U.S. Studies Military Strike Options on Iran

[Jon Miller]

I think that if we nuked Iran.. that I lot of people who were freinds would be no longer..

and those who weren't freinds, not enemies would become enemies..

and that there would be a race by every country who might possibly be able to build nukes to build them...

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think that if we nuked Iran.. that I lot of people who were freinds would be no longer..

and those who weren't freinds, not enemies would become enemies..

and that there would be a race by every country who might possibly be able to build nukes to build them...

JM

And that is it in a nutshell. A very succint and accurate post on the consequences of tactical nukes... Hell, we can't be that stupid!

Even a military air strike may lead to some of this. It could just be the final push the extremists in Pakistan need to get rid of Musharraf.. then you'll have fundies in charge of already built nukes.

[Ted Striker]

What Imran and John Miller said


This is lunacy in the extreme, morally and practically silly

[KrazyHorse]

Nuclear strikes are out of the question. Slowwhand's just being silly, as usual.

[Jon Miller]

See the Emperor Fabulous's post. If it was submitted, someone must be in favor of it.

JM

[Drake Tungsten]

In one of the old threads on this I presented 7 options. In my opinion the two best were either air strikes soon or doing nothing.

'Twas a good post.

Nuclear strikes are out of the question.

At the very least, someone is trying to give the impression that nukes aren't off the table. I'd still say that they are, but who knows with Bush? Certainly gives the Iranians something to think about...

[KrazyHorse]

I think any nuke **** that comes out is posturing...

[Drake Tungsten]

I agree, and now's the time to be posturing. Wouldn't be surprised to hear more about Bush's God-given destiny and how he will do things no other President would be willing to do in the near future.

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Nuclear strikes are out of the question. Slowwhand's just being silly, as usual.

If it's silly, it's not me.

[Ted Striker]

You honestly think a nuclear strike is a good idea?

I don't remember you being this much of an azz in the past.

What happened ?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Oerdin

1) The US stated policy since 1945 has been that the US will never use a nuclear weapon except in response to a WMD attack. The administration wants to change that 60 year old policy to allow them to use nuclear bunker busters.

Google "Massive Retaliation" for an education. "No First Use" was a much later development , coming after Massive Retaliation was replaced by "Flexible Response".

[Sikander]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Praying for idiocy on my opponent's part is a piece of all of my strategies.

God often answers the easy prayers. I often pray for God to "not show me a sign", and He always delivers.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I think the fallout from nuclear strikes would be enormous.

JM

Please Jon, let the grownups talk.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
I agree, and now's the time to be posturing. Wouldn't be surprised to hear more about Bush's God-given destiny and how he will do things no other President would be willing to do in the near future.

He certainly has the cred to play the old Nixon-Kissinger "madman" strategy to the hilt.

[Agathon]

I guess my theory that "people who are really militaristic are so because they can't get it up with girls" still stands based on this thread.

I hope a Mexican illegal immigrant steals Sloww's car.