Should we bomb Iran to prevent their getting nuclear weapons

Should we bomb our shadow as well? It is as much threat to the US as Iran.

Goshin said:

Dont make assumptions. As it happens I have known Iranians.

I have nothing against them personally. I just don't want their crazy-ass leaders getting nukes.


There is no hate involved on my part, simply a desire that my nation protect itself and its middle-eastern interests.

Click to expand...

Then why arent you as worried about our crazy ass leaders having nukes?

Catawba said:

Should we bomb our shadow as well? It is as much threat to the US as Iran.

Click to expand...

Hyperbole.

Our shadow is merely an absence of light caused by matter blocking sunshine, and incapable of harm.

Iran is an extremist regime with a revolutionary and apocalyptic creedo that may well induce them to attack our allies or us if they acquire the means... therefore capable of harm, lots of harm... especially with nukes and missles.

EdWagemann said:

Then why arent you as worried about our crazy ass leaders having nukes?

Click to expand...

OUR crazy ass leaders are not QUITE as crazy as theirs. :mrgreen:


They're also more preoccupied with amassing wealth, fame, status, and blowjobs from strange women... which is good I suppose, as it keeps them out of REAL trouble more of the time... :lamo

Goshin said:

Bolded: totally false statement. There are not enough nukes in existence to blow up the world even once. There are probably not enough nukes to wipe out humanity... almost certainly not.

Click to expand...

Here, read this. You might want to refine your statement:

Nuclear Weapons

EdWagemann said:

Here, read this. You might want to refine your statement:

Nuclear Weapons

Click to expand...

Don't need to. I've been studying the effects of nukes for over 30 years. Hyperbole and alarmism are as commonplace as they are wrong. There are not enough nukes to eradicate humanity, let alone all-life-on-earth, let alone blow up the planet.

Goshin said:

OUR crazy ass leaders are not QUITE as crazy as theirs. :mrgreen:


They're also more preoccupied with amassing wealth, fame, status, and blowjobs from strange women... which is good I suppose, as it keeps them out of REAL trouble more of the time... :lamo

Click to expand...

I think there is a tendency for some politicians to talk big and stir up certain nationalistic ferver. But they are not so stupid as to commit nuclear suicide.
But if Isreal and Iran REALLY want to wipe each other out, then there is nothing we can do to stop them. We can do the Jimmy Carter thing and try to get their leaders together and sing kumbya. But really, the best thing to do is to take care of our own backyard before we go over to the neighbor's back yard and try to clean up their mess.

EdWagemann said:

I think there is a tendency for some politicians to talk big and stir up certain nationalistic ferver. But they are not so stupid as to commit nuclear suicide.
But if Isreal and Iran REALLY want to wipe each other out, then there is nothing we can do to stop them. We can do the Jimmy Carter thing and try to get their leaders together and sing kumbya. But really, the best thing to do is to take care of our own backyard before we go over to the neighbor's back yard and try to clean up their mess.

Click to expand...

I'm perfectly okay with the USA having nukes. Preferably lots of them. Preferably the very BEST nukes, and delivery systems, anywhere in the world... and the best ABM systems too.

Until they day comes when nobody in the entire world has any nukes at all.... and that, my friend, is a big ol' belly-laugh of a pipe dream. Stuffing a genie back into a bottle would be child's play by comparison.

I'm not one to promote stuffing the genie back into the bottle. Nukes are a part of reality and we must deal with them.

Goshin said:

Don't need to. I've been studying the effects of nukes for over 30 years. Hyperbole and alarmism are as commonplace as they are wrong. There are not enough nukes to eradicate humanity, let alone all-life-on-earth, let alone blow up the planet.

Click to expand...

Well, lets at least compare our facts, shall we?

By 1981, USA had 4,000 planes capable of delivering a nuclear bomb. Russia had 5000.

USA defence spending for 1981 = 178 billion dollars. By 1986, it was 367 billion dollars.

By 1986, it is estimated that throughout the world there were 40,000 nuclear warheads - the equivalent of one million Hiroshima bombs.

British Intelligence estimated that just one medium sized H-bomb on London would essentially destroy anything living up to 30 miles away.

The Nuclear Arms Race

Who really cares why we do it, the bastards should of been bombed to their personal versions of hell a longtime ago for many, many different reasons. The only reason necessary is that they have declared themselves our enemy, so we should eliminate that enemy before they have any realistic chance of doing it to us, because if the miliary balance was reversed, we would all be dead or praying to allah several times every day. If you don't want the biggest kid on the yard to stomp you into a bloody mess, then don't make yourself his enemy.

Goshin said:

Hyperbole.

Our shadow is merely an absence of light caused by matter blocking sunshine, and incapable of harm.

Iran is an extremist regime with a revolutionary and apocalyptic creedo that may well induce them to attack our allies or us if they acquire the means... therefore capable of harm, lots of harm... especially with nukes and missles.

Click to expand...

Iran would still be no match militarily with the US, so it would be suicide to attack us, and Iran has not acted suicidal in the past by attacking the US. Therefore one's fears of Iran attacking us are comparable to fears of our shadow attacking us.


Fear can make you go places you should not go. Look to Iraq for the most recent example!

People need to get a grip on their fear!

Action against Iran should have been taken a long time ago when their military nuclear capability was less advance, but even now, the US is the only country able to destroy this capability before it becomes completely out of control and poses a world wide threat to stability.

Catawba said:

Iran would still be no match militarily with the US, so it would be suicide to attack us, and Iran has not acted suicidal in the past by attacking the US. Therefore one's fears of Iran attacking us are comparable to fears of our shadow attacking us.


Fear can make you go places you should not go. Look to Iraq for the most recent example!

People need to get a grip on their fear!

Click to expand...

And what world do you live in that Muslim extremist do not carry out suicide attacks? That is the problem with Iran, they are muslim extremist, it is their religous blelief that all people should either be converted to their version of Islam or die. Since they believe the are doing allah's will, they believe he will protect them from reprecussions or they will die, which ever is his will. Doing his will is far more important to them than whether they live or die.

Mya said:

Action against Iran should have been taken a long time ago when their military nuclear capability was less advance, but even now, the US is the only country able to destroy this capability before it becomes completely out of control and poses a world wide threat to stability.

Click to expand...

There is more evidence that Israel already has nuclear weapons than there is that Iran is close to having them.

DVSentinel said:

And what world do you live in that Muslim extremist do not carry out suicide attacks? That is the problem with Iran, they are muslim extremist, it is their religous blelief that all people should either be converted to their version of Islam or die. Since they believe the are doing allah's will, they believe he will protect them from reprecussions or they will die, which ever is his will. Doing his will is far more important to them than whether they live or die.

Click to expand...

Many nuclear countries have extremists, including our own.....................:shrug:

Ikari said:

No...we're broke!

Click to expand...

Thoughts from the Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower -

Catawba said:

There is more evidence that Israel already has nuclear weapons than there is that Iran is close to having them.

Click to expand...

This thread is not about Israel nuclear capability but rather Iran's.

In any case, Israel does not pose a threat to the Western world as does Iran.

Mya said:

This thread is not about Israel nuclear capability but rather Iran's.

In any case, Israel does not pose a threat to the Western world as does Iran.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think Israel could as easily disrupt life in the western world more easily than Iran.

Catawba said:

I disagree. I think Israel could as easily disrupt life in the western world more easily than Iran.

Click to expand...

then we will agree to disagree.

Catawba said:

Many nuclear countries have extremists, including our own.....................:shrug:

Click to expand...

Tell me, are those extremist with a phylosophy of hate and intolerance who are willing to murder children in the name of their god in control of our government? They are there. We are not talking about having extremist, but the extremist ruling the place.

Doing the Will of God is the most consistant, most defining cutlural element in the Arab mid-east. Until you understand that basic fact and understand what the koran says, you have, nor can you have even the smallest understanding of the middle east. Whorshiping another god is a capital offence in sharia law, so is a woman marrying a non -muslim man (they are stoned to death quite often when it happens). There are many, many lethal intollerances in their beliefs.

DVSentinel said:

Tell me, are those extremist with a phylosophy of hate and intolerance who are willing to murder children in the name of their god in control of our government?

Click to expand...

FBI Uncovers Terror Plot in Georgia

They are there. We are not talking about having extremist, but the extremist ruling the place.

Click to expand...

As has been noted, the Iranian government has not acted suicidal in the past.

DVSentinel said:

Tell me, are those extremist with a phylosophy of hate and intolerance who are willing to murder children in the name of their god in control of our government? They are there. We are not talking about having extremist, but the extremist ruling the place.

Doing the Will of God is the most consistant, most defining cutlural element in the Arab mid-east. Until you understand that basic fact and understand what the koran says, you have, nor can you have even the smallest understanding of the middle east. Whorshiping another god is a capital offence in sharia law, so is a woman marrying a non -muslim man (they are stoned to death quite often when it happens). There are many, many lethal intollerances in their beliefs.

Click to expand...

IMO, bombing and killing innocent men, women and children, who have never done anything to anyone, is also pretty bad.

EdWagemann said:

I'm not one to promote stuffing the genie back into the bottle. Nukes are a part of reality and we must deal with them.



Well, lets at least compare our facts, shall we?

By 1981, USA had 4,000 planes capable of delivering a nuclear bomb. Russia had 5000.

USA defence spending for 1981 = 178 billion dollars. By 1986, it was 367 billion dollars.

By 1986, it is estimated that throughout the world there were 40,000 nuclear warheads - the equivalent of one million Hiroshima bombs.

British Intelligence estimated that just one medium sized H-bomb on London would essentially destroy anything living up to 30 miles away.

The Nuclear Arms Race

Click to expand...

Your facts and conclusions are filled with errors.

Globally there are now approximately 23,000 nuclear warheads.
(Upated as of October 2009)

Russia 13,000
United States 9,400
France 300
China 240
United Kingdom 185
Israel 80
Pakistan 70-90
India 60-80
North Korea <10

Estimated Total: 23,375

This total is from the Federation of American Scientists source:
Federation of American Scientists :: Status of World Nuclear Forces

(FAS data is from the Nuclear Notebook in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,
and the nuclear appendix in the SIPRI Yearbook.)

Click to expand...

How many nuclear weapons are there in the world?

Many are "tactical grade" .... less than 50kt.

Many are not "operational"... not ready to go. Experts have estimated that the former USSR's nuke missle arsenal would have experienced a 30% or higher failure rate if launched. Maintaining a nuke warhead is difficult and relatively expensive and requires experts.

Most modern "strategic nukes" are less than 300kt yield.

Info on a 100kt warhead:

The W76 is a United States thermonuclear warhead. It was manufactured from 1978-1987, and is still in service as of 2009.

The W-76 is carried inside a Mk-4 re-entry vehicle. U.S. Trident I and Trident II Submarine Launched Ballistic Missiles may carry W76 warheads as one warhead option, along with W88 warheads in the Trident II.

The dimensions of the W76 and Mk-4 reentry vehicle which carries it are not known; only the warhead's weight of 362 pounds (164 kg) has been disclosed.

The W76 has a yield of 100 kilotons.

The upgraded W76-1/Mk4A will be used in both American and British submarines.

Extensions to the service lives for 800 of the warheads was approved by the US government in 2000, then later increased to 2,000. The project is scheduled for completion in 2018.

The warhead is currently the most numerous weapon in the US nuclear arsenal

Click to expand...

200kt is also a common yield. Let's look at the effects of a 200kt warhead...



The heavy-damage radius is 2.4 miles... this doesn't mean everyone within 2.4 miles is a goner, but lets take that as a rough "circle of destruction".


How many of these would be required to totally destroy Britain?

Britain's area is 88,744 square miles.

One 200kt nuke, with a heavy damage radius of 2.4 miles, has an area of "destruction" of a=pi(r-squared) about 18 square miles.

It would take 88,744 / 18 = 4,930.... that is 4,930 typical strategic nukes to more-or-less totally destroy all of Britain... a large chunk of the world's nukes.

BTW.... most attacks on civilian targets are air-bursts, which typically do not produce much if any fallout.

To destroy the world, whose land surface area is 148,900,000 sq km, compared to bomb destruction area (in km2) of 50 sq km... would require 2,978,000 median-heavy nuclear bombs.

Two million, nine-hundred seventy eight thousand, bombs. We are not anywhere near that number.


Now, people will bring up radiation and fallout and "nuclear winter" and claim it would only take a much smaller number of nukes to eradicate all life on earth. Nonsense. Airbursts do not produce much if any radioactive fallout, and immediate dosage is only of concern to those who are line-of-sight to the blast and moderately close. "Nuclear winter".... well the whole topic is highly debateable and probably would NOT be the end of humanity by any means, especially since airbursts would not be a major factor, but conventional wisdom used to be that 3,000 megatons of nukes could MAYBE cause "nuclear winter"... that would be at least 15,000 of the strategic bombs we're talking about... if there even are that many of strategic yield, and if they are operational as many are not, it is hard to imagine even the worst nuclear exchange using that many warheads.


So there ya have it.... facts.

ChrisL said:

IMO, bombing and killing innocent men, women and children, who have never done anything to anyone, is also pretty bad.

Click to expand...

Good thing that US Forces actually take into account the Geneva Conventions and do concern themselves with collateral damage then, it would be a shame if it was done by someone who might intentionally target innocent men, women and children, (the US does not) say someone like the regime in Tehran.

DVSentinel said:

Good thing that US Forces actually take into account the Geneva Conventions and do concern themselves with collateral damage then, it would be a shame if it was done by someone who might intentionally target innocent men, women and children, (the US does not) say someone like the regime in Tehran.

Click to expand...

Yes, true, but the thread title is about bombing, and then we have some people talking nukes. Kind of hard to pick and choose WHO you are taking out that way I would think.