Prominent U.S. Physicists Send Letter to President Bush

  • News
  • Thread starter scott1
  • Start date
  • #1
339
1
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" [Broken]
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" [Broken]
I don't think that were going to use nukes against Iran but I do think it is possbile.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
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
 
  • #3
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.
 
  • #4
1,430
5
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.
 
  • #5
EL
Science Advisor
550
0
luckycharms said:
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.
 
  • #6
EL
Science Advisor
550
0
franznietzsche said:
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.
 
  • #7
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
EL said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
EL said:
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.
 
  • #9
EL
Science Advisor
550
0
Pengwuino said:
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?
 
  • #10
EL
Science Advisor
550
0
Pengwuino said:
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?
 
  • #11
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
EL said:
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.
 
  • #12
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
EL said:
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....
 
  • #13
EL
Science Advisor
550
0
Pengwuino said:
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"?
 
  • #14
EL
Science Advisor
550
0
Pengwuino said:
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"?
 
  • #15
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
EL said:
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.
 
  • #16
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
EL said:
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).
 
  • #17
EL
Science Advisor
550
0
Pengwuino said:
No he didn't from what I remember.
But that is the main point...
 
  • #18
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
EL said:
But that is the main point...

what do you mean?
 
  • #19
EL
Science Advisor
550
0
Pengwuino said:
what do you mean?
That in this case Bush has explicitely said that nukes is an option against Iran.
 
  • #20
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
EL said:
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?
 
  • #21
EL
Science Advisor
550
0
Pengwuino said:
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?
 
  • #22
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
EL said:
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....
 
  • #23
EL
Science Advisor
550
0
Pengwuino said:
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.
 
  • #24
Pengwuino
Gold Member
5,009
16
EL said:
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 theres other realistic options, i dunno, its 2am and im doing 4 things at once, i can't think.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
EL
Science Advisor
550
0
Pengwuino said:
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?
 

Related Threads on Prominent U.S. Physicists Send Letter to President Bush

Replies
23
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
87
Views
6K
Z
  • Last Post
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
S
  • Last Post
2
Replies
29
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
D
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
47
Views
5K
Top