It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iran has Nukes. Does this make it ok for us to nuke first?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2006 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Some of you are talking as if its ok now to nuke Iran. You all for this?

Are you insane?

Just because they have them its ok to go nuke their butts?

Does this justify in your mind if Bush presses the Nuclear button?

Will you rally around him?

Is it deserved?

I dont even know where any of you are coming from when it comes to this.

You dont think Iran or any other nation will strike us and turn us to powder?

Please clarify this for me. I am confused.




posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 12:34 AM
link   
I never saw anybody say iran has nuclear weapons and a delivery system.
I understand that they are just enriching uranium. thats still 10 or 20 away from a longrange dependable missle with a nuke warhead.

Look for a firsttime terrorist nuke in mid november. From within. If i thought people would pay-up, i'd make book on it.



posted on Apr, 23 2006 @ 10:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe
Some of you are talking as if its ok now to nuke Iran. You all for this?


Well, it's like this dg. Iran's government poses a threat to the security of Israel. The moronic Iranian leader has repeatedly called for the destruction of Israel. BTW, the plans are for the use of nuclear weapons on suspected sites, not the general population, to make the suspected area unfit for rebuilding.


Are you insane?


Far from it. It's my belief that certain people will not tolerate peace and therefore must be destroyed(it's not us Americans).


Just because they have them its ok to go nuke their butts?


In an era where superpowers are negotiating the reduction of their nuclear arsenal, you've got a developing nation wanting to aquire them. For almost 60 years nuclear weapons have been used as a deterant to war and it has worked to the extent that there hasn't been any major conflicts, but it hasn't stopped the more than 100 minor conflicts worldwide since WW2.


Does this justify in your mind if Bush presses the Nuclear button?


It'll be justified if Hillary Clinton or John Kerry pushes the "button".


Will you rally around him?


Why should I change my positon now when he's doing exactly what I want him to do?


Is it deserved?


If the threats against Israel are continued, then yes, it is deserved. No one, absolutely no one, will be allowed to influence the anti-Semites to a point where the secrity of Israel could be compromised.

I dont even know where any of you are coming from when it comes to this.



You dont think Iran or any other nation will strike us and turn us to powder?


Iran and thier supporters are severly limited in striking us with nuclear devices and our allies won't even think of doing something that would be detrimental to their well-being.


Please clarify this for me. I am confused.


I'm not for the use of nuclear weapons when diplomacy could work. It's just that on 06 August 45 and 09 August 45 dipolmacy didn't work and millions of lives were spared when the decision was made to bomb Nagasaki and Hiroshima with Fat Man and Little Boy. The same will be done in the future if diplomacy fails.



Originally posted by shot messenger
I never saw anybody say iran has nuclear weapons and a delivery system.


Iran has got that influence to negotiate and aquire a nuclear weapons project and delivery system. For crying out loud, how do you think they put satellites they don't need into orbit?



I understand that they are just enriching uranium. thats still 10 or 20 away from a longrange dependable missle with a nuke warhead.


When you have the device, a delivery system will be the easiest part.


Look for a firsttime terrorist nuke in mid november. From within. If i thought people would pay-up, i'd make book on it.


You got me lost on this one.


[edit on 23/4/06 by Intelearthling]



posted on Apr, 24 2006 @ 02:15 PM
link   
DG. To the best of my knowledge, stated US policy concerning the use of nuclear weapons has always been, and continues to be, the bad guys, who ever they are; use them first, we retaliate.

Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, President Bush would IMHO, be less likely now to use nuclear weapons, then say 3 years ago. Other than some scarey sounding rhetoric Iran hasn't really done anything. Certainly nothing to warrent a nuclear assault.

With the possibility of nuclear weapons floating around on the international black market, the timeline of 10 or 20 years is, again IMHO, looking at the situation through rose-colored glasses. The international community must assume that Iran can, or does possess the capability to deliver, by whatever means, an Atomic strike somewhere in the region.

Having said that ^^. I am in no shape or form advocating anything like a preemptive nuclear strike on Iran. That would be a disasterous action both in lives lost (millions), and in national prestige.

That something must be done is obvious. To think that Irans nuclear ambitions lie soully in mere energy production is blindly naive, and dangerously foolish.



posted on Apr, 25 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling
[

Are you insane?


Far from it. It's my belief that certain people will not tolerate peace and therefore must be destroyed(it's not us Americans).

I disagree, most of you are ok, but you sure have a lot of crazy warmongerers over there, and you know what? i don't thing George Bush is half as bad as most of you, no offence intended to you intelearthling, apart from your "destroy what i don't understand" attitude you seem pretty level headed.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 05:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Intelearthling


Is it deserved?


If the threats against Israel are continued, then yes, it is deserved. No one, absolutely no one, will be allowed to influence the anti-Semites to a point where the secrity of Israel could be compromised.



And I suppose that Israel can't defend themselves? They have done Airstrikes before, they can do them agian there is no reason why we need to keep protecting Israel. And no it is not being Anti-Semite to not care about Israel, it would be wrong to put that nations problem in front of ours.I mean we are gonna have to let Israel takes its first baby steps to becoming something other than America with an accent.



posted on Jun, 14 2006 @ 07:08 PM
link   
dg, I have to agree with Seagull on this one. US policy as I recall calls for retaliation if nukes are used against us. That being said I believe the liklihood of a nuke strike on Iran is very slim. To my knowlege Iran hasn't taken any direct action against us or one of our allies therefore there is no reason for a strike. As we say in prison slang the leader of Iran is talking out his neck but hasn't actually done anything. I personally have no issue with Iran being able to enrich uranium as long as they don't use it to attack another country. It is my hope and prayer that nukes will never again be used as a weapon of war.




top topics



 
0

log in

join