Exactly where did I use that phrase? I don’t dispute that they’re devastatingly powerful. It’s just a question of perception.
Fuck my coding.
No, I got that part. The problem was at those ranges you couldn’t count on accuracy, and you needed accurate intel from forward observers.
The only way to use it with effect would have been to fire off a salvo and create a hot zone,
[
](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device))Having to wait till the Twhatever tanks were within 2 miles don’t sound like fun either!
CMC fnord!
Sorry, I misrepresented you. You’re not diminishing nukes - it’s your exaggeration of the enormity of conventional explosives that I disagree with, in the context of nukes.
Hiroshima, a very small A-bomb, was more than a thousand times more powerful than a Grand Slam.
I understand but when you said:
You didn’t say anything about accuracy you just said that you could not fire it without being in the effect zone. Which, of course, led to my post. 
Who’s going to drive the second tanker through, after they take one out? Nobody with insurance for the voyage, that’s for sure. Tankers go through there at the rate of about 16 per day, 8 carrying 2 million barrels of oil each, and 8 more going in to fill up. Stop them for 10 days, and you’ve got everyone’s attention.
Iran’s had plans and capabilities to do just that for years. They wouldn’t take out one carrier – they’d take out six or eight. Or 12. Looking at these photos, it’s apparent that navigating the strait is not done on autopilot – the four-mile channel is not a straight shot.
I agree, the author I quoted overstated the ease of closing the strait of Hormuz. That’s not to say it can’t be done.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
It’s OK for us to have them - and use them - but we can’t allow brown foreign heathens to have any.
QUOTE]
The color of their skin has nothing to do with it. I have severe issues with Iran gaining nuclear capability because the religious fanatics will promptly start building nuclear bombs. That way, instead of just blowing themselves and a busload of kids up, they can take themselves and downtown New York out. That’ll sure make old Allah grin like a Cheshire cat, won’t it?
I should like to commend friend Clothahump for a cogent and perceptive argument. If he should happen to make one, will someone let me know?
This is America, and these are Republicans; I guarantee race is a factor.
And that’s somehow worse that Bush making Jesus grin by nuking Iran ?
Assuming that the Iranian government would let a nuke into a terrorists hands - or anyones hands but their own - which I consider to be completely implausible.
What, “we gotta nuke them before they nuke us” isn’t cogent?
Three and a half years ago, that’s what all the panickers were saying about Saddam Hussein too.
Although I recognize the genuine dangers of having Iran (especially under its present government) as a nuclear power, I am more firmly convinced than ever that we won’t do ourselves or anyone else in the world any good by working ourselves into a hysterical panic again over possible future scenarios.
Especially not with the bunch of world-champion hysterical panickers that we’ve currently got in office. It’s not just about the possibility of jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. These bozos are perfectly capable of jumping out of a plate of lukewarm soup into an active blast furnace and maintaining with a straight face that it was a smart move “based on the best information available at the time”. Trusting their judgement is simply not warranted any more, if it ever was.
I will take the right flank on one thing Der Trihs said - the ironic “It’s OK for us to have them (and use them) but…”
We have them. There’s not much we can do about that. Since WWII, we have successfully not used them. So the U.S. is a safer bet to not use nuclear weapons (from a ‘better the devil you know…’ standpoint) than any new country trying to acquire nukes, whether it be Iran, Pakistan, or the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
I hope that our current administration is still sane enough to not consider using nukes. If not, my argument falls apart.
bush has backed off military options
According to here
I assume they meant “used them as a military tactic/against some other entity” vs. testing them.
The mere possession of nukes is inherently a military tactic. That’s why “we” don’t want anyone else to have them. They’re a great equalizer.
Bush on 06/04/2002:
A month and a half later came the Downing Street memo.
And that was 2-3 months after he said, “Fuck Saddam, we’re taking him out.”
Well SOMEBODY had to say it…
cite?