Prominent U.S. Physicists Send Letter to President Bush

[scott1]

Thirteen of the nation’s most prominent physicists have written a letter to President Bush, calling U.S. plans to reportedly use nuclear weapons against Iran “gravely irresponsible” and warning that such action would have “disastrous consequences for the security of the United States and the world.”

http://www.physorg.com/news64505715.html"
Also the U.S. has no plans to use nukes against

The US has rejected suggestions that it might be preparing to use nuclear weapons against targets in Iran.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4894766.stm"
I don't think that were going to use nukes against Iran but I do think it is possbile.

 

[Pengwuino]

13 eh...

The only target they are even speculating about using nukes against is facilities being used to make the bomb for Iran. With all the US firepower availble for such a task, i think the only people seriously discussing a nuclear strike on Iran are sensationalist journalists and moveon.org

 

[luckycharms]

It's all sabre-rattling. You don't say the nuke option is off the table, even if you have no intention of using it. We did this all the time with the Russians.

 

[franznietzsche]

I think people with physics PhDs should not pretend to be experts in geopolitics. As pengwuino points out though, the only people who think that is even a serious possiblity are the sensationalists.

 

[EL]

We did this all the time with the Russians.

Sure, but I think the point is that unlike Russia, Iran doesn't have any nukes. It's the "Using or even merely threatening to use a nuclear weapon preemptively against a nonnuclear adversary" they are objecting to.

 

[EL]

the only people who think that is even a serious possiblity are the sensationalists.

Unfortunately I don't think that's true, especially not in the Middle East.
I think a simple statement like "We won't use nukes against a nonnuclear country" could calm things down significantly.

 

[Pengwuino]

Sure, but I think the point is that unlike Russia, Iran doesn't have any nukes. It's the "Using or even merely threatening to use a nuclear weapon preemptively against a nonnuclear adversary" they are objecting to.

You need to distinguish between the possibility that nukes are going to be used and the probability that nukes are going to be used. If this is just a letter being made with the "we just don't want you to have this option on the table" tone, that's fine although kinda wasteful. I object to any tones that give the impression that the administration is strongly pushing for nuclear deployment however like the sensationalist journalists use.

When it comes down to it, actions speak a whole lot louder then words.

 

[Pengwuino]

Unfortunately I don't think that's true, especially not in the Middle East.
I think a simple statement like "We won't use nukes against a nonnuclear country" could calm things down significantly.

I remember this same crap with Iraq. They said they wouldn't use nukes and nothing changed, same rhetoric from people.

 

[EL]

I remember this same crap with Iraq. They said they wouldn't use nukes and nothing changed, same rhetoric from people.

Sorry, I cannot remember someone was worried about US using nukes against Iraq?

 

[EL]

You need to distinguish between the possibility that nukes are going to be used and the probability that nukes are going to be used.

I distinguish between them. I don't think US will use nukes.
Question is, do people in general, and in specific in the ME, distinguish between them?

 

[Pengwuino]

Sorry, I cannot remember someone was worried about US using nukes against Iraq?

Well if you lived here you woulda heard it occasionally back before the war. Same with afghanistan... sheesh people :yuck: . They weren't journalists saying it though as i remember it... which isn't saying much since i can't remember much.

 

[Pengwuino]

I distinguish between them. I don't think US will use nukes.
Question is, do people in general, and in specific in the ME, distinguish between them?

Well I do hope so... they're probably as rational as us...

 

[EL]

Well if you lived here you woulda heard it occasionally back before the war.

Ok. But did Bush explicitely say that "nuclear weapons is an option in Iraq"?

 

[EL]

Well I do hope so... they're probably as rational as us...

You hope? I hope to, but I'm not that sure at all.
Why not make it clear and say "we won't use nukes against nonnuclear countries"?

 

[Pengwuino]

Ok. But did Bush explicitely say that "nuclear weapons is an option in Iraq"?

No he didn't from what I remember. There was no need. In Afghanistan however, it was an option being developed by the military and on the table because they were developing bunker busting nuclear weapons. I'm not sure why they were so public about it since i think the thing is STILL in development right now.

 

[Pengwuino]

You hope? I hope to, but I'm not that sure at all.
Why not make it clear and say "we won't use nukes against nonnuclear countries"?

Well because we might need to since from what i hear, some of the complexes needed to build nuclear weapons are HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE in acreage. They say that's the absolute only target that would even be considered (which makes me wonder how much of an industrial process this is if we can't deal with it with the juggernaught known as the US military's conventional weaponry).

 

[EL]

No he didn't from what I remember.

But that is the main point...

 

[Pengwuino]

But that is the main point...

what do you mean?

 

[EL]

what do you mean?

That in this case Bush has explicitely said that nukes is an option against Iran.

 

[Pengwuino]

That in this case Bush has explicitely said that nukes is an option against Iran.

I'm not sure Bush said it... but administration officials have said its an option i believe. Iran is not going to get a nuclear weapon... and maybe this scare tactic will stop them from trying. Do the scientists want iran to get the bomb?

 

[EL]

Well because we might need to since from what i hear, some of the complexes needed to build nuclear weapons are HUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGE in acreage. They say that's the absolute only target that would even be considered (which makes me wonder how much of an industrial process this is if we can't deal with it with the juggernaught known as the US military's conventional weaponry).

So you really think there's a possibility nuclear weapons will be used against a nonnuclear country?

 

[Pengwuino]

So you really think there's a possibility nuclear weapons will be used against a nonnuclear country?

Well I want to know how big these facilities are. I mean if you actually need a nuclear weapon to disable them, then it's possible. Do you take into account how big the problem must be if they are making so much trouble for themselves by talking about it if it's not a possible requirement? Like i said maybe it's even a scare tactic. Whatever it takes to stop them...

 

[EL]

Iran is not going to get a nuclear weapon... and maybe this scare tactic will stop them from trying. Do the scientists want iran to get the bomb?

I think threatening with nukes is unnecessary. If US want to threaten Iran, their conventional weapons are certainly more than enough to make it work (if it works at all). I don't think "adding the nukes" will change anything from Iran's point of view, but only make other anti-US-nonnuclear-countries more desperate to get nukes themselves.

 

[Pengwuino]

I think threatening with nukes is unnecessary. If US want to threaten Iran, their conventional weapons are certainly more than enough to make it work (if it works at all). I don't think "adding the nukes" will change anything from Iran's point of view, but only make other anti-US-nonnuclear-countries more desperate to get nukes themselves.

The US military is parked next door and they are enriching uranium as we speak. They haven't gotten the message. You get 2 paths: Threaten them like crazy, they concede, no one dies... or... you say nothing, let them build the nuke, have a war, maybe be forced to use nukes yourself, millions dead when Iran nukes Israel like they absolutely promised to do, Israel retaliates, the worst fears for the ME play out, Israel is forced to irradiate the region to stay alive when every country tries to invade. I'm sure that 2nd option would put us in a great position with all those other non-nuclear countries...

Or maybe there's other realistic options, i dunno, its 2am and I am doing 4 things at once, i can't think.

 

[EL]

The US military is parked next door and they are enriching uranium as we speak. They haven't gotten the message. You get 2 paths: Threaten them like crazy, they concede, no one dies... or... you say nothing, let them build the nuke, have a war, maybe be forced to use nukes yourself, millions dead when Iran nukes Israel like they absolutely promised to do, Israel retaliates, the worst fears for the ME play out, Israel is forced to irradiate the region to stay alive when every country tries to invade. I'm sure that 2nd option would put us in a great position with all those other non-nuclear countries...

Hey, note I've never said we shouldn't put pressure on Iran!
It's the use of "nukes-scare-tactics" I'm objecting to.
Why not "threaten them like crazy" without the nukes?

 

[Pengwuino]

Hey, note I've never said we shouldn't put pressure on Iran!
It's the use of "nukes-scare-tactics" I'm objecting to.
Why not "threaten then like crazy" without the nukes?

Well our army is in position to attack them at any moment. We could start this war at any second. What more threat do you suggest?

 

[EL]

Well our army is in position to attack them at any moment. We could start this war at any second. What more threat do you suggest?

Well, as I said, I don't think "adding the nukes to the threatening list" makes any difference from Iran's viewpoint at all. If US conventional weapons aren't a threat enough, it won't work with the nukes either. All the "nuke-threat" does is to build up more tension in the ME (and the rest of the world). I'm sure US need not use nukes to unarm Iran, and I have to say I would prefer a regular invasion over the use of (tactical) nukes.
Nuclear war is probably the greatest threat against our planet, and must be stopped whatever it takes. (That includes stopping Iran from getting nukes.) Saying that nuclear weapons is an option against nonnuclear countries is in my eyes definitely the wrong way to go.
Anyway, at this moment I suggest diplomacy, economic sanctions, and support for the rebel groups in Iran!
Only after having tried every other possibility, an invasion should take place.
We definitely need to stop Iran from getting nukes, but we need to make sure we don't give birth to larger problems than those we started with.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well we are definitely supporting the Iranian opposition. Diplomacy isn't going to work all that well when you have a guy saying he's going to whipe a nation off the face of the Earth and we really can't seem to get Russia and China on our side. Plus of course the Iranian president keeps threatening us... We're obvoiusly going to try and are trying, but we do need to stop them one way or the other. You can only negotiate for so long and we really can't give the impression that we're willing to talk for years and years, that's going to cause more harm then good.

Seriously, if we can get Iran to stand down but the only way to do it is to simply threaten to use nukes, are you saying you're willing to let a war happen simply because a few words weren't said when they could be?

I personally don't take the alarmist nuclear war view. If we are indeed forced to nuke their facilities because conventional bombing won't work, then it has to be done. One nuke, that's it. Either that and face the consequences of a mad region and a few thousand workers dead.. or iran gets the bomb, Israel is gone, Israel retaliates.

In my opinion, it's last resort, but if it has to happen, if it gets to a point where that actually becomes the only option, then so be it. The alternatives are far worse to think about. I mean you're looking at the total destruction of the middle east because Israel even promised to use whatever they have in their arsenal to preserve their nation... and they have a scary arsenal...

Anyhow, 3am and I am sure this thread will be at page 5 with the usuals by the time i wake up, i got to get going but i appreciate the discussion.

 

[zhang040321]

I also think Bush cannot use nuclear weapens to Iran!It should be wrong!

 

[Entropy]

Um... What the hell do physicists know about global politics? Their job is to build nukes, not tell people how to use them.

 

[Tojen]

Um... What the hell do physicists know about global politics? Their job is to build nukes, not tell people how to use them.

True enough, but they also say this in scott's first link:

“We are members of the profession that brought nuclear weapons into existence, and we feel strongly that it is our professional duty to contribute our efforts to prevent their misuse,” says Hirsch [Jorge Hirsch, professor of physics at the University of California].
​

 

[siddharth]

Um... What the hell do physicists know about global politics? Their job is to build nukes, not tell people how to use them.

What do politicians know about politics ?

I don't think "adding the nukes to the threatening list" makes any difference from Iran's viewpoint at all. If US conventional weapons aren't a threat enough, it won't work with the nukes either

I agree with what EL said above.

 

[Gokul43201]

Um... What the hell do physicists know about global politics? Their job is to build nukes, not tell people how to use them.

They're just exercising their free market clout - I see nothing wrong with that.

"If you want us to continue developing potentially dangerous technology, you'd better give us your assurance that you'll be responsible with it (or else...)"

 

[Astronuc]

Um... What the hell do physicists know about global politics? Their job is to build nukes, not tell people how to use them.

Physicists are citizens of the same community, and some of them may know a lot more about global politics than most of the elected officials. In fact, given the appalling nature of US foreign policy, one has to wonder if any politician knows anything about global politics, and for that matter, knows much about anything, other then self-enrichment. :grumpy:

I participate in the development and use of nuclear technology. I certainly have a responsibility (and a right) to see that it used responsibly and wisely. I dare say that there are probably few people in Congress who grasp the significance of nuclear technology and energy in general. The energy policy in the US is pathetic and generally irresponsible.

 

[scott1]

Um... What the hell do physicists know about global politics? Their job is to build nukes, not tell people how to use them.

It's pretty simple: They have to tell the milltary how to use the bombs without killing our guys.
And ofcource they were the guys who invented them so they do have say about what to do with nuclear weapons