Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

To nuke, or not to nuke watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    BBC reports: Jack Straw has dismissed claims that the US is preparing a nuclear strike on Iran as "plain nuts".

    The NYT apparently had access to leaked documents detailing US strategies and such against Iranian nuclear facilities, including the possibility of nuclear attack.

    Leaving aside the obvious sensationalism in this news item, how sensible would a nuclear strike be?

    Actually, if we assume for the sake of argument military action of SOME kind is definitely on the cards, a nuclear strike might appear quite a smart choice. The US, in any hypothetical campaign against Iran, needs some way to avoid the bogging-down that has beset it in Iraq. Urban warfare and insurgency are not pretty. What better way to lay the serious smack down on your opponent, at the minimum of risk to your own forces, than taking "shock and awe" to this its logical conclusion? An occupation is pretty much impossible - it would take an army the size of China's to control the whole of Iran - and a nuclear attack would certainly get the message across more efficiently, and louder, than mere surgical strikes.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Err, it doesn't look like you know what you're talking. The nuclear strikes in question are tactical bunker-busting nukes. Their only purpose is to destroy underground installations (which can't be reached by normal bombs).

    And do keep in mind that this is mostly a diplomatic tool. It's meant to show Iran that the military option is on the table to make Iran realize the costs of not cooperating. Otherwise, it would make no sense to release this information, since the US has contingency plans for attacks against most major countries (including Russian and China), so it's a given that it has one against Iran.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Agent Smith)
    BBC reports: Jack Straw has dismissed claims that the US is preparing a nuclear strike on Iran as "plain nuts".

    The NYT apparently had access to leaked documents detailing US strategies and such against Iranian nuclear facilities, including the possibility of nuclear attack.

    Leaving aside the obvious sensationalism in this news item, how sensible would a nuclear strike be?

    Actually, if we assume for the sake of argument military action of SOME kind is definitely on the cards, a nuclear strike might appear quite a smart choice. The US, in any hypothetical campaign against Iran, needs some way to avoid the bogging-down that has beset it in Iraq. Urban warfare and insurgency are not pretty. What better way to lay the serious smack down on your opponent, at the minimum of risk to your own forces, than taking "shock and awe" to this its logical conclusion? An occupation is pretty much impossible - it would take an army the size of China's to control the whole of Iran - and a nuclear attack would certainly get the message across more efficiently, and louder, than mere surgical strikes.
    What delicious irony: the hypothetical production of "bad" Iranian nuclear technology, quashed by the nuclear capability of the ever-benevolent US.

    But yeh, lets nuke those *******. That will solve the problem beyond any doubt whatsoever.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Depends on the type of nuke use and where it was detonated i guess. I doubt we are talking about strategic nuclear weapons as the collateral damage would be too great to justify it. The weapons they probably have plans for are those nuclear tipped bunker busters they have been working on recently.

    As you have mentioned, sensationalism is a problem. I would be suprised if the americans hadn't drawn up plans to use nuclear weapons against iran. This is nothing new, every state draws up plans for all the possible avenues of attack/defence. This is especially true of countries which may pose a significant threat.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why Iran? It supposedly is trying to build a nuclear bomb. Oh but wait a minute, Israel already has hundreds of illegal nukes, why on Earth are the US not threatening Israel with military action?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Apart from the sheer head-in-the-sand idiocy of taking a 'why not treat them the same' attitude to international geo-politics, would you like to explain how Israel's alleged nuclear weapons are in any way "illegal"?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BirchyGreen)
    Why Iran? It supposedly is trying to build a nuclear bomb. Oh but wait a minute, Israel already has hundreds of illegal nukes, why on Earth are the US not threatening Israel with military action?
    Same reason you don't see the Marines landing in London?

    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Apart from the sheer head-in-the-sand idiocy of taking a 'why not treat them the same' attitude to international geo-politics, would you like to explain how Israel's alleged nuclear weapons are in any way "illegal"?
    Ditto. I think I'm going to make it a policy to neg rep anyone who uses that argument.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    Apart from the sheer head-in-the-sand idiocy of taking a 'why not treat them the same' attitude to international geo-politics, would you like to explain how Israel's alleged nuclear weapons are in any way "illegal"?
    :bong: That's how.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JonathanH)
    would you like to explain how Israel's alleged nuclear weapons are in any way "illegal"?
    You mean aside from the fact that they arent allowed them by international law?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BirchyGreen)
    You mean aside from the fact that they arent allowed them by international law?
    They are actually. The only "international law" that forbids nuclear weapons is the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and Israel is not a signatory.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Its worth remembering that Israel has not actually signed the nuclear NPT, which means, unlike Iran they are not breaking international law afaik.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Really? Well i wasnt aware of that. Well they havent exactly been pressured to have they, and any state in the Middle East with nuclear weapons is a bad idea IMO.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BirchyGreen)
    Really? Well i wasnt aware of that. Well they havent exactly been pressured to have they, and any state in the Middle East with nuclear weapons is a bad idea IMO.
    Depends on your definition of "pressurised" is really. The 1995 Review Conference of the NPT issued a resolution on the Middle East which stated that parties to the NPT "Reaffirm(s) the importance of the early realization of universal adherence to the Treaty, and calls upon all States of the Middle East that have not yet done so, without exception, to accede to the Treaty as soon as possible and to place their nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards"

    The reason why there is concern over Iranian nuclear proliferation is because the Iranian President, Mamhoud Amhedinijad said a while ago that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. I think it's a realistic possibility that if Iran were to proliferate nuclear weapons technology, Israel would be the first to take counter-proliferation action against Iran.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BirchyGreen)
    Really? Well i wasnt aware of that. Well they havent exactly been pressured to have they, and any state in the Middle East with nuclear weapons is a bad idea IMO.
    Just like Britain wasn't pressured to join as a non-nuclear power; what's your point?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Treaties are voluntary. And the NPT is pretty useless anyway, North Korea were a signatory and developed a secret nuclear program and then pulled out the treaty when it was convenient.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bismarck)
    Just like Britain wasn't pressured to join as a non-nuclear power; what's your point?
    The nuclear weapon states (USA, Soviet Union (as it was), Britain and China) who had tested their nuclear weapons before 1968 (I think) were exempt from the requirement that all signatories to the NPT needed to be non-nuclear weapon states. France (the 5th NWS) did not join the NPT until the early 1990's.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by martynwilliams)
    Depends on your definition of "pressurised" is really. The 1995 Review Conference of the NPT issued a resolution on the Middle East which stated that parties to the NPT "Reaffirm(s) the importance of the early realization of universal adherence to the Treaty, and calls upon all States of the Middle East that have not yet done so, without exception, to accede to the Treaty as soon as possible and to place their nuclear facilities under full-scope International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards"

    The reason why there is concern over Iranian nuclear proliferation is because the Iranian President, Mamhoud Amhedinijad said a while ago that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. I think it's a realistic possibility that if Iran were to proliferate nuclear weapons technology, Israel would be the first to take counter-proliferation action against Iran.
    For the last time, he didnt say that at all. He said that God would wipe Israel off the map, this is a totally different statement.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Nuking Iran is a bad idea. The Middle East is volatile enough, and if military action was taken, you would go from n% to 90+% of Arabs hating the western world, epsecially America.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Axiom)
    The Middle East is volatile enough, and if military action was taken, you would go from n% to 90+% of Arabs hating the western world, epsecially America.
    Dude, I'm pretty sure n > 90 already.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Great:rolleyes:
    These rumours are just going to increase the hatred in the middle-eastt towards the west
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.