Nuclear war US and Iran a scenario painted by US nuclear scientist Is this possible or likely ?

Question

How will it all get started? No matter how much Bush and Cheney want it, the U.S. Senate is unlikely to authorize the bombing of Iranian installations out of the blue. Unless there is some major disturbance in Iraq that can be blamed on Iran, Israel is likely to pull the trigger. It knows how to and has every motivation to do so. Once Israel drops the first bomb on an Iranian nuclear facility, as it did with Iraq's Osirak reactor in 1981, there is no return. Bushehr is likely to be the first target; other installations will follow. Iran will respond – how can it not? At a minimum, it will shoot missiles at Israel. It may or may not shoot at U.S. forces in Iraq initially, but given the U.S.-Israel "special relationship," there is no way the U.S. will stay out of the conflict. Many of Iran's targeted facilities are underground, and U.S. bombs will be needed to destroy them all. Once the U.S. enters the conflict, 150,000 U.S. troops in Iraq will be at risk of Iranian missiles

Read the rest of the scenario yourself but it ends up in tragic nuclear warfare killing multiple millions

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7649

Answer 1

Unlikely - the US nuclear scientist is obviously hoping for more funds.

Answer 2

Well considering that special relationship never saw the US intervene on behalf of Israel before.

Why would it this time ?

As to the facilities being underground, the US has already sold Israel bunker busting bombs.

So Israel already has the capability to hit underground targets.

Considering that Israel and Iran have never had armed conflict before, why would you imagine that they would anytime in the near future?

To many people forget, that Israeli pilots actually flew combat missions for the Iranians during the Iraq/Iran war.

Of course, Bush could just do what Clinton did, and not get Congressional approval to use military force.

It worked for Clinton in Serbia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosavo , Haiti and the Sudan,

So it might work for Bush too.

Answer 3

I agree that in the process case of nuclear conflict, there may be no rationalization for any nuclear u . s . a . to hold decrease back. Why might they? What might they must benefit by using no longer launching each little thing they have at as quickly as? as quickly as a nuclear missile is released at yet another u . s . a ., say, Russia assaults the U.S. with a single solitary missile. That missile has assorted warheads which will aim a number of cities or weapons installations. for this reason, the U.S. might maximum probable launch a counter-attack utilising each little thing at it incredibly is disposal. an analogous may be genuine if the U.S. a nuclear attack on Russia. There must be no winners in this difficulty. the two international locations may be only approximately destroyed and billions of people might die. enable's desire to God there is under no circumstances an unintended launch, or what's perceived as nuclear launch by using one element or the different. If it ever occurs, all of humanity loses.

Answer 4

it's not a good idea to go to war with a country that DOES have wmd. iran has them. they don't have nukes yet. but they will get them.

is that bad? well north korea is a terrorist nation and they already have several nukes. what is bush doing about that? paying off the north koreans.

Answer 5

that seems like a good plan to me. get all of the american soldiers in one place and then detonate that nuclear bomb they have been working on. that would be a beautiful attack for them.

...we need to invest more money in NASA, I want off this rock