Rep. Hunter: US Should Use Tactical Nukes on Iran if Strikes Become Necessary

WASHINGTON — A hawkish US House Republican says the United States should use tactical nuclear weapons to destroy Iranian nuclear facilities if war with the Islamic republic becomes necessary.

House Armed Services Committee member Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., threw down that bold gauntlet Wednesday morning during a C-SPAN interview in which he also suggested Middle East “culture” fosters dishonest negotiators.

Click to expand...

Duncan Hunter is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, so the question is this: Is this man insane..... Wait, wrong question. The right question would be "OK, just how insane is he?".

Article is here.

Completely insane, but so would using conventional weapons.

danarhea said:

Duncan Hunter is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, so the question is this: Is this man insane..... Wait, wrong question. The right question would be "OK, just how insane is he?".

Article is here.

Click to expand...

You seem to ignore the "if war with Iran becomes necessary" part of this story. Why would we have such weapons if they are never to be used under any circumstances? When asked to respond to hypothetical situations, it is not unreasonable to suggest the use of existing weapons, as opposed to simply saying vague things like we should take appropriate military action. The idea that we should allow any enemy nation to successfully make a first nuclear strike on us before using nuclear force on them is just plain silly. So far we are the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war and I am OK with keeping it that way.

My dad said I wouldn't be here today if we didn't nuke Japan in WWII. He was on a ship gearing up to invade the main land of Japan at the same and was always greatful we did it.

I would assume a lot of pilots, soldiers and others who'd be forced to fight with Iran - would also be greatfull if we launched a weapon against them that made it so their lives were saved and our war was won.

danarhea said:

Duncan Hunter is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, so the question is this: Is this man insane..... Wait, wrong question. The right question would be "OK, just how insane is he?".

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Should war breakout his statements seem reasonable and prudent. Measured proportional response would be quite inappropriate in war as it is in a 'computer war game'.
Or we could wait for an enemy to attack major business centers and seaports. hmmm,
Nah, do what it takes to finish a major skirmish before it becomes too difficult to contain.

I got the Nuclear Blues



Play it again Dana eace

Thom Paine

danarhea said:

Duncan Hunter is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, so the question is this: Is this man insane..... Wait, wrong question. The right question would be "OK, just how insane is he?".

Article is here.

Click to expand...

He states that it's "IF" war with the Islamic Republican become necessary....so I'll say pretty damn insane.

IF we end up having to go to war with Iran I think it's common sense and sound strategy to go after the nuclear facilities as one of the first targets we go after. That said, we have plenty of conventional methods in which to do it.

First, dropping a nuke isn't something that should be done lightly and without GREAT necessity and SIGNIFICANT weighing of the cost/benefit of doing such. Second, given the nature of extreme islamists I don't believe this would have a "spirit crushing" effect that at least made the nukes in Japan worth while but rather would likely have an opposite effect, thus reducing it's potential benefit and upping it's cost. Finally, I believe we'd have a significant foreign policy issue on our hands if after years of arguing against and condemning Iran for potentailly trying to obtain a nuclear weapon we decide to immedietely upon the start of a war begin dropping nuclear weapons on them.

The notion of using nukes is insanely dumb in the method and way he's seemingly suggesting; the targets however are not.

CalGun said:

My dad said I wouldn't be here today if we didn't nuke Japan in WWII. He was on a ship gearing up to invade the main land of Japan at the same and was always greatful we did it.

I would assume a lot of pilots, soldiers and others who'd be forced to fight with Iran - would also be greatfull if we launched a weapon against them that made it so their lives were saved and our war was won.

Click to expand...

That generally requires that the enemies are a rational actor. Specifically, that something like a nuclear strike will be so devestating and present such a threat that their spirit and will would be almost instantly broken and lead to a full surrender. Which is sometimes reasonable to assume given the situation and if it's a rational actor.

The problem is that if Iran was a rational actor there's probably a good chance that we would've been less concerned with them gaining nuclear weapons in the first place. The primary thing governing the politics of nuclear proliferation is Muturally Assured Destruction, or MAD. MAD is the notion that both sides understand that they have the fire power to cause devestating damage to other side and are likely to be able to utilize such power in the time between when your attack is detected and when it succeeds. Thus, the belief is that neither side will actually fire off their nukes because to do so would be to write off their own demise. MAD also relies on the notion of a rational actor.

HOWEVER, if you thrown an IRRATIONAL actor into the mix then you have massive problems. If you have an actor who has no or little regard for their own survival or safety, or puts a greater regard in the destruction of the enemy over their own well being, then suddenly MAD no longer works.

Typically, when dealing with potential religious fanatics of any type, rational acting can not be assumed. This is partially why many on the right feared Iran getting a nuclear weapon, because they felt that elements within the government would be willing to risk the fall out in order to use one on Israel. Dropping nuclear weapons on Iran could reasonably be expected to heighten violence, granted in a more assymetrical manner, than it would be to lower it.

Zyphlin said:

He states that it's "IF" war with the Islamic Republican become necessary....so I'll say pretty damn insane.

IF we end up having to go to war with Iran I think it's common sense and sound strategy to go after the nuclear facilities as one of the first targets we go after. That said, we have plenty of conventional methods in which to do it.

First, dropping a nuke isn't something that should be done lightly and without GREAT necessity and SIGNIFICANT weighing of the cost/benefit of doing such. Second, given the nature of extreme islamists I don't believe this would have a "spirit crushing" effect that at least made the nukes in Japan worth while but rather would likely have an opposite effect, thus reducing it's potential benefit and upping it's cost. Finally, I believe we'd have a significant foreign policy issue on our hands if after years of arguing against and condemning Iran for potentailly trying to obtain a nuclear weapon we decide to immedietely upon the start of a war begin dropping nuclear weapons on them.

The notion of using nukes is insanely dumb in the method and way he's seemingly suggesting; the targets however are not.

Click to expand...

Of course, if we go to war with Iran, we hit what we believe to be their nuclear facilities. we also hit their airports, their seaports, and all their infrastructure. That goes without saying. And, of course, we should use conventional weapons to do it.

I believe we should be able to invest in morals testing companies instead of drug testing companies, with our McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

ttwtt78640 said:

You seem to ignore the "if war with Iran becomes necessary" part of this story. Why would we have such weapons if they are never to be used under any circumstances? When asked to respond to hypothetical situations, it is not unreasonable to suggest the use of existing weapons, as opposed to simply saying vague things like we should take appropriate military action. The idea that we should allow any enemy nation to successfully make a first nuclear strike on us before using nuclear force on them is just plain silly. So far we are the only nation to have used nuclear weapons in war and I am OK with keeping it that way.

Click to expand...

False dichotomy.

Retry|Exit

Of course we all know that Iran would never use nuclear weapons on the United States.

It's important to keep to keep in mind that, unlike Obama, experienced statesmen never reveal to the enemy upfront the extent to which they will go in a crisis situation. Why not give the Iranians something to think about while they're constantly looking for trouble with the rest of the world?

Ray410 said:

Of course we all know that Iran would never use nuclear weapons on the United States.

It's important to keep to keep in mind that, unlike Obama, experienced statesmen never reveal to the enemy upfront the extent to which they will go in a crisis situation. Why not give the Iranians something to think about while they're constantly looking for trouble with the rest of the world?

Click to expand...

I think "If you use a nuke on us, we will turn your country into a parking lot" works fine.

The quickest way to degrade the effectiveness of MAD is to start making exceptions. The more times it happens, the more permissive the environment, the greater the chance for disaster.

That said, this move appears to be pure sabre rattling on our part. Wouldn't surprise me if Obama's people asked him to do it.

danarhea said:

Duncan Hunter is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, so the question is this: Is this man insane..... Wait, wrong question. The right question would be "OK, just how insane is he?".

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Another dangerous person that somehow seems to get voted into office in the United States. Where do these people come from in this day and age?

Would nuclear weapons even destroy the underground facilities, or would that be a better job for bunker-busters?

danarhea said:

Duncan Hunter is a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, so the question is this: Is this man insane..... Wait, wrong question. The right question would be "OK, just how insane is he?"

Click to expand...

.

Article is here.

Click to expand...

Since he wants to do this he should lead the mission, right?