Thirteen prominent U.S. physicists have expressed their concerns in a letter to President Bush regarding the potential use of nuclear weapons against Iran, labeling such plans as "gravely irresponsible." They argue that threatening nuclear action against a non-nuclear state could lead to disastrous global security consequences. The discussion highlights the distinction between the possibility and probability of nuclear deployment, emphasizing that while the U.S. has no current plans to use nuclear weapons, the mere suggestion of it raises significant geopolitical tensions.
PREREQUISITESThis discussion is beneficial for policymakers, international relations scholars, military strategists, and anyone interested in the implications of nuclear policy on global security.
http://www.physorg.com/news64505715.html"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://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4894766.stm"The US has rejected suggestions that it might be preparing to use nuclear weapons against targets in Iran.
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.luckycharms said:We did this all the time with the Russians.
Unfortunately I don't think that's true, especially not in the Middle East.franznietzsche said:the only people who think that is even a serious possiblity are the sensationalists.
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.
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.
Pengwuino said:I remember this same crap with Iraq. They said they wouldn't use nukes and nothing changed, same rhetoric from people.
I distinguish between them. I don't think US will use nukes.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.
EL said:Sorry, I cannot remember someone was worried about US using nukes against Iraq?
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?
Ok. But did Bush explicitely say that "nuclear weapons is an option in Iraq"?Pengwuino said:Well if you lived here you woulda heard it occasionally back before the war.
You hope? I hope to, but I'm not that sure at all.Pengwuino said:Well I do hope so... they're probably as rational as us...
EL said:Ok. But did Bush explicitely say that "nuclear weapons is an option in Iraq"?
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"?
But that is the main point...Pengwuino said:No he didn't from what I remember.
EL said:But that is the main point...
That in this case Bush has explicitely said that nukes is an option against Iran.Pengwuino said:what do you mean?
EL said:That in this case Bush has explicitely said that nukes is an option against Iran.
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).
EL said:So you really think there's a possibility nuclear weapons will be used against a nonnuclear country?
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 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?
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.
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...
EL said: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?
Pengwuino said: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?