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

Prominent U.S. Physicists Send Letter to President Bush

  1. Apr 18, 2006 #1
    link
    Also the U.S. has no plans to use nukes against
    link
    I don't think that were going to use nukes against Iran but I do think it is possbile.
     
  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?
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Prominent U.S. Physicists Send Letter to President Bush
  1. Bush, wartime president (Replies: 18)

Loading...