Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

US plans nuke hit on Iran: Report

Discussion in 'Legal' started by the Juggernaut, Apr 10, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. the Juggernaut

    the Juggernaut member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    CONUS
    http://www.telegraphindia.com/1060410/asp/foreign/story_6080051.asp
    If this is true, then I firmly believe that Bush is off his freaking rocker. The results of something like this would be WWIII (or IV depending if you count the Cold War as III). He says he wants to prevent it but all he will do is cause it. If that does not happen then we can surely expect nuke hits in the US by either terrorists or N. Korea (once we show we are willing to preemptively nuke people we don't like I can't see them holding back). Start buying up some ammo. SHTF may be right around the damn corner. Freaking wacko. I really hope that if this order is given the Generals refuse the order on the basis that this order is an unlawful order. This freaks me out how willing the Bush administration is to get us into 3 wars at once.
     
  2. crazed_ss

    crazed_ss Member

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2005
    Messages:
    1,652
    Location:
    Sunny San Diego
    Gotta Nuke Something.. - Nelson
     
  3. mp510

    mp510 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    3,046
    Location:
    PRKt
    I hope that this isn't true, especially since I have trusted Bush on foreign policy for most of his administration. I bet that we would avoid launching the Birds, due to the repercussions, and our goal to act diplomatically with Iran. Also, the government has basically said that the report was blow out of proportion, but I guess you never know.
     
  4. Jason M.

    Jason M. Member

    Joined:
    May 13, 2005
    Messages:
    66
    Location:
    Monterey, California
    The title should read, "Bush alleged to be considering tactical-bunk-buster nuke to disable future Iranian nuclear program." It might not be as PR friendly as a conventional bunker buster, but it's a far cry from nuking a city full of civilians like the words "Nuke hit" suggests.
     
  5. Domino

    Domino Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Las Vegas. NV
    edited...
     
  6. beerslurpy

    beerslurpy member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2004
    Messages:
    4,438
    Location:
    Spring Hill, Florida
    Wow that will certainly distract us from the immigration mess.
     
  7. WayneConrad

    WayneConrad Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2005
    Messages:
    2,128
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    The military plans everything. They plan making invasions, fending off invations, launching nukes, receiving nukes. They make plans for everything they can think of anywhere they can imagine it.

    Put these plans for dealing with Iran on a long shelf with all the other plans and contingencies for all other parts of the world. What does it look like then?

    Heck, we had plans for slugging it out with the USSR, had worse come to worse. Why is it less alarming that we've got plans for slugging it out with Iran, should worse come to worse?
     
  8. Domino

    Domino Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2004
    Messages:
    714
    Location:
    Las Vegas. NV
    Not only is the topic of your thread extremely unlikely, this remark is just silly. If terrosist currently had the ability to discharge a nuclear weapon inside the U.S., they would have already done it. Seriously, do you honestly believe that terrorist need a reason to kill Americans? If you do, than you are not in touch with reality.

    Also, North Korea is only capable of firing a nuclear missle at Japan, they do not even begin to have the capability to launch an ICBM at the U.S. Iran has to believe that there is going to be a severe response to any attempt made by them to obtain a nuclear weapon.

    So, relax, take a chill pill, and don't believe everything you read. You appear to be a little unstable, perhaps a dose of reality would help you considerably. ;)
     
  9. ConstitutionCowboy

    ConstitutionCowboy member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2006
    Messages:
    3,230
    Location:
    Oklahoma
    Not That I'm For Nuking Iran,

    These bunker-busters are a far cry from something like what was used in WW II. These only destroy what they hit. That is why they are called "tactical" and not "strategic". A strategic nuke is for maximum effect such as taking out a city - tactical is for specific targets.

    Woody

    "I pledge allegiance to the rights that made and keep me free. I will preserve and defend those rights for all who live in this, the country founded on the belief and principles that those rights are inalienable and essential to the pursuit and preservation of life, liberty, and happiness." B.E.Wood
     
  10. MadMag

    MadMag member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    74
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Where is Harry Truman when you need him?....just joking.:D

    I agree that Bush would not go to direct use of nuclear weapons. That would be crazy.

    But I do think the threat to our country of hand (or vehicle) carried nuclear weapons is real. The issue is that the technology to construct a nuclear weapon is known…it is the material that is hard to get. The critical mass can be less than 50 lbs…if you are willing to do away with shielding. So, that’s a real threat.

    I notice that Homeland Security is talking more & more these days about hand carried nuke threats.
     
  11. el44vaquero

    el44vaquero Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2005
    Messages:
    616
    Location:
    NE Oklahoma
    I wonder if they have a plan for defending ourselves from armor-plated bears?
     
  12. Dmack_901

    Dmack_901 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    361
    Location:
    FL
    propaghanda != news
     
  13. MadMag

    MadMag member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2006
    Messages:
    74
    Location:
    Kentucky
    Of course we do. My Colt 1911 .45ACP will go through at least two armor-plated bears at a time & knock down a third. :p

    Hope you are not talking about more than 8 bears at a time!

    Ok, I didn't count right. Thats 16 dead + 8 down bears per mag.= 24. I carry two back-up mags...so, well I am from Kentucky and those are high numbers for me, but it will be a lot of dead bears.
     
    Last edited: Apr 10, 2006
  14. the Juggernaut

    the Juggernaut member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2006
    Messages:
    34
    Location:
    CONUS
    If you would have read the first words of my post they say "If this is true..." Since you lack comprehension skills I am not surprised at your snotty little remarks.

    As for terrorists needing a reason to attack Americans, that is exactly what the Al Qaeda group does. They didn't just wake up one morning thinking what a nice sunny day it is and how fun it would be to attack Americans and America. They have reasons.

    Also if you simply write Bin Laden of as a nut then you underestimate him. You may not like him but look at what he says. Use some logic. The one thing that I know about Bin Laden from reading transcripts of his speechs is that he has always told us what he is going to do before he does it. He also articulates his reasons for it. I would suggest you read "Imperial Hubris" or watch this video. The author/speaker is the man who had been tracking Bin Laden with the CIA for longer than probably any other Westerner. He's got some very good points.
     
  15. Zundfolge

    Zundfolge Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    10,756
    Location:
    Colorado Springs
    I'm sure the Calcutta Telegraph has people inside the whitehouse :rolleyes:
     
  16. Mr.V.

    Mr.V. Member

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2005
    Messages:
    364
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    They are just reporting on this article by Seymour Hersh:
    http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact
    He basically says that the Bush administration has a hard-on for war (as if we already didn't know), wants to go to war but will put on a show of diplomacy (I'm still looking for something new here...), and is bandying about the possibility of using nuclear weapons (again...articles like this discussed before Afghanistan and Iraq the possiblity of using them but in reality weren't).

    Fortunately, I've learned to worrying and love the bomb.
     
  17. yojimbo

    yojimbo member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2006
    Messages:
    11
    I wish the Bush Administration had the luxury of starting a war with the Arab world. Unfortunately, they (meaning certain Arab leaders and radicals) started it, and Bush must play the hand he is being dealt. You may not like how he plays it, but don't imagine he is starting the card game.
     
  18. Manedwolf

    Manedwolf member

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    3,693
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    Please check facts. The DoD itself released findings that a bunker-buster hit on North Korea, since it is a GROUND STRIKE that throws up a plume of irradiated dirt...could cause "up to a million casualties" downwind, in China, even Japan.

    That's destroying only what's hit, hm? Why do you think they're going for conventional Really Big Bombs again with the Nevada test?
     
  19. LAK

    LAK Member

    Joined:
    Jul 28, 2004
    Messages:
    2,487
    Iran hasn't been blessed with the right to determine it's own path - unlike India - by the Global Socialists, and things like 9/11 are catching up with Comrade Bush (along with his cronies) who need another good media distraction. As a bonus it will make them all alot of money at our further expense. And that is if it does not start WW3; if Russia does indeed have more on the ground in Iran than is believed, they might well turn Tel Aviv and Haifa to glass.

    ----------------------------------------

    http://ussliberty.org
    http://ssunitedstates.org
     
  20. longhorngunman

    longhorngunman Member

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Messages:
    852
    It seems many on here prefer the "let's stick our head in the sand" policy of dealing with crazed regimes and terrorists instead of confronting them and doing whatever is necessary. I hope Iran gets the drift that everything is on the table.;)
     
  21. Ezekiel

    Ezekiel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2003
    Messages:
    677
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    Personally, I do not mind at all the concept of having a "plan" for nuking other countries as that would seem to imply that some study has been made of the repercussion(s).

    "Planning" doesn't appear to be an Administration strong suit. :banghead:

    I'm sure, somewhere, there is a scenario for if/when Canada invades us: "plans" are meaningless beyond their appraisal of an exercise.

    Basically, I'm no more worried today then I was yesterday, perhaps less so.
     
  22. allmons

    allmons Member

    Joined:
    Jul 12, 2005
    Messages:
    115
    Location:
    East Tennessee
    Mr Hersh is hardly a credible source....

    Every administration has tactical planners prepare for EVERY eventuality, no matter how far fetched an action or response. If the preps for every President
    were known, people would "be aghast", even though only about 1% of the planning is ever seriously considered.

    The best explanation of this I have seen comes from the Marines -
    "Be polite, be courteous and make a plan to kill everyone you meet."

    :)
     
  23. WT

    WT Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,985
    I think a nuclear bunker buster is an excellent idea. Cost effective and it will save the lives of American troops. We have weapons to spare and they are reaching the end of their shelf life. Might as well use them as they were designed.

    A 5 kiloton nuke is no big deal. Just another weapon, somewhat bigger than a 1911.

    My father toured Hiroshima and Nagasaki in September 1945. Said "it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people."
     
  24. Maxwell

    Maxwell Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    486
    Nukes are bombs. Seriously high yield bombs, but bombs no less. Its how you get the most payload into the smallest package.
    Some seem to think that aquiring nukes will mean you can take over the world.
    Not exactly.

    Often getting nukes is more of a hassle than it is a benefit. Everyone is more suspsicous of your actions and outside support is no longer seen as charity, but blackmail. All they do is (hopefully) discourage your enemies from making a frontal assault.
    What happens if your aquiring nukes is the trigger?
    If we put this plan forth when russia was making its bombs, would we have avoided 50 years of conflict?

    While the source isint exactly credible, I slightly doubt we would carry out nuclear pre-emtive strike. It might be the smartest thing to do because Iran (who has already threatend us with large scale terrorism) will now have bombs that they will use on the first provocation.

    The question becomes do you want to get hit with suicide bombers or suicide nuclear-bombers.

    If Iran gets a nuke and makes a credible threat then the US would have no option but to use nukes in return (just like france has already stated they would do).

    To all you folks born after the 70's, welcome to the theory of M.A.D.
     
  25. neoncowboy

    neoncowboy Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    636
    Location:
    land of cotton
    BWA-HAHA-HAHA-HA!!!!!

    Oh man, that's just side splittingly funny!

    HA! Trust Bush on foreign policy...that's HYSTERICAL!!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page