Interesting Article About Nuclear Warfare

[K1052]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: K1052

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I sincerely believe Pakistan was saved from being bombed post 9/11 solely because of nukes. And I also believe Iran desperately needs nukes to save itself from rogue military organizations such as Israel who have been threatening its existence.

Pakistan doesn't field crap when it comes to nuclear deterrence against the US.

Maybe not the actual weapons but the threat of proliferation is far greater. We could give the tech to Iran; or worse to terrorist organizations across the globe in case of a US attack. Then what?

If the US had planned such an attack you don't think that securing/destroying Pakistan's nuclear weapons would be a primary goal?

Pakistan has already proliferated nuclear weapons technology to numerous countries.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Have you already forgotten your leaders telling us "you are either with us or against us" and "we will bomb you back to the stone age if you do not co-operate"

You mean Israel wants to protect its own illegal existence by bombing another country? :roll: I'm not buying that. They have their own Zionist agenda. But of course you will believe your same media propaganda that made you believe Iraq was a threat and it had WMDs.

To you reality is ONLY what your Zionist biased media tells you. How many times have you been to the civilian areas of Iran and Pakistan?

And what is your media spoon feeding you? Brainwashing goes both ways.

The Taliban were told that either given up AQ or they will be declared an enemy.

They refused and what happened.

Now Pakistan is harboring the Taliban. One week they say they are going to get tough, the next week, they are back in bed with them.

Please explain the illegal Israeli existence.?
It was the Muslim/Arabs that accepted the declaration of Israel.
It was the Muslims/Arabs that then have launched wars against Israel.
It was the Muslim/Arab countries that when they pick a fight with Israel, they go crying to the UN to protect them from big bad Israel when their tails are between their legs.
It is the Muslim/Arab countries that continue to have open hostilities against Israel.

Israel is a constant reminder on how weak the Arab countries are; a thorn in the Muslim/Arab side and that realization/truth pisses them off because they either they have tried & fail to do something about it and/or realize they are full of hot air.

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
I sincerely believe Pakistan was saved from being bombed post 9/11 solely because of nukes. And I also believe Iran desperately needs nukes to save itself from rogue military organizations such as Israel who have been threatening its existence.

Firstly, Pakistan was never on the radar for being bombed post 9/11. It is only when the Taliban/Al Quida took refuge in Pakistan and were protected by the locals in those provinces with a seemingly lack of enforcement by the govt forces that has talk arisen of going cross border after the Taliban. Note the talk is about going after the Taliban and Al Quida, NOT Pakistani's.

Secondly, when has Israel threatening the existence of Iran? Israel has been all about protecting it's existence, not wiping out another country. On the contrary it is Iran that wants to wipe Israel off the map.

Get you head out of your butt and try to see the reality sometime.

Have you already forgotten your leaders telling us "you are either with us or against us" and "we will bomb you back to the stone age if you do not co-operate"

You mean Israel wants to protect its own illegal existence by bombing another country? :roll: I'm not buying that. They have their own zionist agenda. But of course you will believe your same media propaganda that made you believe Iraq was a threat and it had WMDs.

To you reality is ONLY what your zinoist biased media tells you. How many times have you been to the civilian areas of Iran and Pakistan?

Wow.

Which leader or country stated "we will bomb you back to the stone age if you do not co-operate"?

Yes, Bush said you are either with us or against us. But Pakistan was 'with us' from the start. So being 'with us', when was there any threat of Pakistan being bombed post 9/11?

Israel is not illegal. It exists due a mandate of the united nations in 1947. Some Arab countries refuse to accept that but most countries do. Even Iran had diplomatic relations with Israel prior to the revolution. At least 2 Arab nations have normal relation with Israel - Egypt & Jordan.

Israel has not threatened to bomb any country out of existence. They've fought wars with Arab countries and handily won them for the most part. The only act of aggression was the destruction of the nuclear facility under construction in Iraq, and even then it was done so as to minimize collateral damage.

I never bought the Bush propaganda that Iraq was a threat and had WMDs. Neither do I believe all what I hear in the media. I was against the war from day 1. And yes I have been to Iran & Pakistan. See my handle? It says sailor and I have been around the world. Even lived in the ME for 9 years. I was there during the Iran Iraq war, and the 1991 war. Have you been anywhere except Pakistan?

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

I never bought the Bush propaganda that Iraq was a threat and had WMDs. Neither do I believe all what I hear in the media. I was against the war from day 1. And yes I have been to Iran & Pakistan. See my handle? It says sailor and I have been around the world. Even lived in the ME for 9 years. I was there during the Iran Iraq war, and the 1991 war. Have you been anywhere except Pakistan?

Yes. I've been to the US; UK; France; Germany; Belgium; Netherlands; Mexico; Iran; Iraq; Egypt; Jordan; Syria; India; Sri Lanka; Kenya; China; Turkey; Yemen; UAE; Saudi Arabia; Qatar; and I think I've been to Israel itself when I was very little. I probably can't remember a few more. So I'll say I've seen quite a bit of the world myself - and for the most part western media is very bias. Subtle biases that the common man may not notice; but to notice it really boils my blood.

And this is very unlike Green Bean but I wish to apologize if I've offended anyone. I don't regret anything I've said but tensions and emotions run high on these boards and I've just had a very frustrating day. It's awesome to have something like this to vent all my anger.

 

[The Green Bean]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor


Have you already forgotten your leaders telling us "you are either with us or against us" and "we will bomb you back to the stone age if you do not co-operate"

If I'm not mistaken Musharraf mentions that in his book - "The Line of Fire"

 

[GroundedSailor]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor


Have you already forgotten your leaders telling us "you are either with us or against us" and "we will bomb you back to the stone age if you do not co-operate"

If I'm not mistaken Musharraf mentions that in his book - "The Line of Fire"

Ahh! Musharraf! Now there's man true to his word and therefore must be believed, specially if written in his book!

You don't see the huge bias in quoting and believing Musharraf, but you see the subtle bias in the western media?

I've got news for you: All media is biased to their world. Western media to western, Pakistan media to Pakistan, ME media to ME, Iranian media to Iran etc.

BTW you quoted yourself in your post, not my words.

 

[mxyzptlk]

Originally posted by: The Green Bean
To you reality is ONLY what your zinoist biased media tells you. How many times have you been to the civilian areas of Iran and Pakistan?

You're mostly crazy, but I still like you because even an insane clock is right twice a day. I think too many people just flat out ignore the reality that exists outside of fox news talking points. People here talk about the entire nation of Iran as if it were just Ahmadinejad in front of a camera, ranting about Israel

 

[Jaskalas]

So. What were nuclear weapons good for? It seems they are more of a liability than an asset. To some extent that's true but the important fact remains,they do limit conflict. As long as they are in place and functional they are an insurance policy against a nation getting beaten. That means that if that country is going to get beaten, its nuclear weapons have to be taken out first.

Unless you?re a terrorist ? then your concealed identity removes the need to take out the nuclear weapons. You can nuke them ? how do they respond to a threat they cannot identify?

Aha, I hear you say what about the mad dictator?

Wrong question. What about religious zealots whose only pleasure and greatest honor is in reaching the afterlife after martyrdom? THAT is the most relevant question that the Middle East will soon answer.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

So. What were nuclear weapons good for? It seems they are more of a liability than an asset. To some extent that's true but the important fact remains,they do limit conflict. As long as they are in place and functional they are an insurance policy against a nation getting beaten. That means that if that country is going to get beaten, its nuclear weapons have to be taken out first.

Unless you?re a terrorist ? then your concealed identity removes the need to take out the nuclear weapons. You can nuke them ? how do they respond to a threat they cannot identify?

Aha, I hear you say what about the mad dictator?

Wrong question. What about religious zealots whose only pleasure and greatest honor is in reaching the afterlife after martyrdom? THAT is the most relevant question that the Middle East will soon answer.

How are these terrorists getting the nukes? I don't think Osama is cooking one up in that cave he's hanging out in. The only way a terrorist would get one is through the disintegration of a nuclear state (Pakistan, I'm looking at you) or if a nuclear state gave them one... and no nuclear state is going to give a terrorist group a nuke because nuclear weapons are traceable. Do you really think "oops we lost one" would cut it if we were hit by a nuke that was traced back to Iran? Of course not, and they know this. Hence: They aren't giving nukes to any terrorist groups.

As for your whole "they're just crazy!" shtick, give it a rest. No country capable of investing the time, money, and infrastructure needed to make nuclear weapons has a bunch of martyrdom driven crazies at the helm. You are simply trying to employ the tired old 'the enemies of the US must be insane' line that's been used for decades. It just isn't true.

 

[Brovane]

Thank you everyone for your responses. This article got me thinking especially with all the hand wringing over Iran maybe trying to get nuclear weapons. As has been posted by Eskimospy nuclear weapons are traceable.

Let me ask this question lets say a Iranian nuke goes off in New York City. The Iranians claim the nuclear device was stolen only after we confront them with the evidence that this is a Iranian nuclear weapon. How does the US retaliate?

Do we nuke Tehran?

Do we destroy Iran with nuclear devices killing millions and risk a escalation into a full scale nuclear conflict? Not to mention a full scale meltdown in the worlds oil market with nuclear devices going off in the Middle East.

Do we launch a full scale conventional attack assuming we have the resources?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Brovane
Thank you everyone for your responses. This article got me thinking especially with all the hand wringing over Iran maybe trying to get nuclear weapons. As has been posted by Eskimospy nuclear weapons are traceable.

Let me ask this question lets say a Iranian nuke goes off in New York City. The Iranians claim the nuclear device was stolen only after we confront them with the evidence that this is a Iranian nuclear weapon. How does the US retaliate?

Do we nuke Tehran?

Do we destroy Iran with nuclear devices killing millions and risk a escalation into a full scale nuclear conflict? Not to mention a full scale meltdown in the worlds oil market with nuclear devices going off in the Middle East.

Do we launch a full scale conventional attack assuming we have the resources?

I would guess that if they claimed it was stolen we would probably only retaliate with conventional weapons. The thing is that our conventional forces are so strong that we might as well nuke them. No matter what the result the main guarantee would be that not one of the leaders of Iran would be alive/not in a jail cell in relatively short order, and we would certainly overthrow their government.

I would imagine if Iran had more then one nuke and attempted to use any of those against our forces we would massively retaliate with nuclear forces of our own, consequences be damned. At some point you have to show people you mean business.

That all having been said, none of that will happen because Iran isn't insane.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Wrong question. What about religious zealots whose only pleasure and greatest honor is in reaching the afterlife after martyrdom? THAT is the most relevant question that the Middle East will soon answer.

They're not getting into Paradise if they destroy the whole world including all of Islam. They might be crazy but they're not stupid. They know that the US still has thousands of nuclear missiles aimed straight at them.

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Brovane
Thank you everyone for your responses. This article got me thinking especially with all the hand wringing over Iran maybe trying to get nuclear weapons. As has been posted by Eskimospy nuclear weapons are traceable.

Let me ask this question lets say a Iranian nuke goes off in New York City. The Iranians claim the nuclear device was stolen only after we confront them with the evidence that this is a Iranian nuclear weapon. How does the US retaliate?

Do we nuke Tehran?

Do we destroy Iran with nuclear devices killing millions and risk a escalation into a full scale nuclear conflict? Not to mention a full scale meltdown in the worlds oil market with nuclear devices going off in the Middle East.

Do we launch a full scale conventional attack assuming we have the resources?

The National Command Authority would most certainly deploy strategic nuclear weapons against Iran in short order. The people and Congress would be baying for blood like none other (given that upwards of 10 million Americans were just murdered) and the cumulative doctrine of nuclear warfare would demand we retaliate lest other nations get the idea that they can nuke each other (or us) and not expect to receive in kind.

We take the oil hit and use the SPR in concert with conservation/rationing.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Brovane
Thank you everyone for your responses. This article got me thinking especially with all the hand wringing over Iran maybe trying to get nuclear weapons. As has been posted by Eskimospy nuclear weapons are traceable.

Let me ask this question lets say a Iranian nuke goes off in New York City. The Iranians claim the nuclear device was stolen only after we confront them with the evidence that this is a Iranian nuclear weapon. How does the US retaliate?

Do we nuke Tehran?

Do we destroy Iran with nuclear devices killing millions and risk a escalation into a full scale nuclear conflict? Not to mention a full scale meltdown in the worlds oil market with nuclear devices going off in the Middle East.

Do we launch a full scale conventional attack assuming we have the resources?

You really think such a grad-school quality excuse would work on an international level if a large American city had been destroyed? There is a very good chance we'd figure out the truth, and Iran (or whoever) knows this. And for nations like Iran, they might have nukes, but we have many more, and the ability to deliver them more effectively. Having nuclear weapons isn't a binary thing, there would be no MAD principle between a nuclear armed Iran and the United States. We could totally destroy their country and they could not do the same to ours. Their leaders aren't stupid, they know this and I doubt they'd risk such an attack.

As far as destroying Iran and killing millions, that's the only way this works. Of course I don't think we should EVER have a first-strike policy (unlike Pakistan, for example), but unless we want to invite nuclear attack, our policy MUST be that nuclear attack on our country means the total annihilation of yours. And it can't be something we wait on, that we open up for public debate or for the political pundits to mull over on TV. If we ever get attacked by a nuclear device and we find out who it was, the President should order a full scale nuclear attack on the country in question.

Honestly, I don't know how you'd live with yourself after doing something like that...but the consequences of NOT doing it seem far worse.

 

[Braznor]

Nukes will be a force multiplier for Iran. Remember, nukes don't apply to the doctrine of asymmetrical warfare. If anything, it will leave Iran with a free hand to infiltrate the region with its own brand of troublemakers.

We will be trapped into inaction in such a situation because the only other alternative would be a localized nuclear war.

 

[Brovane]

If we launch a full scale nuclear attack on Iran this brings up several complications. If we use ICBM's things could get out of hand quickly. I have heard the phrase before "one fly's they all fly" which means if one ICBM flies, very quickly things escalate into a full scale nuclear exchange between all the nuclear powers. Do we use B-2 bombers with nuclear gravity bombs? This would of course give Iranian leadership more time to hide in hardened shelters as well as mass panic in there civilian population knowing that nuclear death was immanent. I would probably imagine mass flight of the population into every surrounding country. I would also imagine mass protest from families in the US that still have family in Iran. Do we just go after military targets in Iran with nuclear weapons?

 

[K1052]

Originally posted by: Brovane
If we launch a full scale nuclear attack on Iran this brings up several complications. If we use ICBM's things could get out of hand quickly. I have heard the phrase before "one fly's they all fly" which means if one ICBM flies, very quickly things escalate into a full scale nuclear exchange between all the nuclear powers. Do we use B-2 bombers with nuclear gravity bombs? This would of course give Iranian leadership more time to hide in hardened shelters as well as mass panic in there civilian population knowing that nuclear death was immanent. I would probably imagine mass flight of the population into every surrounding country. I would also imagine mass protest from families in the US that still have family in Iran. Do we just go after military targets in Iran with nuclear weapons?

A quick phone call to the other nuclear powers just before launch should take care of that. There is no way Russia or China wants to get into a general nuclear exchange over Iran if they struck first.

B2's would take to long to load and get out to their targets inside Iran. Odds are that the US counter-strikes would be sub based Trident missiles with a mix of W88 and W76 warheads against larger and smaller (respectively) targets. How extensive the retaliation is would be up to the NCA. Tehran would definitely be a primary target though.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Braznor
See, here is the problem. Once Iran gets nukes, then it gets a certificate of invulnerability. Once that happens, then Middle East gonna get destabilized even more because of renewed Iranian efforts to take control of the region. Needless to say, Iran getting the goods gonna make the shit hit the fan real soon.

Well, just what do you think they're going to do? Itaq has already allied closely with their fellow Shiite nation. Iran does not have a history of invading its neighbors.

The only problem seems to be that they won't bend over for us like the other nations in the region do, and that's hardly justification for any aggression on our part.

I don't know of any evidence they're likely to go invade Saidi Arabia or something. They'd likely just finally have some security, and enjoy it, as far as any evidence I've heard of.

While the stakes are huge, without the bomb they were the victims of a US-supported invasion by Iraq in the 80's with a million casualties - you say you like that policy?