Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Prominent U.S. Physicists Send Letter to President Bush

  1. Apr 18, 2006 #1
    http://www.physorg.com/news64505715.html" [Broken]
    Also the U.S. has no plans to use nukes against
    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: May 2, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 18, 2006 #2

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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
     
  4. Apr 18, 2006 #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.
     
  5. Apr 19, 2006 #4
    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.
     
  6. Apr 20, 2006 #5

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  7. Apr 20, 2006 #6

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  8. Apr 20, 2006 #7

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: Apr 20, 2006
  9. Apr 20, 2006 #8

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I remember this same crap with Iraq. They said they wouldn't use nukes and nothing changed, same rhetoric from people.
     
  10. Apr 20, 2006 #9

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Sorry, I cannot remember someone was worried about US using nukes against Iraq?
     
  11. Apr 20, 2006 #10

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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?
     
  12. Apr 20, 2006 #11

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  13. Apr 20, 2006 #12

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well I do hope so... they're probably as rational as us....
     
  14. Apr 20, 2006 #13

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Ok. But did Bush explicitely say that "nuclear weapons is an option in Iraq"?
     
  15. Apr 20, 2006 #14

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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"?
     
  16. Apr 20, 2006 #15

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
     
  17. Apr 20, 2006 #16

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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).
     
  18. Apr 20, 2006 #17

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    But that is the main point...
     
  19. Apr 20, 2006 #18

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    what do you mean?
     
  20. Apr 20, 2006 #19

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    That in this case Bush has explicitely said that nukes is an option against Iran.
     
  21. Apr 20, 2006 #20

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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?
     
  22. Apr 20, 2006 #21

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    So you really think there's a possibility nuclear weapons will be used against a nonnuclear country?
     
  23. Apr 20, 2006 #22

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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....
     
  24. Apr 20, 2006 #23

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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.
     
  25. Apr 20, 2006 #24

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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: Apr 20, 2006
  26. Apr 20, 2006 #25

    EL

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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?
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook