There’s nothing to spin. This is an article quoting anonymous sources. We really don’t know anything about the details. You want anonymous sources? How about this, from the NYT article:
Yes, that’s indeed the problem. Nukes have a huge symbolical value. they’re viewed as the ultimate weapon. Using them would be breaking a taboo. Besides, the non-proliferation treaties are based on the assumption that nuclear powers will use nukes responsably, which means : not at all. Using even a tactical nuke, even once will open the Pandora box of nuclear banalization and proliferation.
That’s apart from the general stupidity of the assumptions made. Iranians, in my experience are the most nationalist and patriotic people around, along with americans and chinese. Most view themselves as the proud heirs of a milleniums old civilization. Most certainly, a part of the population is fed up with the mullah regime. But many others are brainwashed hardliners. The surprising electoral success of the current president shows that he has a lot of support in the population. And even the formers aren’t going to blame other iranians if a foreign country (let alone the USA) bomb the shit out of them. They wil rally around the flag, while hardliners will tell them “We told you so…”.
As for the diplomatic downfall in the middle-east, in muslim nations and in the world at large of using nukes against iran…well…
Why not? Nukes are not much different from other bombs, just more powerful. Would it be OK if we used a MOAB, a Grasscutter, or a Grand Slam? Why?
Nice reasoned phrasing there. The Iranians are aiming to develop nuclear weapons. Therefore it’s a military target. Therefore, it’s not mass murder.
Umm… we’re preventing them getting nukes so they don’t become a threat. Do you really want an Islamic nuke detonated in New York? Or worse, over?
Why not? Nukes are not much different from other bombs, just more powerful. :dubious:
CMC fnord!
Seems like one of these treads has to pop up every 3 months or so. And every 3 months or so I offer a bet which, so far, no one has been willing to take. Well, here it is again: We will not use nukes against Iran unless they use them first. Does anyone want to take that bet?
- and now we’ve spent the army, what else can we do ?
Of course! We can base our plans on daydreams that the option we have left will actually work! Brillant!
Seriously: This is idiocy of the finest order. What the fuck makes anyone think that “sustained bombing” will make the Iranians replace their government with one that’s more benevolent to the US ? Sheesh. To say nothing of the situation in Iraq - does anyone think that the recently liberated Shiites will sit on their hands while the US bomb Shiites in the neighbour country ?
Nuclear weapons have a symbolic impact way beyond their tactical value. The idiot-in-charge can go on TV and talk about precision and tactical warheads, but his act will send a clear message to the Iranians: Fuck you and fuck the pretense of semi-civilized warfare. The Iranian Gvt. is not as poor and isolated as the Iraqi one was. Is it a smart idea to send them the message that there are no longer any rules ? They’ll feel justified in hurting the US back in any way they can. They’ll pretty much have to.
Incidentally, do you really want your country to be the one to implement the “it’s just a big bomb” mindset ? India & Pakistan are taking notes. As is China.
Yeah, Iran’s first act will be to nuke New York. Iran’s government hates the US more than they like ruling Iran, obviously.
Using the first nuke is an invitation to be ostracized from the circle of civilized nations. Having one seems to be the “Get-out-of-invasion” card that the current US administration honors.
Other people have already answered this.
Unprovoked killing is murder. Doing it on a larger scale doesn’t make it any less so. By your logic, if I walk up to a soldier and shoot him in the face, it’s not murder. For that matter, if I shoot some random citizen in a town with an oil refinery, that’s not murder by your "logic; that’s a military target too.
:rolleyes: Yeah sure, they’re gonna do something that will give us a justification to flatten their country, and kill them, personally.
Minor point: Quartz is a Brit not a Yank. That said, unless we get some regime change over here, Blair will probably be riding on top of the first American ICMB to be fired shouting “yahoo”.
What’s an Islamic nuke, and how does it differ from Christian, Buddhist or Jewish nukes?
I tried, but I was outvoted.
We already have used the first nuke. But yeah, I agree that we’ll be shut out if we use them again. I think the Japanese, English, certainly the French, the Germans – everyone – will lobby their governments to boycott the importation of American goods. I daresay that there would be pressure to not export anything to the U.S. as well. (We did it to the Japanese and Germans.) I remember the protests during the Reagan Administration. If we use nuclear weapons first (again) we would not win the economic battle that follows.
I hope that’s all it is. Reagan had his ‘Star Wars’ bluff. But this is different. If it’s a bluff and someone calls it, then we’re in Big Trouble. But given my extremely low opinion of our current Administration, I’m not entirely sure it is a bluff. The current Administration has demonstrated its opposition to the ideals of America (wire-tapping, limiting the right to assemble and associate, lying to the American people in order to pursue a war of aggression, approval of torture, holding of prisoners without trial, etc., etc.). I shudder to think what an un-American gang such as we have would do with their nuclear toys. Let’s hope it really is a bluff.
It’s got a beard.
But that’s the whole point. Regardless of whether it’s a bluff or not in a realpolitik calculation the Iranians have less to lose in calling the bluff than in backing down. In this context it’s stupid for the Bush Administration to encourage any consideration of nuclear attack, and yet proving once again there is no international situation it’s can’t misread and mis-calculate here we are talking about nuking Iran.
No, but it does shout “Allah !” before exploding. In case you’re curious, the Christian ones use “Repent !” instead, and the Jewish ones “Your mother told you this would happen !” .
and the Buddhist one only contemplates going off!
CMC fnord!
Actually, I don’t think there are any Buddhist countries with nukes, unless you count China.
Well, what does the FSM one do? How about the IPU’s?
Not that I think its likely to happen, but really, aren’t we talking about a BUNKER BUSTER type nuke here? IIRC that means the nuke is ground penetrating…and ground DETONATING. Right? 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.
I understand the whole ‘genie out of the bottle’ thing, that this might somehow open countries up to more easily use nukes. I just don’t understand where that comes from. Frankly the genie is ALREADY out of the bottle and has been since 1945. I don’t see how the US using a bunker buster type nuke would either encourage or discourage nations from using their own nukes…or really change the situation at all. Either they would calculate that they could get away with using a nuke (or they didn’t care about the consequences one way or the other if they are stark raving mad) or they would conclude that it wasn’t worth the risk. And this decision would be completely detached from whether or not the US used one against potential nuclear facilities in Iran.
All that said, I have major doubts the US would do such a thing…or really even needs too if we decide that a military option is our own one. After all, we have conventional bunker busters that can probably do the job if needs be. IF nukes were on the table I wouldn’t be surprised knowing how the military operates when planning ANY military operation. The military likes to have a wide range of options to choose from after all…but every weapons system would need to be weighed not just in how effectively it would do the job but in the political fallout that would result in using it.
To use a different example if the easiest and less risky way to take out a small target is to firebomb an area crammed with civilians and then carpet bomb the entire area flat the military would probably have it on the table for evaluation. This would probably not be the method chosen though, despite being the easiest and least risky for our personnel because of the political fallout for killing hundreds or thousands of civilians to get at a military target…so they would probably choose an option that split the difference in terms of risk to our personnel and colateral civilan casualties…and accomplishing the mission.
Oh, and FTR I think we should just let Iran have the damn things if they are so intent on getting them. My take on it all is basically ‘fuck it’. As others have said, if Iran gets froggy with them (something I have serious doubts about) then we will defend ourselves…and probably leave Iran a smoking hole in the ground. Since they must realize this I don’t see it as a likely scenerio.
-XT
Everybody gather around and listen because,
I’m the Invisible Pink Unicorn,
What can take a sunrise, sprinkle it with dew,
Cover it with chocolate and a miracle or two,
The IPUICBM, oh the IPUICBM can.
The IPUICBM can 'cause she mixes it with love,
and makes the world go boom. :eek:
What can take a rainbow, wrap it in the sky,
Soak it in the sun and make a groovy lemon pie,
The IPUICBM, the IPUICBM can.
The IPUICBM can 'cause she mixes it with love,
and makes the world go boom. :eek:
CMC fnord!
Despite the seriousness of the subject, that made me 
We haven’t got a nuclear bunker buster, and there are no funds allocated to build one.
Here’s a lovely little Union of Concerned Scientists animation on nuclear bunker busters.. I found the fallout maps particularly intriguing. You just can’t get that kind of body count with conventional explosives.