukes will never be used because of our need to appease our critics and supporters in the political world.

Answer 3

When?

If a namby pamby Democrat wins the NOV 08 election, Bush will use B61-11s on Iran's nuclear assets after the election but before the Jan 20, 2009 swearing in. That way the namby pamby will not have to make any decisions and Iran will not have any nukes for years.

If a strong Republican wins the NOV 98 election, Bush will not do a thing and leave the problems for the next president. That way we can count on Iran being dealt with properly.

Answer 4

Sorry, that would be absolutely stupid.

But I wouldn't put it past the moronic Bush, who sees fit to destroy anything that gets in his path. Just wait until Japan releases GodZilla on you!

So, nuke Iran? If you use nuclear weapons, the world will be all over your @ss in about five seconds. The entire point of nukes is to STOP wars; if someone uses nukes, the other countries will nuke them. Thats how it works, eh?

You REALLY want to nuke Iran? You want to kill seventy MILLION people just because they're annoying you.


I hope the terrorists utterly destroy your country. From looking at this question and its answers, even they would be better than you yanks.

Answer 5

I think China and Russia will have something to say about attacking Iran. Britain, USA and a few other countries have got away with illegally attacking Iraq, but I don't think they need to push they're luck anymore with the international community.

Anyway, aren't USA and Iran in talks at the moment?

And don't be stupid about using Nuclear Weapons! Once you open Pandora's box, you will find how very few friends you have internationally and how many of countries are pointing there weapons at you.

What I find stupid is, we think we can dictate to other countries if they can develop things like nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction. But we already have. What gives use the right to tell other nations they can or can't have these things? It double standards!

Answer 6

Sooner or later American confidence and arrogance will be rewarded by somebody hitting you where it hurts. Then W will not need to make up attacks, because the wars will be real, and they will be directed at you; by a lot of countries from all around the world. You may consider yourselves strong, but the rest of the planet could easily manage without the USA. How would you like to be on the receiving end of a global economic embargo. Because sooner or later the people are going to realize what W is up to and you are going to pay the price.

Answer 7

We would only attack Iran if they caused an act of war, invaded a close ally of the U.S, or if Iran launch/threatened to launch a nuke.
For your other question I doubt we would use nukes due to the mostly innocent civilians.

Answer 8

Well, feel free, anytime you like. This soon to be former Brit military type will no longer be in the firing line, so if you want to attack Iran, great. I just hope you don't expect the Brits to commit suicide along with you?
But that's George Dubya logic, isn't it? Bomb the *** of everyone who doesn't much like America, send in the troops to mop up, declare the fighting over... and watch the coffins coming out of USAF transport planes for years afterwards.

As for nuclear weapons, no one, probably not even George Dubya, would want that on his conscience.
The first country to use nuclear weapons in a conflict, especially one it's likely they've started, would rapidly find itself taking over Libya's position as international pariah.
And Iran would not roll over as fast as Iraq did. Sure, you'd beat them. But you'd end up paying for every inch.

Answer 9

Why wait, Iran has no good intentions.
The American people dont want a long drawn out war. They should just turn that desert into glass. Then start diplomatic talks. The worlds already too populated.

Answer 10

Probably not. It seems we have forgotten how to fight total war in the interest of being 'humane'. If you haven't seen the devastation that we wrought on Europe in WWII I suggest you take a look at some old footage. That is how you fight a war to win quickly. Bomb them into oblivion! Shell them until they are mincemeat! Overrun them with hordes! Collateral damage is terrible but worse is losing your soldiers because you are being too careful, worse yet is loosing a war because of this. Worse yet is that by having the wrong attitude about war -- that you can fight one and totally spare the enemy destruction and civilian deaths -- you actually guarantee more wars, because the enemies believe you will not harm there homeland or really be effective against them or even their supply lines if they hide among their populace. I am not a warmonger, I hate war. But, once one is joined, it is time to be ruthless and end it quickly and totally.

Answer 11

It is only the lunatic fringe in Iran,the USA and UK that is looking towards war with Iran. The majority of Iranians will, in the near future, get rid of their lunatics as we and the USA will soon get rid of ours. Solve the Palestinian problem and the Muslims will have no argument. Throw out Blair and Bush and The USA and UK will have no argument.