# Our government is planning to use nukes? You have to be \*&@#$ kidding me! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [April 9, 2006, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937 "2006-04-09T08:12:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Happy\_Clam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3bc359/32.png) [@Happy\_Clam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Clam)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/61 "2006-04-09T22:09:00Z")
Whoops, slip over Osirak. I must admit the “given that it’s in Iraq” line made me shoot tea out my nose. But my point is still valid. Attempts to militarily disrupt the Iranian nuclear weapons program (for that is what it is) are highly unlikely to succeed. And they will, of course, screw up America (and, by extension, Europe and the rest of the West’s) relations with the Middle East. For example: today in the Independent (a British broadsheet) the commander of British forces in Basra said that the Iranians could take the city “with twelve mullahs and a sound truck”, despite the British troops there. Even if this is no more than sabre-rattling, it will alienate both the Muslim world and a good portion of reasonable people throughout the rest of it. And sabre-rattling can be dangerous when you have no sabre. The Iranians have the whip hand in this situation, and they know it. Such heavy-handed tactics can only help their diplomatic situation, and any attempt at military action would almost certainly, IMO, be a costly fiasco. Either way, bloody stupid policy. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/62 "2006-04-09T22:13:32Z")
> [@Quartz](#): > > This isn’t unprovoked In that case, any country that wants to has a free pass to attack America, because we already _have_ nukes, and used them as well. > [@Quartz](#): > > And just how would we prove that it was from Iran? They could plausibly deny it. As if we would care. > [@asterion](#): > > Eh, they wouldn’t do it. Boycotting the US would be economic suicide and they know it. First you assume they would care; if they are angry or afraid enough, they might not. Second, given that America has become a trading and not a manufacturing nation, it would hurt us much more. > [@ralph124c](#): > > Anyone notice that the Iranians have backed off the rhetoric lately? How much of this reflects the fact that developing nuclear weapons is proving to be much harder (and more expensive) than the mullahs thought. In any case, the USA is NOT about to pick another fight-we are too bogged down in Iraq as it is. Rumsfeld (sepite his blunders) is not a stupid man. He is certainly aware that attacking Iran with nukes ENDs any hope we have of ever reconciling with the islamic world. You ascribe far too much sanity to thse people. ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/63 "2006-04-09T22:31:36Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > You ascribe far too much sanity to thse people. The Iranians, or the US admin? ---
**Author:** ![Bashta](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/b487fb/32.png) [@Bashta](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bashta)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/64 "2006-04-09T23:03:16Z")
Just out of curiosity, what would the effect of dropping a 100kt+ bomb on a Nuclear Development Facility be? Judging by the lists of data posted, I gather that such a Bunker Buster would be unable to penetrate beyond a few hundred feet, at best, and would thus probably be far higher than the stored nuclear material when it detonates. Would it sterilize the nuclear waste - or just spread it with the winds? ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/65 "2006-04-09T23:08:52Z")
> [@Bashta](#): > > Would it sterilize the nuclear waste - or just spread it with the winds? Nuclear material isn’t alive, so there’s nothing there to kill. Any nuclear materials blown into the atmosphere would become part of the fallout. ---
**Author:** ![GaWd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/f08c70/32.png) [@GaWd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GaWd)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/66 "2006-04-09T23:28:11Z")
> [@Spiny Norman](#): > > They’ll feel justified in hurting the US back in any way they can. They’ll pretty much have to. Incidentally, I don’t think they’ll attack NYC first. My hunch is that they’ll attack Israel first. Not only are they the only formidable enemy in the region, but they know that a large group of Americans are tied to Israel with their hearts and souls. Then after the Jews have been annihilated, the people of Iran can band together and _really_ go for America’s bared throat. Excellent idea chaps. Sam ---
**Author:** ![The\_Understander](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/3da27b/32.png) [@The\_Understander](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Understander)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/67 "2006-04-09T23:55:57Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > Regarding exaggeration of nuclear desruction: this may be indeed true, but “nuclear” has now acquired a tokenistic cachet, like the stock market hitting 10,000 or something - meaningless yet emotionally significant. They might indeed be small and tactical, but they’re nuclear regardless, and to use them would open the tinderbox that would lead to World War III. > > I think there would be some justification for some kind of action against Iran, had the assholes not invaded Iraq on a false pretext. They’ve hamstrung themselves: any action against Iran will be seen as the final confirmation of a declaration of war by the west on all Muslims, regarless of any tactical necessity. > > Anywasy, trying to be optimistic, I hope this is a controlled, deliberate leak to put the shits up Ahmedinajad. > > Though you can never tell with the bellicose dickheads running your country. I wouldn’t put anything past them. For all our sakes get rid of them, will you? Working on it. Just hope we can do it in time. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/68 "2006-04-10T00:16:57Z")
> [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > First of all, the US does not have a “bunker-busting” nuclear device in its arsenal. The reason for this is simple; getting a weapon, even one propelled at incoming ICBM-launched RV velocities (~19,000mph) it is essentially impossible to penetrate more than a few tens of feet into the ground and maintain an intact RV. Considering the delicacy of a nuclear device in comparison to a conventional one–if the primary shell is distorted or even on of the explosive blocks doesn’t detonate precisely, the whole thing will be a fizzle–it is merely a matter of digging deeper and reinforcing more to protect a shelter against direct attack. I knew one was being [researched](http://www.ananuclear.org/rnep.html) …I assumed we have one. Appearently I was incorrect…thanks for being so nice about pointing that out in such a tactful way. BTW, the weapon I recalled wasn’t an ICBM-launched RV…it was basically a hardened case nuke, similar to a conventional ‘bunker buster’ bomb simply with a low yield nuclear weapon and dropped via aircraft. As the program seems to have been halted for political rather than engineering reasons…well, I’m not the only ignorant one it seems. 🙂 > [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > Second, we’re not talking about “tactical”-sized weapons here; owing to absorption by the surrounding earth, this would be a 100kt+ class device. The result wouldn’t be a contained explosion like underground testing, but rather a massive crater, activating and dispersing tons of radioactive debris. Assuming you could make your penetrator such that the device inside would survive impact, the thermal pulse and other blast effects would be attenuated but hardly nonexistant; if the target is in a populated area you are going to see massive destruction comperable to a ground burst. I’m unsure what you mean exactly here to be honest. Are you saying the weapons EFFECT would be in the 100kt range…or the weapon itself would be in the 100kt range? Because the bomb proposed for the ‘nuclear bunker buster’ seems to be at the lower end of the scale (i.e. in the 5-10kt range…though you can ‘dial’ it up to the 300kt range if you wanted as its basically just a modified B61 warhead). Granted the EFFECT would be pretty spectacular…but far less than an air burst of the same weapon. Certainly if the target is in a populated area it would be pretty massive destruction…but how much more than dropping one of the conventional MOABs (except for the radiation I’m guessing THIS would be pretty spectacular in a populated area as well)? I’m sure it will be somewhat larger…but do you know exactly how much more destruction we are talking about? I can’t believe its all THAT much with the range of weapon they seem to have considered anyway. As to the radiation, my understanding was that these weapons were relatively clean…i.e. the radiation effect wouldn’t be long lasting (though the initial radiation would be fairly high)…i.e. hours or perhaps days basically fading to background reasonably quickly. If thats wrong then simply pointing that out to me would be enough. > [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > Third, there is a definite difference in scale between conventional and nuclear weapons. The firebombing of Tokyo killed around 100,000 people in a single night, but required several flights of over 300 B-29s in a coordinated effort. The bombing of Hiroshima, on the other hand, killed 60,000-80,000 by direct effects, and left residual radiation that resulted in uncounted higher incidence of chronic illness and birth defects for a generation or more. This required a single (modified) B-29 and a single device which, by modern standards, is barely even a tactical firecracker (est. yield 15kt). Nukes are very compact for their damage and require little in the way of logistical supply or planning in comparison to the same scale of damage available from conventional weapons. This makes them very different in use and reprecusion than even the most horrific of conventional munitions. Ok…I agree. > [@Stranger On A Train](#): > > The notion that tactical weapons are “cleaner” that strategic is just plain wrong, too. Indeed, although it has not been a part of the avowed policy of any of the major nuclear powers, one method of battlefield denial is to salt a battlefield or logistical channel with short-term highly active isotopes, either by the use of a jacketed weapon or by enhanced radiation (i.e. neutron) weapons. Even if the weapons aren’t deliberated salted, the typical use for a tactical weapon is a ground, near ground, or submarine application which will (like a bunker buster) maximize fallout, whereas most strategic nuclear applications call for an air burst to maximize damage and shock. Um…I didn’t say tactical nukes were cleaner than strategic? Where did you get that impression? I said the weapons I recalled were relatively clean nukes…i.e. the residual radiation would fade quickly after the initial blast. IIRC the background radiation of even the two bombs we dropped in Japan went away relatively quickly. Of course, anyone exposed DURING the attack got the full dose with all the nasty consequences you pointed out earlier. Anyway, yes…I was wrong (ignorant as you pointed out). My impression was that we indeed have a nuclear BB type weapon with similar ground penetration capabilities as our conventional weapons of similar type (in rhetrospect I can see where the engineering would be more difficult as nukes are more fragile). In addition I would have thought the explosion would be (mostly) contained in the ground, with the shock basically directly against the target. You seem to be indicating that the ground would not contain the blast, and doing a google search seems to bear this out since though the size of the war head is relatively small the ground penetration is also relatively shallow. Thanks for fighting my ignorance. 😛 I don’t see it happening conventionally OR nuclear. If it does happen it will be conventional though. I’m sure it will be great comfort to those killed that they were blown to bits or burned up with conventional weapons instead of nukes… -XT ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/69 "2006-04-10T00:21:42Z")
> [@Der Trihs](#): > > No, if a nuke is the only way to do it, you _don’t do it_. Just to make sure, does this mean you are opposed to the use of nuclear armaments on any target under any circumstance? Also, I could’ve sworn that there was another news story a few years back that was very similar to this, about plans (in a similar stage of contingency planning) to use nukes on… North Korea was it? Does anyone else remember this? (And FWIW, I believe a lot of the howls of anguish on this thread are not necessarily from the plans themselves, but that the article seems to imply that the government is _eager_ to use them. A lot more outrageous, and a lot harder to prove.) ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/70 "2006-04-10T00:23:16Z")
Oops, if a mod could close that tag, that would be great. Obviously, **Der Trihs** only wrote that first line. ---
**Author:** ![MEBuckner](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mebuckner/32/2896_2.png) [@MEBuckner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MEBuckner)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/71 "2006-04-10T00:34:06Z")
> [@Happy Clam](#): > > The idea that dropping bombs (especially nuclear ones, which a) have tremendous symbolic value b) are still fucking nasty c) will legitmise their use by every other aggresive international-law-breaking country in the world [Hi there, Pakistan, China, India, North Korea]) will encourage a population which already detests the US and the values it unashamedly seeks to impose on the Middle East to rise up and overthrow a leadership whose chief selling point is their opposition to “American Imperialism” (and I was SO close to not putting quotes around that) is about inspired as their continued refusal to believe in the Iraqi civil war. Actually, the Iranian _population_ by and large doesn’t detest the U.S. or our values. From everything I’ve read, the Iranian people are probably one of the more pro-American populations in the Middle East. Of course, the Iranian people are also pretty nationalist (or patriotic, to put it another way), so a sustained (possibly nuclear) bombing campaign would likely be an excellent way to win over their hearts and minds… …to the mullahs. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/72 "2006-04-10T01:26:42Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Just to make sure, does this mean you are opposed to the use of nuclear armaments on any target under any circumstance? If he’s not, I am, with the exception of retialiatory action. Even then you have to ask yourself, do you really want revenge that badly? > [@](#): > > (And FWIW, I believe a lot of the howls of anguish on this thread are not necessarily from the plans themselves, but that the article seems to imply that the government is _eager_ to use them. A lot more outrageous, and a lot harder to prove.) No, the plans are quite enough. Anybody who takes plans beyond the contingency stage to actual discussion and advocates actual usage and implementation of nuclear weapons in this day and age is off their rocker. ---
**Author:** ![Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/13edae/32.png) [@Stranger\_On\_A\_Train](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stranger_On_A_Train)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/73 "2006-04-10T02:17:58Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > I’m unsure what you mean exactly here to be honest. Are you saying the weapons EFFECT would be in the 100kt range…or the weapon itself would be in the 100kt range? Because the bomb proposed for the ‘nuclear bunker buster’ seems to be at the lower end of the scale (i.e. in the 5-10kt range…though you can ‘dial’ it up to the 300kt range if you wanted as its basically just a modified B61 warhead). [Destroying a target buried 1,000 feet into rock would require a nuclear weapon with the yield of 100 kilotons.](http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/rnep.htm) It’s true that some variants of the B61 are variably yield down to fractional kt, but the B61-11 is a single option high yield (\>300kt) weapon. Far from the image of drilling down through dirt (an impossible task for an RV) it hits and blasts out a gignormous crater. Some of the proposals for ground penetrating weapons have relied on a sequence of smaller yield strikes, but the result is still a lot of activated material cast into the air. > [@xtisme](#): > > Granted the EFFECT would be pretty spectacular…but far less than an air burst of the same weapon. Of course the area of effect would be less than that of an air burst by virtue of the blast wave being able to propogate futher before being damped by ground effects; this isn’t even in question. The primary radiation effects and resultant thermal pulse will be less attenuated, however. Get the notion out of your mind that this thing is going to nuzzle its way into the ground and make a big burp that will be contained by soil and rock; it will, instead, evacuate a large bowl of incinerated ground material, and the deeper it goes the more material it will elevate as fallout. > [@xtisme](#): > > As to the radiation, my understanding was that these weapons were relatively clean…i.e. the radiation effect wouldn’t be long lasting (though the initial radiation would be fairly high)…i.e. hours or perhaps days basically fading to background reasonably quickly. If thats wrong then simply pointing that out to me would be enough. “Relatively clean” is a relative term. Modern nuclear weapon are much “cleaner” than early single stage atomics by virtue of being more efficient; the radioctive shells are almost foil-thin, in comparison to the wastefully thick mass of uraniumin Little Boy or even the plutonium imposion shell of Fat Man, and the use of fission boosting via incomplete fusion of tritium adds additional yield with little additional radioactivity. However, the neutron flux will serve to activate otherwise inert elements in the soil creating a heavily radioactive fallout. This, in turn, will be consumed and inhaled, resulting in both immediate radition poisoning and chronic disease like leukemia. There is no such thing as “clean” nuclear weapons; even Herman Kahn, the advocate for survival after a nuclear exchange (see _On Thermonuclear War_) accepted that there would be elevated levels of radioactivity for an extended (decades) period of time. > [@xtisme](#): > > Um…I didn’t say tactical nukes were cleaner than strategic? Where did you get that impression? From your own statement, which I quoted in the original post: > [@xtisme](#): > > Its not like they are discussing dropping a 100 megaton nuke on a major city from altitude. How much destruction could it possibly do exploding underground? How much radiation (and for how long) are we really talking about here?? Tactical nukes IIRC are pretty small and relatively clean weapons. See? I apologize if my response was unduly harsh, but in the single paragraph I quoted there were a number of implied and explicit errors and misrepresentations. The idea of using nukes in any but the most dire of circumstances harkens back to General [del]Turgidson[/del] LeMay and his campaign to wipe Cuba off the face of the Earth during the Cuban Missile Crisis, an event that would have resulted in the virtual annihilation of two superpowers and who knows how many allies and satellites. > [@MEBuckner](#): > > Actually, the Iranian _population_ by and large doesn’t detest the U.S. or our values. From everything I’ve read, the Iranian people are probably one of the more pro-American populations in the Middle East. Of course, the Iranian people are also pretty nationalist (or patriotic, to put it another way), so a sustained (possibly nuclear) bombing campaign would likely be an excellent way to win over their hearts and minds… > > to the mullahs. Iran was long noted as one of the more progressive regimes in the Middle East (which may nonetheless be damning with faint praise) and it took the US backing the repressive Shaw government to encourage the populace to follow the mullahs into a dictatorial theocracy. It’s commonly known that people have chafed under the Ayatollas and that political unrest is fermenting; it’s certain that the population has a great thirst for Western popular culture despite the restrictions and penalties impose from above. The best thing we could bomb Iran with is Britany Spears albums and Chuck Norris movies. While this might be seen as some as crimes against humanity (oh, the humanity) it would certainly result in fewer negative reprecussions among the populace…at least until they evolve the same sense of revulsion for Hollywood detritus that the majority of America has. Oh, wait a minute…never mind. As for **John Mace** ’s wager, I wouldn’t even consider it a possibity under any previous Administration. Even Nixon, at his most paranoid, wasn’t itching for the nuclear option (and to hear Kissinger talk now, Big Kiss would have forestalled that in some kind of Oval Office mutiny anyway), and despite his rhetoric Reagan never sought an exchange or seriously prepared options for a first strike. But the current occupant seems increasingly prone to irratic, short-sighted, and highly illogical decisions born, I have to assume, from a distrubingly messiah-like view of the world and his place in it. Call it Manifest Destiny with hymns and the nuclear option. Stranger ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 2:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/74 "2006-04-10T02:18:15Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > But even without nukes, this saber-rattling is likely to get us in a lot of trouble. The Iranians _will_ call our bluff, if bluff it is. And if we attack Iran, “the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle,” according to one of Hersh’s sources Dude, that´s not a candle, it´s a stick of dynamite… ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/75 "2006-04-10T02:48:27Z")
This has pretty much been one of my worst nightmares since 9-11. Sadly, this administration isn’t doing much to eleviate my fears. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/76 "2006-04-10T03:12:36Z")
> [@Guinastasia](#): > > This has pretty much been one of my worst nightmares since 9-11. Sadly, this administration isn’t doing much to **eleviate** my fears. “Eleviate” is not a word, but you know, it so should be; a combination of “alleviate” and “elevate.” **eleviate** e-'lE-vE-"At 1. (v) To worsen a crisis while convincing oneself the crisis is being solved. Sure fits Bush and his team, don’t it? I think you just added a new word to the language. ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/77 "2006-04-10T03:22:30Z")
But **RickJay** , if we take your definition, I think what **Guinastasia** means is: Sadly, this administration is doing quite a lot to eleviate my fears. ---
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/78 "2006-04-10T04:21:47Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > “Eleviate” is not a word, but you know, it so should be; a combination of “alleviate” and “elevate.” > > **eleviate** e-'lE-vE-"At > > 1. (v) To worsen a crisis while convincing oneself the crisis is being solved. > > Sure fits Bush and his team, don’t it? I think you just added a new word to the language. D’oh! :smack: Yes, I meant “alleviate.” I never claimed to be a champion speller. :o ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 5:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/79 "2006-04-10T05:49:44Z")
> [@Leaper](#): > > Just to make sure, does this mean you are opposed to the use of nuclear armaments on any target under any circumstance? I’ll add 2 exceptions; retaliation in kind ( MAD ), and engineering purposes ( blow-up-the-dangerous-asteroid, etc ). ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937/80 "2006-04-10T06:00:26Z")
I just want to know if I get to accuse the Administration of “wag[ging] the dog” this time. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/our-government-is-planning-to-use-nukes-you-have-to-be-kidding-me/351937.md?page=5)