In today's times, knowing how the A-Bomb affected Japan in WW2, what would be the last straw to force America to use another nuclear weapon?
There is no excuse for the use of a nuclear weapon, other than having NBC weapons used against us first. Unfortunately, this is not US policy. US policy (which is a holdover from the cold war) is that Nuclear weapons may be used in a conventional conflict, as a last resort. Whether any President is insane enough to implement that policy remains to be seen.
Seriously I am asking.
Do you think the world saw the devestation that the A-bomb did to Japan and now its kind of a silent oath to keep those out of conflicts?
I feel Iran would have no qualms about dropping a nuke on Israel or USA if we get involved and they develop the capabilities.
Do you think the world saw the devestation that the A-bomb did to Japan and now its kind of a silent oath to keep those out of conflicts?
I feel Iran would have no qualms about dropping a nuke on Israel or USA if we get involved and they develop the capabilities.
well, the reason why the bomb was used in WWII was mainly to avoid having to sacrifice a large number of US soldiers in an attempt to conquer the japanese mainland. It is argued that tens of thousands of american soldiers lifes' were saved because of the bomb.
But that was a world war, and given the fact that no single country ( maybe with the exception of china ) currently has the military potential to attack the USA conventionally, the nuclear option really isn't very likely at all.
But that was a world war, and given the fact that no single country ( maybe with the exception of china ) currently has the military potential to attack the USA conventionally, the nuclear option really isn't very likely at all.
Iran by itself would not drop the bomb. They would need assurances from Syria, Lebanon, and other middle eastern & african countries that they would come to the defense of Iran. iran knows it would be hit just as, if not more intensely than they hit their target. That's if they can even hit their target. They still need a reliable and acurate means of delivery and evasion.
I believe the second Iran got a nuke into the air, the US would send 3-4 to Tehran. Odds are the Iranian missile would be intercepted, and Iran would become a parking lot.
I believe the second Iran got a nuke into the air, the US would send 3-4 to Tehran. Odds are the Iranian missile would be intercepted, and Iran would become a parking lot.
The fear of Iran getting a nuclear weapon, is not that they would deliver it in a missile or aircraft delivered bomb. The fear is that it would be delivered stealthily, in a 'suitcase' bomb, which would preclude anyone from immediately knowing its source.
As far as the ability to 'intercept' a missile in flight goes, as of this moment the US capacity to do so is nil. There is a BIG difference between the ability to intercept a theatre weapon (like a SCUD) and the ability to intercept an inbound ICBM (an outbound ICBM is a different story, as it makes a nice target in the boost phase - the trouble is getting your ABM system near the launch site prior to launch).
As far as the ability to 'intercept' a missile in flight goes, as of this moment the US capacity to do so is nil. There is a BIG difference between the ability to intercept a theatre weapon (like a SCUD) and the ability to intercept an inbound ICBM (an outbound ICBM is a different story, as it makes a nice target in the boost phase - the trouble is getting your ABM system near the launch site prior to launch).
Last edited by whittsend (2006-04-19 13:17:07)
You might find this interestingErkut.hv wrote:
Iran by itself would not drop the bomb.
TEHRAN, Iran - The president of
Iran again lashed out at
Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.
"The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&a … _israel_10
Here is a brief history of Irans Nuclear program
http://www.nti.org/e_research/profiles/ … _4968.html
As far as the WWII stuff, allot of people wonder why the US didn't just demonstrate the power of the bomb first. Some say what if it didn't go right or something. I myself don't know, perhaps it was revenge for Pearl Harbor.
It takes about 15 pounds of plutonium-239 or uranium-235 to fashion a crude nuclear device. The technology to enrich the isotopes is available for about one million dollars. It is clearly possible that terrorists could acquire both the isotopes and the technology needed to enrich them.
Last edited by Kmarion (2006-04-19 14:04:52)
Xbone Stormsurgezz
much much more than tens of thousands of American soldier's lifes. numbers are probably in the millions considering the amount of Japanese troops, civilians told to fight, and of course US and allied casualties. the people that were killed and wounded by the two atomic bombs in Japan spared ALOT more people. this is coming from someone whos grandmother suffered temporarily from radiation poisoning from Hiroshima. so no, i'm not throwing a hissy fit about the atom bombs.B.Schuss wrote:
well, the reason why the bomb was used in WWII was mainly to avoid having to sacrifice a large number of US soldiers in an attempt to conquer the japanese mainland. It is argued that tens of thousands of american soldiers lifes' were saved because of the bomb.
But that was a world war, and given the fact that no single country ( maybe with the exception of china ) currently has the military potential to attack the USA conventionally, the nuclear option really isn't very likely at all.
on topic, ...lol. nuclear weapons today are much more powerful than they were during WWII. i doubt this is true, but i have heard that one of our nuclear submarines has enough firepower on it to destroy about 1/3 of the planet...or was it the entire planet 3 times over? any navy sub guys on the forums?
Last edited by Mike_J (2006-04-19 14:04:02)
Wow! This guy is fried.... I like the terms he used. He's going to "Liberate Israel". Sounds familiar....different context I know.....or is it?Kmarion wrote:
You might find this interestingErkut.hv wrote:
Iran by itself would not drop the bomb.
TEHRAN, Iran - The president of
Iran again lashed out at
Israel on Friday and said it was "heading toward annihilation," just days after Tehran raised fears about its nuclear activities by saying it successfully enriched uranium for the first time.
"The Zionist regime is a rotten, dried tree that will be eliminated by one storm."
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&a … _israel_10
As far as the WWII stuff, allot of people wonder why the US didn't just demonstrate the power of the bomb first. Some say what if it didn't go right or something. I myself don't know, perhaps it was revenge for Pearl Harbor.
It takes about 15 pounds of plutonium-239 or uranium-235 to fashion a crude nuclear device. The technology to enrich the isotopes is available for about one million dollars. It is clearly possible that terrorists could acquire both the isotopes and the technology needed to enrich them.
Seriously, this fella isn't working with a whole tool box.....
He is a true threat. I wonder what the scenario would be if Saddam was in power still and this guy came in mouthing off. He was elected after Saddam was captured, reverted Iran to its pre-revolution policies from the democracy that elected him, and is now vowing to destroy Israel. Hamas in Israel.....its going to get rough.
The United States maintains a sizeable arsenal of nearly 10,000 nuclear warheads, of which nearly 6,000 are operational and the remainder in reserve or inactive stockpiles. Approximately 1,700 warheads are deployed on land-based missile systems, 1,098 on bombers, and 3,168 on submarines (Ohio-class subs). Approximately 800 are tactical nuclear weapons (TNWs), and consist of Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles and B61 bombs. The remaining warheads are stockpiled.Mike_J wrote:
on topic, ...lol. nuclear weapons today are much more powerful than they were during WWII. i doubt this is true, but i have heard that one of our nuclear submarines has enough firepower on it to destroy about 1/3 of the planet...or was it the entire planet 3 times over? any navy sub guys on the forums?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Each Ohio class SSBN carries 24 missiles with several warheads each. They can take out a large area...a very large area. If I remember correctly, each warhead's yield is in the 400 kiloton range.
Last edited by RAIMIUS (2006-04-19 15:53:31)
fantastic, there's just one minor thing it doesnt matter if you have 10000 nuclear weapons, after you fired of the first 1000 the world is fucked.
personally I'm e more afraid of that moron bush having his finger on the doomsday button
and remember kids DUCK AND COVER.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … mp;pl=true
personally I'm e more afraid of that moron bush having his finger on the doomsday button
and remember kids DUCK AND COVER.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … mp;pl=true
First of all Iran dont have the installations and the potential to send a nuclear missile to the US ground by Air. It would needed to be done by an inside job within the US borders and if the the air missile would be sent, the US have the potential to counter that missile before it even reach the US. But would probably cause a huge radiation cloud that can go where ever it wants which can be devastating.
I dont think the nuclear weapon will be used not because of what damage it may cause on Iran but about the
radiation transported by the wind which can go anywhere since we cant control the wind. and since the US have allies around Iran. I dont think the US would take the chance of sending a Nuclear Bomb over Iran or any allies of it. It would cause huge international issues against the US which wouldnt help the american cause.
I dont think the nuclear weapon will be used not because of what damage it may cause on Iran but about the
radiation transported by the wind which can go anywhere since we cant control the wind. and since the US have allies around Iran. I dont think the US would take the chance of sending a Nuclear Bomb over Iran or any allies of it. It would cause huge international issues against the US which wouldnt help the american cause.
I doubt he will destroy the world . We got a patriot missle shield over America so we cant get uberpwnted by Iran.
Well one good thing (if you can call it that) is that some of the Ohio class subs are getting their nukes taken out and replaced by tomahawk cruise missiles for more tactical uses.RAIMIUS wrote:
Each Ohio class SSBN carries 24 missiles with several warheads each. They can take out a large area...a very large area. If I remember correctly, each warhead's yield is in the 400 kiloton range.
Yup, this is true. I don't know if it is enough firepower to destroy 1/3 of the world, but is IS enough to perminantely alter the worlds climate. (according to Honeywell, who makes some of these bombs for DOD)RAIMIUS wrote:
Each Ohio class SSBN carries 24 missiles with several warheads each. They can take out a large area...a very large area. If I remember correctly, each warhead's yield is in the 400 kiloton range.
The defense system which you talk of is only in testing mode and is only deployed inJaMDuDe wrote:
I doubt he will destroy the world . We got a patriot missle shield over America so we cant get uberpwnted by Iran.
California and Alaska. http://www.missilethreat.com/news/testingamerican.html
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Why do they need nukes in the first place? They can still turn the country into molten slag AND not have to mobilize.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
While that Iranian Nutjob (el presedente) might dislike/hate America, he is not daft enough to try to attack America, even if he had the means.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's main concern is opposing Zionism for the State of Israel. That is, Israel's belief in having a homeland.
It is obvious an all out conflict in the Middle East will develop. Recently Islamic leaders met with Ahmadinejad, in Tehran, to discuss funding for Hamas. This means that they would be able to continue their terrorism campaign against Israel.
Here are a few articles from the Sydney Morning Herald (not related to the meeting):
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/one-st … 44495.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/threat … 85822.html
A middle eastern war will most likely break out.
As for the nuclear weapons. I think if anyone would use them, I'll be Iran. Although,I think Israel wouldn't get to a state where that happens. They would probably implement a 1st strike option. Much like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War .
America is past the day of "willy-nilly' nuclear strikes. They have many more surgical means for taking out the enemy while minimizing civilian casualties. But, as a very last resort, yes, I think America would turn to nuclear weapons again.
Just my A$0.02.
Mcminty.
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's main concern is opposing Zionism for the State of Israel. That is, Israel's belief in having a homeland.
It is obvious an all out conflict in the Middle East will develop. Recently Islamic leaders met with Ahmadinejad, in Tehran, to discuss funding for Hamas. This means that they would be able to continue their terrorism campaign against Israel.
Here are a few articles from the Sydney Morning Herald (not related to the meeting):
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/one-st … 44495.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/threat … 85822.html
A middle eastern war will most likely break out.
As for the nuclear weapons. I think if anyone would use them, I'll be Iran. Although,I think Israel wouldn't get to a state where that happens. They would probably implement a 1st strike option. Much like the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War .
America is past the day of "willy-nilly' nuclear strikes. They have many more surgical means for taking out the enemy while minimizing civilian casualties. But, as a very last resort, yes, I think America would turn to nuclear weapons again.
Just my A$0.02.
Mcminty.
War was once seen as being near to sport. Clear boundaries were layed out to avoid civilan casulties. In the 17 & 1800s soliders used to line up and walk into eachother in orderly lines. WW1 had some of these elements (football games between trenches at xmass etc) but was an entrenched war. Though Cities and civilians were still out of bounds.
Hitler invented a new form of war, Blitzgreag (Lightning war) again changing the battlefield.In WW2 Churchill & Hitler had an agreement not to bomb cities untill a night raid on an airbase went off target and bombs fell on London. Churchill ordered the bombing of Berlin the next day. And throughout WW2 cities and their infrostructure was targeted and so the trend continues to this day. Look at Iraq, Bosnia, Yougosklivia and afganistan. The war may be over but it is the civilians that have to live in the rubble of wars.Dealing with unexploded ordanents and land mines. I think this fact escapes alot of military planners who call it collateral damage so not to put a face on the suffering.
In 100 years war has changed from a game set out on a battle field with clear rules of war, a victor would be found through skill and troop numbers. Now adays it seams its about destroying or crippling the whole country for decades to win a battle. Nowadays the civilian casulty rate, as in Iraq is many times more than the Armys. War is Dirty and the A Bomb is the dirtyest of all, totally indiscriminate. And it trully scares the shit outa me that warmongerers like Rumsvelt and Cheney have their fingures on the button. (Come on you dont really think they are going to let Bush near that big red button. He would probably Nuke Folrida)
Hitler invented a new form of war, Blitzgreag (Lightning war) again changing the battlefield.In WW2 Churchill & Hitler had an agreement not to bomb cities untill a night raid on an airbase went off target and bombs fell on London. Churchill ordered the bombing of Berlin the next day. And throughout WW2 cities and their infrostructure was targeted and so the trend continues to this day. Look at Iraq, Bosnia, Yougosklivia and afganistan. The war may be over but it is the civilians that have to live in the rubble of wars.Dealing with unexploded ordanents and land mines. I think this fact escapes alot of military planners who call it collateral damage so not to put a face on the suffering.
In 100 years war has changed from a game set out on a battle field with clear rules of war, a victor would be found through skill and troop numbers. Now adays it seams its about destroying or crippling the whole country for decades to win a battle. Nowadays the civilian casulty rate, as in Iraq is many times more than the Armys. War is Dirty and the A Bomb is the dirtyest of all, totally indiscriminate. And it trully scares the shit outa me that warmongerers like Rumsvelt and Cheney have their fingures on the button. (Come on you dont really think they are going to let Bush near that big red button. He would probably Nuke Folrida)
right now, I don't think the A-Bomb is an option. The US can deal with any opponent conventionally, maybe with the exception of China. But all potential attackers know that any use of the A-Bomb on their part would provoke a retaliation the would leave their country in rubble.
The Iranian President might be nuts, but not that nuts. I don't think we really have to fear a military conflict between Iran and Israel. Mahmud Ahmadinedschad knows all too well he would never get support from the UN for an unprovoked attack against Israel.
But what happens if Israel decides to attack Iranian nuclear facilities without UN support ? That could be grounds for Iran to declare war on Israel.
What people are most afraid of though, is the possibility that Terrorists might get their hands on a A-Bomb through one of the rogue states in the middle east. I think that should be the number one concern and the main reason we should try to get some kind of control over the Iranian nuclear program.
The Iranian President might be nuts, but not that nuts. I don't think we really have to fear a military conflict between Iran and Israel. Mahmud Ahmadinedschad knows all too well he would never get support from the UN for an unprovoked attack against Israel.
But what happens if Israel decides to attack Iranian nuclear facilities without UN support ? That could be grounds for Iran to declare war on Israel.
What people are most afraid of though, is the possibility that Terrorists might get their hands on a A-Bomb through one of the rogue states in the middle east. I think that should be the number one concern and the main reason we should try to get some kind of control over the Iranian nuclear program.
I seriously doubt he would EVER consult the UN, let alone get their approval.B.Schuss wrote:
right now, I don't think the A-Bomb is an option. The US can deal with any opponent conventionally, maybe with the exception of China. But all potential attackers know that any use of the A-Bomb on their part would provoke a retaliation the would leave their country in rubble.
The Iranian President might be nuts, but not that nuts. I don't think we really have to fear a military conflict between Iran and Israel. Mahmud Ahmadinedschad knows all too well he would never get support from the UN for an unprovoked attack against Israel.
But what happens if Israel decides to attack Iranian nuclear facilities without UN support ? That could be grounds for Iran to declare war on Israel.
What people are most afraid of though, is the possibility that Terrorists might get their hands on a A-Bomb through one of the rogue states in the middle east. I think that should be the number one concern and the main reason we should try to get some kind of control over the Iranian nuclear program.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Exactly. I believe he won't because he knows all too well he'd get no support for an attack on Israel.Spark wrote:
I seriously doubt he would EVER consult the UN, let alone get their approval.B.Schuss wrote:
right now, I don't think the A-Bomb is an option. The US can deal with any opponent conventionally, maybe with the exception of China. But all potential attackers know that any use of the A-Bomb on their part would provoke a retaliation the would leave their country in rubble.
The Iranian President might be nuts, but not that nuts. I don't think we really have to fear a military conflict between Iran and Israel. Mahmud Ahmadinedschad knows all too well he would never get support from the UN for an unprovoked attack against Israel.
But what happens if Israel decides to attack Iranian nuclear facilities without UN support ? That could be grounds for Iran to declare war on Israel.
What people are most afraid of though, is the possibility that Terrorists might get their hands on a A-Bomb through one of the rogue states in the middle east. I think that should be the number one concern and the main reason we should try to get some kind of control over the Iranian nuclear program.
But what happens if Israel or one of its western allies decides unilaterally to conduct air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities ?
Wouldn't that constitute an act of war against Iran ? Pre-emptive strikes are not covered by the UN charta..
I believe the word is blitzkrieg. Call it lightning war or blitzkrieg, avoid using blitzgreag at all costs.JahManRed wrote:
Hitler invented a new form of war, Blitzgreag (Lightning war) again changing the battlefield.
blitzkrieg rulesRosse_modest wrote:
I believe the word is blitzkrieg. Call it lightning war or blitzkrieg, avoid using blitzgreag at all costs.JahManRed wrote:
Hitler invented a new form of war, Blitzgreag (Lightning war) again changing the battlefield.