News Will the US use Nukes against Iran?

  • Thread starter Art
  • Start date
A

Art

More from today's papers;

Iran - Bush 'ready to use nuclear weapons'

The White House is stepping up plans for a possible air strike on Iran and, in a shock revelation, is seriously considering using 'bunker buster' nuclear weapons, according to a report by influential investigative journalist Seymour Hersh.
Hersh's story in the April 17 issue of the New Yorker magazine, mostly citing unidentified current and former officials, says President George W. Bush views Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a "potential Adolf Hitler," and sees "regime change" in Tehran as the ultimate goal.

"This White House believes that the only way to solve the problem is to change the power structure in Iran, and that means war," Hersh quotes an unidentified senior Pentagon adviser on the war on terror as saying.

The White House, without denying the report, reiterated that it was pursuing a diplomatic solution. "We are not going to discuss military planning," said spokesman Blair Jones.
<snip>
The Pentagon adviser is quoted as saying some senior officers and officials were considering quitting over the plans to use nuclear weapons.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=382508&in_page_id=1811 [Broken]

It's about time the terror of Bush's War on Terror was brought to an end.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A

Amp1

Yep, its on the mainstream media now too. This in light of some posts I read that we (the US) had stopped the tactical (bunker buster) nuke program. [sarcasm]Yeah right[/sarcasm]. The news reports I saw said much the same as your snip Art - that senor pentagon officers and officials have grave concerns about the use of tactical nukes on Iran. There was talk about Bush drawing a line in the sand where he will order the use of these nukes, I think it is when Iran starts making enriched Uranium or Plutonium or something like that.
 

russ_watters

Mentor
18,638
4,873
vanesch said:
Naah. Big talk, that's all...
selfAdjoint said:
I agree. The current effort is Iraq is about all we're up to.
Echo, echo.
 

SOS2008

Gold Member
18
0
U.S. seen stepping up war plans for Iran

Washington Post
By Peter Baker, Dafna Linzer and Thomas E. Ricks
Updated: 10:32 p.m. ET April 8, 2006
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12225188/

No matter how the U.S. looks at it, the risks are always too high.

Joseph Cirincione, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: "Whatever you do," he said, "is almost certain to accelerate a nuclear bomb program rather than destroy it."
What it boils down to is a paranoid Israel putting pressure on the U.S. to act aggressively against all Arab enemies, real or perceived. Israel makes me think of a woman who is always getting her husband or boyfriend into fights because of her.

The administration is also coming under pressure from Israel, which has warned the Bush team that Iran is closer to developing a nuclear bomb than Washington thinks and that a moment of decision is fast approaching.
And Israel is threatening to take action on it's own if the U.S. does not (as if that wouldn't automatically draw the U.S. into the conflict).

Israel is preparing, as well. The government recently leaked a contingency plan for attacking on its own if the United States does not, a plan involving airstrikes, commando teams, possibly missiles and even explosive-carrying dogs.
The reality is no Arab country is crazy enough to attack Israel. It is all rhetoric.

The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally, Israel," Bush said. "That's a threat, a serious threat. . . . I'll make it clear again that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel."
The U.S. does not need to engage in military action, nor does Israel in order to keep the peace. Like Mutually Assured Destruction during the Cold War, Israel's, the U.S., and eventually Iran's nuclear arsenal will prevent war from happening.

In the meantime, I believe Bush welcomes Iran's threats as a diversion from all the other bad news.

...the White House, in its new National Security Strategy, last month labeled Iran the most serious challenge to the United States posed by any country.
It is making us all forget the price of gas is skyrocketing again (etc., etc., etc.).
 
Last edited:
147
0
Will the US use Nukes against Iran?
Has the US demonstrated a nuclear explosion during a time of war? Yes, Japan, 1945.

Has the US demonstrated they are fully capable of a pre-emptive strike? Yes, Iraq, 2003.

Has the US demonstrated they are not fully capable of a pre-emptive nuclear strike during a time of war? Not yet.

Just like a salesman; he can get a thousand no's, but one yes and he wins.
 
Last edited:

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,546
1,668
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060411/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iran_nuclear_16;_ylt=AiRu8X8sOf.JYSvOKWBI7XBSw60A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl [Broken]

No nation has pre-emptively used nuclear weapons, that is as a first strike against another nation. The U.S. is the only nation to use nuclear weapons in a conflict during World War II.

It would be a very dangerous precedent.

I heard someone mention today that both Russia and China might have retargeted (or may be considering retargeting) the US with their nuclear missiles! I hope that was pure speculation, since that would mean we re-enter the Cold War, which now won't be so cold. It just increases the risk that conflict for limited resources will escalate.

It was pointed out that most of the Iranian oil is toward the Gulf Region, although I suspect that there is considerably more reserves in the Caspian Sea. The US could occupy the oil regions of Iran, and do so without resorting to nuclear weapons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,546
1,668
The argument that the enrichment is sufficient for nuclear reactor fuel is somewhat disengenous since the Iranian could use Canadian CANDU technology, which the Canadians have used successfully for decades, and which has been exported to Romania (Cernavoda), Argentina (Atucha) and Korea (Wolsung).

So maybe the Iranians want LWR/VVER technology, but the Russians and others can supply the fuel.

Nevertheless, there is no valid reason to pre-emptively attack Iran. But then, there was no valid reason to attack Iraq - which doesn't seem to be a problem for the Bush administration.
 
11
0
More fuel:Iran Could Produce Nuclear Bomb in 16 Days, U.S. Says
Here we go!!!! Let's play hardball....

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000100&sid=aduNTcpDuDd4&refer=germany [Broken]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
11
0
I thought that Iraq had failed to meet the requirements of Resolution 1441? What does one do next, pass the buck?
 
Astronuc said:
Nevertheless, there is no valid reason to pre-emptively attack Iran.
Not even if it is run by murderers who kill their own countrymen on a daily basis and are now threatening to destroy other countries (Israel) and are intent on getting their hands on the most destructive weapon in human history?
When does it become reasonable to attack them? When they have annhilated us and killed millions more? The world is going the way of Neville Chamberlain here.
 

SOS2008

Gold Member
18
0
Unlike Israel, Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which gives them the right to peacefully use nuclear technology for energy generation. The U.S. completely supports the development of nuclear energy globally and "without discrimination," and Iran has shown a clear need to do so.

Even with prior U.S. support and assistance, it has taken Iran until 2006 to enrich uranium to reactor-grade from 164 of their centrifuges - 39 years since the program began in 1967. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran's_nuclear_program#Timeline

By the late 1990s the U.S. Intelligence Community estimated that Israel possessed between 75-130 weapons, and no doubt the amount has increased. I am so done with Zionist alarmists -- stop it for peace sake.
 
And Mr. Murderer has promised never to kill again.
Promises mean nothing unless they are backed up by actions. And the actions of Iran in regard to human rights, and given its statements in regard to Israel and the Holocaust, it would be ridiculous and foolish to trust them.

Tell me, in science a theory is shot down if it doesn't pass even one experiment, why should such murderous thugs be given chances after chances?


As for Israel, even if it has nuclear weapons (which it likely does), it has demonstrated that it is a responsible rights respecting nation which will not go around nuking other nations at random. Though Israel has not signed the NPT, it is loads better and more reliable than Iran which has signed it.
 

turbo

Gold Member
3,028
45
sid_galt said:
As for Israel, even if it has nuclear weapons (which it likely does), it has demonstrated that it is a responsible rights respecting nation which will not go around nuking other nations at random. Though Israel has not signed the NPT, it is loads better and more reliable than Iran which has signed it.
A responsible and rights respecting nation that established itself through ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians and refuses to pay reparations and honor the right of return for the victims as mandated by the UN as a condition for recognition? The same nation that calls all the Palestinian attacks "terrorism" while assassinating Palestinians at will and bulldozing peoples' homes into the ground on the suspicion that a family member might be involved in the defense of the Palestinian territory? That's funny...not. As Noam Chomsky says, for Israel to consider giving back the Gaza Strip and the West Bank is like a violent home-invader, who after 60 years of occupying your house and torturing your family offers to let you live in the cellar and the attic, but is torn about the decision because he has grown fond of the attic.
 

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,546
1,668
sid_galt said:
Not even if it is run by murderers who kill their own countrymen on a daily basis and are now threatening to destroy other countries (Israel) and are intent on getting their hands on the most destructive weapon in human history?
The US has tolerated killings of citizens by many countries, particularly dictatorships supported by the US in South and Central America. Yes, the 'hardliners' in Iran have been calling for the destruction of Israel and perhaps now the US.

Iran is not in imminent possession of a nuclear warhead (while N. Korea may have several), and even so, that is still far away from the most destructive weapons, which are thermonuclear warheads.

sid_galt said:
When does it become reasonable to attack them? When they have annhilated us and killed millions more? The world is going the way of Neville Chamberlain here.
It is only reasonable to attack, when there is incontravertible evidence that an attack is imminent. Ummm, Iran is not going to annihilate us.

For the moment, I prefer political/diplomatic solutions - not war. Unfortunately, the present administration does not seem competent with such a process.

Certainly Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has expressed some rather hostile statments in regard to Israel and the US. Nevertheless, this is not a reason to go to war. The US and the rest of the world need to use every diplomatic method possible to achieve peaceful cooperation with Iran - and where possible, support moderates and reformers in Iran.

Shalom - Salaam - Peace :cool:
 
Last edited:

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
173
No way this will happen. Were this an issue three years ago, maybe, but Bush has made such as mess that he has no real power now.
 

SOS2008

Gold Member
18
0
Ivan Seeking said:
No way this will happen. Were this an issue three years ago, maybe, but Bush has made such as mess that he has no real power now.
Too bad BushCo used Powell and ruined his career, resulting in his resignation. The only member of the Bush administration that can even speak intelligently is Rice, but unfortunately she drank the Wolfowitz/Perle neocon Kool-Aid.

In the meantime, BushCo (pressured by Israel) has fallen into Ahmadinejad's trap and have made him a world renowned figure for the extremists. We need to stop fueling his fire. Regime change in Iran? We need new leadership in the U.S. first, and ASAP.

Too bad Bush was reelected in 2004 with the primary goal of destroying the Judicial Branch (anyone see the interview with Sandra Day O'Connor?). I wonder, are all the Christo-Fascists happy now?
 
Last edited:
Astronuc said:
The US has tolerated killings of citizens by many countries, particularly dictatorships supported by the US in South and Central America.
And the US was wrong about that. But because it was wrong before does not mean it should continue that policy.

Astronuc said:
Iran is not in imminent possession of a nuclear warhead (while N. Korea may have several), and even so, that is still far away from the most destructive weapons, which are thermonuclear warheads.
So why not destroy them right now when the resulting destruction and deaths will be minimum? Why wait for a threat to grow before attacking it? That is what happened in the 1930s. And look what happened!

Astronuc said:
It is only reasonable to attack, when there is incontravertible evidence that an attack is imminent.
What more evidence could there be when Iran is almost openly threatening the free world and freedom itself?

Astronuc said:
For the moment, I prefer political/diplomatic solutions - not war.
When they have never been successful before, why do you think they would be successful now? Tell me, would you support the ether theory even though it has failed experimentation?
Why is there a different standard for Iran?

Astronuc said:
Unfortunately, the present administration does not seem competent with such a process.
The present administration is worse than incompetent in handling a war. But attacking Iran is better than sitting on our hands and doing nothing.

Astronuc said:
The US and the rest of the world need to use every diplomatic method possible to achieve peaceful cooperation with Iran
The same methods by which we let the North Koreans acquire the bomb?

Astronuc said:
Shalom - Salaam - Peace :cool:
I too like peace. But peace is a state when your enemies have been destroyed.
 

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
sid_galt said:
I too like peace. But peace is a state when your enemies have been destroyed.
...or convinced by reason, that being an enemy is not in their best self-interest.
 
2,904
13
And the US was wrong about that. But because it was wrong before does not mean it should continue that policy.
Explain to me exactly how Iran is a dictatorship, or killing its citizens?

So why not destroy them right now when the resulting destruction and deaths will be minimum? Why wait for a threat to grow before attacking it? That is what happened in the 1930s. And look what happened!
Eh, what? Why not destory a country? No, this is not what happened in the 1930's sid. Maybe you should go read a history book. You will find that Iran has never once attacked another country in some 230+ years. Sid, turn off Fox news, and get yourself some real news sources.


What more evidence could there be when Iran is almost openly threatening the free world and freedom itself?
Really? When did Iran threaten freedom or the free world? They made statements against Israel, but Israel is not the entire free world. Get your facts straight, man.


When they have never been successful before, why do you think they would be successful now? Tell me, would you support the ether theory even though it has failed experimentation?
Why is there a different standard for Iran?
That was a totally useless and pointless comparison.

The present administration is worse than incompetent in handling a war. But attacking Iran is better than sitting on our hands and doing nothing.
Obviously not. At least Iraq was contained before the war, now it's a freaking mess. Sitting on our hands was working just fine. More wrong information sid....tisk tisk tisk...........


The same methods by which we let the North Koreans acquire the bomb?
Wrong again, we never let the north koreans build a bomb. They announced they had one to our surprise.

I too like peace. But peace is a state when your enemies have been destroyed.
If that is true then, no. You have no clue what peace is.
 
Last edited:
A

Art

Iran defiant ahead of UN report

Mr Ahmedinejad said Iranians should not be denied their rights
Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad says his country "does not give a damn" about UN resolutions seeking to curb Tehran's nuclear programme.
He was speaking as the Security Council prepared to receive a report from the UN nuclear watchdog on whether Iran had met demands to halt uranium enrichment.

Iran insists it will not abandon its right to enrich nuclear fuel for what it says are wholly peaceful purposes.

The US says the UN must take action if Iran is found not to have complied.

The US secretary of state says the Security Council's credibility is on the line over its handling of the issue.
Speaking at a meeting of Nato foreign ministers in the Bulgarian capital, Sofia, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said the council's credibility would be tested over how it dealt with Iran.

"The Security Council is the primary and most important institution for the maintenance of peace and stability and security and it cannot have its word and its will simply ignored by a member state," she said.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4952984.stm

lol such irony!!

The UN Security Council is only an important institution so long as it supports US policies. In the immediate pre-Iraqi invasion period the Bush administration called this same institution irrelevant!!

The U.S. is not concerned with the integrity of the United Nations in general or of the Security Council's resolutions specifically. The Bush administration is only concerned with whether the U.N. dutifully follows its every wish. If they don't, then they are "irrelevant"; if they do, then they are "meeting a great challenge."
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/israel-palestine/2003/0218istheun.htm

Where was the US insistance on security council resolutions being adhered to in respect to resolutions 242, 248, 256, 267, 298, 347, 515, 573, 672, 1322 and 1435?

The current US stance would be almost laughable were it not for the fact that this hypocrisy leads directly to the deaths of thousands of innocent people.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
6,987
14
I guess I haven't really followed the news here carefully enough to resolve many questions I have :

1. Does the UN have proof/evidence that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons ? (ie: Has anyone said "look, we found aluminum tubes !") :wink:

2. Does the NPT prevent a signatory from developing civilian nuclear technology ?

3. Is Iran allowing free access to IAEA inspectors ?
 
A

Art

Gokul43201 said:
I guess I haven't really followed the news here carefully enough to resolve many questions I have :

1. Does the UN have proof/evidence that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons ? (ie: Has anyone said "look, we found aluminum tubes !") :wink:
Nope, no evidence at all. The former ruler of Iran, the Shah, did have a covert nuclear weapons program with (unwitting??) assistance from West Germany (who built the Bushehr reactor in the 70s) and the US (who provided a research reactor in 1967) but this program was halted by Ayatollah Khomeini immediately upon his taking control of the country in 1979 as he believed WMD were immoral. The current crisis stems from a 1995 agreement between Iran and Russia for Russia to complete the unfinished Bushehr reactor.

Despite full monitoring of the work at Bushehr by the IAEA accusations of covert weapons production was raised in 2002 by an Iranian exile group, the NCRI. These accusations were jumped on by Bush leading him to include Iran in his 'axis of evil' speech in 2002. However it is worth bearing in mind that it was Iraqi exile groups who falsely claimed Sadam still possessed secret WMD stores in order to persuade the west to exercise 'regime change'.

Gokul43201 said:
2. Does the NPT prevent a signatory from developing civilian nuclear technology ?
Nope, in fact it expressly allows signatories of the treaty to develop civilian nuclear technologies including enrichment.

Gokul43201 said:
3. Is Iran allowing free access to IAEA inspectors ?
After initial recalitrance (Iran did not declare it's heavy water production site at Arak but claims it had no obligation to do so until the project was completed at which time it would become subject to IAEA scrutiny) Iran came into full compliance with the IAEA but have stepped back following their referral to the security council. They have said they will once again offer full access to IAEA inspectors if they are not threatened with action through the security council. Understandable really as otherwise the IAEA will be compiling targeting information for a possible US led attack.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Astronuc

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,546
1,668
1. Does the UN have proof/evidence that Iran is currently developing nuclear weapons ? (ie: Has anyone said "look, we found aluminum tubes !")
Well, Iran apparently does have centrifuges to enrich uranium, and they have claimed to enriched uranium to 3.6% U-235. This is suitable for light water reactors, but not nuclear weapons. They would have to continue the enrichment process about 25-fold to achieve 90%. That would also mean that they need 25 kg's at 3.6% to get 1 kg at 90%.

The concern is that Iran would continue the enrichment program to achieve the necessary quantites of 90% U-235 or better, in which case they would have nuclear weapons, and the missiles to deliver them.

As for 2, as Art mentioned, peaceful uses of atomic energy are permissible under the NPT.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Nonproliferation_Treaty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_Nonproliferation_Treaty#Iran
 
L

laurelelizabeth

Related Threads for: Will the US use Nukes against Iran?

Replies
41
Views
5K
Replies
48
Views
6K
Replies
126
Views
9K
P
  • Posted
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
4K
S
Replies
28
Views
22K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top