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

News Will the US use Nukes against Iran?

  1. Nov 13, 2005 #1


    User Avatar

    Unlikely, Farfetched? Possibly but the articles referenced below suggest that the US gov't is quietly creating the right political and legal environment to nuke Iran as a deterrent to other countries both nuclear and non-nuclear.

    In support of the authors' argument one of them quotes from the Pentagon draft document 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' which cites reasons why nuclear weapons would be used including
    I am interested to see what the views of the members here are about the articles themselves and whether they think nuking Iran is an option which is being or should be seriously considered.


    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 13, 2005 #2

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Absolute insanity.
  4. Nov 13, 2005 #3
    :bugeye: Good God... This can't be right.

    Kind of like how bombing terrorists deters them from bombing us back. How is that going again?
  5. Nov 13, 2005 #4
  6. Nov 13, 2005 #5
    There's a few problems with this guy's prediction, for example:
    never gonna happen...
  7. Nov 13, 2005 #6


    User Avatar

  8. Nov 13, 2005 #7


    User Avatar

    That's what the author thinks optimistic pentagon planners may be thinking. He disagrees and goes on to say why.
  9. Nov 13, 2005 #8
    Personally I think this is just another oil scam. If countries are hindered from producing nuclear energy -> better for the oil companies.
    ah. missed that.
  10. Nov 13, 2005 #9

    Jesus christ, you people are loony if you actually think we would preemptively use nuclear weapons.

    For one, we don't have the capability to commit to a war in Iran. Iraq is enough of a problem set currently. Secondly the president cannot launch nuclear weapons unless we are in a state of war. Thirdly, the man's not stupid, contrary to what you would like to believe. Underestimating your enemy is what lost you the election. Not catching on soon enough what they were doing with the gay amendment issue, that was plain stupidity on the Democrat's part. Preemptive nuclear strike on a nation that has not commited an act of agression? Do you know what china and russia would do IMMEDIATELY? Wipe us off the map. China especially, they know that they are facing major conflict with us in the next 50 years, at least economically, and militarily depending on how taiwan runs it course. Anyone who doesn't see that is blind. China sees us attacking a country with NUCLEAR weapons that hasn't actually threatened us? We're dead. And I gaurantee you Bush knows that.

    Jesus christ, am I the only person in this subforum still connected to earth enough to see past blind hatred for Bush?
  11. Nov 13, 2005 #10
    Hey I never actually thought it was gonna happen anyways. And I don't ahte Bush anymore than I hate any other world leader, past and present.
  12. Nov 13, 2005 #11

    Fair enough. Personally I think the guy is corporate whore. But he also didn't go on national TV and declare that the "W" in George W Bush stands for wrong, after which I had and still have absolutely no respect for John Kerry or the Democratic party. They lost the election because of their own stupidity, and now they're getting four years of what they deserve. You do not, ever, ever underestimate your opponent and assume he is a dullard moron (even if he is). You just don't do that, not if you actually want to win. You always assume he's smarter, better prepared, and more popular than you. And then you plan like everything is on the line, because it is. Apparently though, the Democrats are ruled by emotions, like their blind hatred for bush, not logic and reason. All they can think about is voting against republicans, not voting FOR democrats. A sure recipe for defeat.
  13. Nov 13, 2005 #12
    You've been tangoed :biggrin:

    Nobody here has actually said that they thought this would happen...

    Its an option, but a serious one, I doubt it.. Nuking Iran will only lead to ww3, a war which will change the world for good, and probably the US wouldnt come out of it smelling too good, neither would Europe
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2005
  14. Nov 13, 2005 #13


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    What do I think? I think people need to stop posting this kind of krap. This amounts to crackpottery. It's fear mongering. Can we have threads that discuss non-flaky, non-conspiracy news?

    For those of you that prefer facts to slanted tabloids, here is an article that explains what the documnet contains. It is not a new document, it is a revision and it has not been approved.

    Revised US nuclear doctrine outlines preemption strategy

    By Walter Pincus, Washington Post | September 11, 2005

    WASHINGTON -- The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to preempt an attack by a nation or terror group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons.


    Now I'm no expert, but I'd like to find out how this can be done safely. "The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons."

    There are also some good concerns raised here: https://www.mmrs.fema.gov/news/terrorism/2005/sep/nter2005-09-12.aspx [Broken]

    I will see if I can find the related article.
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  15. Nov 13, 2005 #14
    It will never happend.We just finished the cold war and we really don't need another cuban missile crisis.Also everone is going to invade for using wepons of mass desturtion.We'll get kicked of NATO and going to have worry about the British milltary in Iraq with the terriost.Also no one in the goverment want's kill 1,000's of innocent people like that.
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2005
  16. Nov 13, 2005 #15


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  17. Nov 13, 2005 #16


    User Avatar

    The US armed forces current brief includes the requirement to be able to fight 2 major conflicts in 2 separate theatres simultaneously.
    This is incorrect. I suggest you read the draft pentagon document I referenced. One of the reasons WHY the document has been rewritten is specifically to allow for preemptive nuclear strikes.
    The article proposes the possible escalation path that could lead to a nuclear strike.

    a) an airstrike by Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities (as the Israelis did against Iraq's nuclear facilities)
    b) retaliatory strike against Israel by Iran
    c) US support for their Israeli allies quickly leading to war between Iran and the US.
    d) Iran attacking US forces in Iraq with overwhelming numbers before the US can effectively reinforce.
    e) The US defending it's groundtroops through the use of battlefield nuclear weapons as allowed for in the 'Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations' (see extract below)
    I have bolded those items whereby this doctrine would allow the use of nuclear weapons in the scenario suggested.

    As you can see there is no legal (as Iran has been declared outside the protection of the non-proliferation treaty) or operational impediment to the use of nuclear weapons if the above draft is ratified..

    As to how Russia and China would react? I doubt very much they would be prepared to have their countries rendered uninhabitable in a nuclear war on behalf of a country they do not even have a military alliance with and so it is unlikely that besides protesting loudly they will do much else.

    If Bush's admin sees it that way too then there is actually nothing to stop the above scenario unfolding. Bush is not going to allow 150,000 US troops to be killed by Iran's well equipped military of 550,000 people when he has a way to prevent it and possibly the american public given the hard option of deciding whether or not to sacrifice so many troops lives in a conventional war against superior numbers will support him.

    Also as you state above and as the article suggests the US and China seem to be on a collision course at the moment and so it is possible the US may decide a gamble such as this may actually strengthen their hand in negotiations with China in arms limitation talks thus forestalling a much bigger conflict in the future.

    (I removed your comments re the democrats for no other reason than that it was OT)
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2005
  18. Nov 13, 2005 #17


    User Avatar

    Glad to see you found it. And that you see it is considered highly controversial and so perhaps worthy of discussion on a POLITICAL forum. Now may I ask that as a mentor you do your research BEFORE posting comments such as this
    That's twice in 2 days you have ridiculed posts of mine only to then find (shocking as they are) they are well substantiated. That I think in anybodys terminology amounts to ad-hominem attacks.

    Now an apology would be nice!!!!
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 13, 2005
  19. Nov 13, 2005 #18
    Being realistic, the US probably won't use 'nukes' on Iran the way they used 'nukes' in WW2.

    Do depleted uranium weapons count as 'nukes'? If so, the US deploy 'nukes' all the time!

    (http://www.midhudsonnews.com/News/DU_Zimet-13Nov05.htm [Broken])
    Last edited by a moderator: May 2, 2017
  20. Nov 13, 2005 #19


    User Avatar

    Hopefully you are right but it is a matter of grave concern that they are looking for the right to use nukes in circumstances that would have been unthinkable a few years ago and one wonders why?
    This paradigm shift is thought to have been initiated from the very top
  21. Nov 13, 2005 #20
    The nukes that are being developed are called "micronukes" or "bunker busters" and supposedly have great precision and a smaller blast. As I understand it, the military may be able to target sites that conventional weapons can't reach.

    Nukes have the advantage of requiring less military than an invasion. Someone made an argument earlier that we don't have the man power for a nuclear war - but that's backwards. You need less manpower for a nuclear war.

    I expect micronukes are more palatable than WWII nukes, and that some would consider this approach acceptable - I certainly would not be one of those people.

    Not to derail the thread - but I was appalled to see that we used chemical weapons in Fallujah last year - this is also unconscionable and against international law (if I understand correctly.). I see no reason why an administration that will invade, torture, and use chemical weapons would refrain from using nukes, particularly high tech nukes that they can claim are capable of "surgical strikes."
    Last edited: Nov 13, 2005
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook