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.

 

If a Nuke is dropped, what will happen next?

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by dgtempe

Originally posted by Lanton

Originally posted by dgtempe



Could you please explain in what possible circumstances would the use of nuclear weapons by either the Iranians or United States against each other or, in the case of the Iranians carrying out a nuclear strike on Israel, result in the end of the world?
Do you think other countries will sit by while we wipe out whomever? I dont think so- Take cover. They'll be coming from every which way.
Are you sadistic? Do you think this is all well and good?
I dont want to come off as someone who disrespects your beleifs but think about it.

The last time i looked, Iran's the only country in the Middle East with the possible near-term capabilities of developing nuclear warheads and the launch vehicles to strike Europe and U.S. military forces in the Middle East.

I really don't see who would have any real problems with the U.S. taking out the Iranian regime and using tactical or strategic nuclear weapons in the process. The Chinese and Russians are hardly likely to retaliate against the U.S. militarily (that's an absurd suggestion) and why would it be in the interests of any other Middle Eastern countries to strike the U.S.? At the end of the day, the dictatorships in the Middle East (Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia etc.) don't want to give up the power they wield over their people. If they were the strike the U.S. then the U.S. would turn around and remove them from power.




posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by Lanton


posted by dgtempe: “Sure, look at the significance of evil this way. A nuke is potentially an end of the world device, which the UNITED STATES looks upon as a casual weapon, TILL IT HITS HOME. Where are you going to hide? Are you human? No offense, but you need to look at the ramifications of this. [Edited by Don W]


Could you please explain in what possible circumstances would the use of nuclear weapons by either the Iranians or United States against each other or, in the case of the Iranians carrying out a nuclear strike on Israel, result in the end of the world? [Edited by Don W]


The world has gone on since 1945 - for 61 years - without using a nuclear device in anger. I was alive and well when the August 6 and August 9 bombs were dropped on Japan. I am sorry it was done but I supported Pres. Truman then and I support Pres. Truman now. The world was enveloped in total war and it is ludicrous to argue whether the US should have used the bombs or not. Pres. Truman would have been impeached and rightly so, if it was learned we had a decisive weapon and did not use it. You cannot turn a nation’s energy to wage war on and off like a light switch.

In 1973, in the early days of the Yom Kippur War, when the Egyptians were moving easily across the Sinai towards Israel, Israel warned Egypt that should the very existence of the State of Israel come into question, Israel would use nuclear bombs on the Aswan High Dam. Half the population of Egypt would have been a risk from the rushing waters thereby unleashed.

Because there are 150 million Arabs living in 1 million square miles of space, and 6 million Jewish persons living in less than 10,000 square miles. I hate nuclear weapons. But until the world is free of them, I can accept the use of any weapon including nuclear by Israel, as a weapon of last resort, to preserve their existence. Fini.

Nuclear weapons exist to be used - that is what they are ultimately there for. Because what's the point of having them as a form of deterrence if, when push comes to shove, you're not willing to use them?

Not only that, but who's saying that, in the case of this recent flap, the U.S. would use nuclear weapons against civilian population centres? Practically, I can only see the U.S. carrying out nuclear weapons strikes on Iranian C3 centres and, of course, Iranian strategic weapons sites and other military installations. The Israeli's, by the way, have BMD systems do deal with the specific threat of the use of short- to medium-range ballistc missiles against Israeli soil.

I'm pretty confident, anyway, that the Israeli's would pre-emptively take out the Iranian threat if it became self-evident, so this talk about the U.S. pre-emptively taking out the Iranian nuclear threat is pretty academic to begin with.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   
I read these type of threads and, with some posters at least, I wonder whether I actually want to share a planet with such people.

But anyway, heres my take on the situation.

If you accept the 9/11 scenario that Muslim Fundamentalists carried out an attack on the US, killed 3,000 people flying airplanes into buildings and managed to effectively paralyze the world for 24 hours - and in some cases longer - while measures were put into place preventing other such events happening, then its not a difficult conclusion to reach that - whatever their reasons - there are a group of people out there who are seriously cheesed off at the US.

So the US decides, in its own imitiable way, that the world - and in this case Iran - needs to do exactly what it says (and not, incidentally what it does) and not develop uranium enrichment/nuclear fuel for reactors/weapons grade material. Based on this decision the US carries out a pre-emptive strike on military installation in a predominently muslim sovereign state using a nuclear weapon.

Given the scenario that Al-Queda is real, and that at any one time there are hundreds/thousands of people willing to do similar things that the hijackers on 9/11 did, how much fuel does the US want to pour on the fire? How long, after that point, before the middle of a major US city or urban area disappears to a suitcase nuke - and at what cost to life would that be? Think about it. You cannot ever secure a border properly. All it take is one, successful attempt - say New York at rush hour - how many would die?

And who would you blame and how could you retaliate? It might just have been one seriously pissed off individual that did it. It might have been a group of people - but it certainly won't have been a who damn country.

And thats the problem with alot of people here. They apparently blame everybody for the mistakes/misguidedness/inhumanity of a few. What form of lunacy wants to wipe out a whole country over the actions of a few people?

And if you study war, you will find that attacking a country tends to galvanise the people, not make it back down. Thats why the UK is still here, and why Russia is still there, and why France has its own independent nuclear forces. So once the attacks start - from either side - unless someone backs down and stops upping the ante the only result is unthinkable.

So why doesn't the US drop the aggressive stance? Why doesn't it apply the same morals to Iran has it has to India recently? Why doesn't it say "look, we have these damn things - they're a curse, lets work together and prevent them being used?"

The answer is becasue it doesn't suit the US to. And when you are the worlds current major power, having a stubborn inflexible attitude is not going to win you any friends.

Don't believe me? Ask the Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Romans, the Greeks, the Mongolians, the Vikings, the Saxons, the Germans, the British, the Japanese... I could go on. Great empires and ideals initially flourish by force but then tend to get rebelled against. Its that simple really.

Nuke Iran and expect no reprisals in one form or another? Don't be silly.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 07:40 AM
link   
If the USA use a nuclear weapon against Iran , then IMO israel would be glassed about 2 hours later , right befor the baghdad gets hit as well (and other us bases in iraq)



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   
neformore; the United States was not attacked on 9/11 primarily as a result of it's machinations in Middle Eastern politics (for example it's past support of Saddam and the Shah or Iran, it's links with Saudi Arabia, it's involvement in the Iran/Iraq conflict, the Soviet-Afghan war, the '91 Gulf War and US military presence in land of the two holy mosques). Bin Laden sought to strike out at the dictatorships in the Middle East indirectly, by directly striking out at at the United States - a country that has historically supported a number of crooked regimes in the Middle East. What i'm trying to say by this, is that the 9/11 attacks did not happen directly as a result of U.S. foreign policy decisions in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world.

It's likely that Al-Queda's operations in the United States have now been rolled up (or at least been made ineffective), which would explain why Al-Queda shifted it's focus, after the invasion of the Iraq in 2003, to attacking easier prey (namely the U.S.'s European allies; e.g. the Madrid and London bombings).



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   
First off the US is not going to be the first to nuke someone. All you guys should get the pictures of mushroom clouds out of your heads. If anyone is going to get nuked it will be Isreal. And if that happened they would retaliate. The US isn't going to nuke anyone for Isreal just like Russia isn't going to do it for Iran.
The US isn't threatened by Iran because they can't reach us yet. When they can though it will be a differant ballgame. The US dosen't have to use nukes they can level that country with conventional weapons. Iran can have all the nukes they want,but if there are no cities and no economy then what good is it.
And for all of you who think Bush is a cowboy and the US is a rogue state because of our mideast policies,open your eyes what has come out of the middle east in the last 500 years beside terrorism and oil. Nothing. The middle east needs to join this century and get out of the 13th century.
Maybe the people living in the middle east countries should take the anger they have towards the US and Isreal and direct it at their own goverments.They should want to learn why their leaders have all this wealth and the common person has none and is unemployed. Whats unemployment in middle east countries these days 40-50 opercent.Why aren't the people getting any of this oil wealth. The only one in the last 50 years that has tried to do something is Bush.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lanton
neformore; the United States was not attacked on 9/11 primarily as a result of it's machinations in Middle Eastern politics (for example it's past support of Saddam and the Shah or Iran, it's links with Saudi Arabia, it's involvement in the Iran/Iraq conflict, the Soviet-Afghan war, the '91 Gulf War and US military presence in land of the two holy mosques). Bin Laden sought to strike out at the dictatorships in the Middle East indirectly, by directly striking out at at the United States - a country that has historically supported a number of crooked regimes in the Middle East. What i'm trying to say by this, is that the 9/11 attacks did not happen directly as a result of U.S. foreign policy decisions in the Middle East or anywhere else in the world.

It's likely that Al-Queda's operations in the United States have now been rolled up (or at least been made ineffective), which would explain why Al-Queda shifted it's focus, after the invasion of the Iraq in 2003, to attacking easier prey (namely the U.S.'s European allies; e.g. the Madrid and London bombings).


Yeah...ummm...where did I discuss any of this in my post? Please re-read it and tell me?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 09:07 AM
link   
What is really the issue is very subtlely different than you might think. It's not about dropping the nuke. It's about the potential to do so.

Having this ultimate card to pull out of the deck evens the playing field on some level.

Iran having nuclear capability is less about worrying about a rogue state, and more about the increased 'clout' if you will, implied by having the ability to pull this rabbit from the hat.

It changes the balance of things in the middle east. Not just by taking the sole distinction from Israel, but by giving Iran additonal weight and influence, which would embolden radicals. And who's to say who they might share their technology with? Once the cat's out of the bag, it's free to run where it will. Can you imagine the middle east with dozens of nuclear players?



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
The world did not take action against the Nazi's till they attacked a third country. If the USA attacks Iran without UN approval, with nukes. IMHO the world will rise up against us. Iran would be the third country attacked by us.

any thought??



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
Before this snafu in Iraq, the world really was not sure what a super power could do. Now we know what it can’t do. It can’t quell an insurgency that threatens a country. Probably not more than 15,000 active insurgents and maybe another 50,000 waiting yo be recruited. And the most powerful armed forces on the planet are stymied!

Thank you Geo W, VP Cheney, Sec. Condi Rice and Herr Oberfuhrer. We have lost our edge due to your unmitigated and appalling self-assured ignorance. You're America's Gang of Four!

[edit on 4/13/2006 by donwhite]



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:38 AM
link   
I woudnt be suprised if the u.s has the best hackers and would use them to disrupte on enemies computer system so they could not launch a nuke at us or an alliy.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by donwhite
Before this snafu in Iraq, the world really was not sure what a super power could do. Now we know what it can’t do. It can’t quell an insurgency that threatens a country. Probably not more than 15,000 active insurgents and maybe another 50,000 waiting yo be recruited. And the most powerful armed forces on the planet are stymied!

Thank you Geo W, VP Cheney, Sec. Condi Rice and Herr Oberfuhrer. We have lost our edge due to your unmitigated and appalling self-assured ignorance. You're America's Gang of Four!

[edit on 4/13/2006 by donwhite]


if America was allowed to fight a war and not this politically correct thing they are doing now there wouldn't be any insurgents,there would be no place for them to hide because everything would be blown up.
Do you think D -Day was planned well,how about the Battle of the Bulge. How many thousands were lost.
We are fighting in Iraq with one hand behind our backs.Wake up.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 10:51 AM
link   
Why is it you people here on ATS and probably other conspiracy sites are the only people worrying about a nuclear war? noone on the streets, at the malls, at work, at school, or even in the jails are talking or worried about a nuclear war. The idea is silly people, and the only people who are promoting this agenda is certain individuals of the administration who have to quickly deny it as a misunderstanding.

Frankly, I do not see any nuclear weapons blowing up anywhere in an attack for another 20 years at least. IF EVER AGAIN.
"OMG BUT IRAN IS GOING TO GLASS EVERYONE BLAH BLAH RUN HIDE DESTROY!!" seriously some of you need to take a chill pill and just enjoy life.

The primary goal of the world governments is to keep the global economy running uninterrupted. A nuclear weapon attack will not be very nice for the global economy. But to humor you, if it were to occur, then all you have to do is read my post on page two to see what happens. Every reaction to the agressor will be purely for the sake of money. Not religion, vengance, or treaties. The reaction will be for the sake of the economy.

If Iran is the agressor the US will begin a bombardment campaign that will result in heavy losses on both sides. The Iranians have very good capabilities to knock our planes out of the sky. Consider they have not been bombed for the last ten years as Iraq was. Their military is more developed. The terrain is trickier and easier to hide in. America will not initiate nuclear until they have physically been attacked nuclear.

For the sake of humoring you alll, if US decides to nuke first, they will be forced to evacuate their bases from many locations across the globe, or else they will be attacked in many cases. This will elimibate their ability to travel their forces with ease as has been for the last few decades. In which case they will only be able to bring in troops through Israel. The UN will force them out of Afgahnistan. Then of course you have to deal with Syria because of their Mutual protection Pact. The war will end in a matter of days to be honest if any nuke is dropped. And kno the world will not be bombed to hell. To say that is to be calling all nuclear powers dumbass retards, considering most are not even involved in this conflict.

Life will go on as usual in America, but we may not have azs many luxuries as before, they will be alot more expensive.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:06 AM
link   
How do you know that Iran will shoot our planes down. Have they ever been tested by a real military. Our armed forces are the only tested and battle experienced in the world right now. People keep underestimating the US.
The US is fighting in Iraq with one hand tied behind there backs.They can't do this they can't attack here. Don't do that it might hurt their feelings. Let the service fight a real war and they would tear them a new butt hole.



posted on Apr, 13 2006 @ 11:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThePieMaN

Originally posted by HumptyDumpty
There seems to be a kind of anticipation from some members of this board (i assume any board) for a nuke war... or to be more specific, a nuke war that causes a 'mad max' type world situation.

I think a lot of religious people would like this to happen too as they would think it would bring their messiah.

I just like a good dust-up. Kind of reshuffle the deck again. I think I might also get a kind of psychological release from a nuclear war, after having been threatened with it (and, I admit, entertained by it) my whole life. It would be like, "okay, FINALLY!" Then we can move on to other things.



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 02:45 PM
link   
Steve99 American fighter jets are not invulnerable to everything in the world. Our pilots may be highly experienced and skilled fighters, but they do not have magical forcefields around them that will stop incoming enemy fire. The terrain is not mostly flat and barren with no cover like Iraq.

In order to bomb anything in Iran they will have to fly over some high mountains. Those mountains could be filled with all kinds of SAMS and AA Turrets. Not to mention the fact that because they are already several thousand feet in the air those weapons are already much closer to the planes and will hit them quicker. They can all easily be hidden in caves and forests waiting until radar picks something up. All they have to do when the first plane is spotted is relay the message across the whole nation and everything in the mountains that COMPLETELY SURROUND Iran will go on alert and be ready to attack anything that is flying.

NATO did lost quite a few aircraft in the Kosovo region during that little incident in Clinton's Term It was even reported an F-117 was hit and forced to land at an airbase, although this may never be confirmed. Strangely enough these reports claim the destruction of a good number of UAV's, considering most of the American populace did not even realize they existed at that time. I bet most of us on ATS, besides the military buffs of course, did not even know UAV's existed in 1999.

Of course the biggest difference here is American, or NATO helicopters will not be able to fly in quickly and recover their parts because those can be easily destroyed with shoulder fired rockets upon visual sighting. Remember much can be hidden in mountains and forest. Especially considering an Air Strike is an official declaration of war and all of the Iranian armed forces will be scrambled to heir borders. That will mean both sides airforces will be forced to engage in aerial battles. Will make for glorious history and war footage though. Has been too long since we seen a good air fight with modern weapons.

[edit on 4/14/2006 by DYepes]

[edit on 4/14/2006 by DYepes]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Yeah....American helicopters going into Iran and coming back, I don't think so. Operation Eagle Claw back in the Iran Hostage Crisis. I'm still looking it over, cause I was still unborn at the time, but from what I am seeing it's pretty much an instance of Americans thinking that we can do anything we want, and having our tushes handed back to us.

EDIT:

Okay, it was even worse than I thought, we didn't even make contact with Iranian forces. Mother Nature handed our tushes back to us


Well, I suppose that's what happens when you let the CIA run things, and not the military, who knows better how to do these things, right? Not saying that they should have been doing it in the first place, but eh, that's before my time, so I will just stay out of it.

But still, it is an instance of where Helicopters won't be the optimum piece of equipment for any kind of an air strike on Iran. Not sayint that there exists any piece of military hardware that could do any better, is there?

[edit on 4/14/2006 by Sir Solomon]



posted on Apr, 14 2006 @ 05:30 PM
link   
Umm Soloman what exactly are you trying to point out? I did mention that Invading forces would be unable to recover their destroyed aircraft from the battlefield with helicopters, which they did in the Kosovo war.

Oh well as long as you understand that American forces will definetly sustain a number of aerial casualties if they decide to engage in an assault, then we are on the same page.

Like I said, if our administration decides to duke it out, it would make wonderful entertainment on the media channels. I'll watch this war on my video phone everywhere I go. Cannot wait to see video footage of our wonderful weapons in action as well as the Iranian counter-forces.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 05:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Steve99 American fighter jets are not invulnerable to everything in the world. Our pilots may be highly experienced and skilled fighters, but they do not have magical forcefields around them that will stop incoming enemy fire. The terrain is not mostly flat and barren with no cover like Iraq.

In order to bomb anything in Iran they will have to fly over some high mountains. Those mountains could be filled with all kinds of SAMS and AA Turrets. Not to mention the fact that because they are already several thousand feet in the air those weapons are already much closer to the planes and will hit them quicker. They can all easily be hidden in caves and forests waiting until radar picks something up. All they have to do when the first plane is spotted is relay the message across the whole nation and everything in the mountains that COMPLETELY SURROUND Iran will go on alert and be ready to attack anything that is flying.

NATO did lost quite a few aircraft in the Kosovo region during that little incident in Clinton's Term It was even reported an F-117 was hit and forced to land at an airbase, although this may never be confirmed. Strangely enough these reports claim the destruction of a good number of UAV's, considering most of the American populace did not even realize they existed at that time. I bet most of us on ATS, besides the military buffs of course, did not even know UAV's existed in 1999.

Of course the biggest difference here is American, or NATO helicopters will not be able to fly in quickly and recover their parts because those can be easily destroyed with shoulder fired rockets upon visual sighting. Remember much can be hidden in mountains and forest. Especially considering an Air Strike is an official declaration of war and all of the Iranian armed forces will be scrambled to heir borders. That will mean both sides airforces will be forced to engage in aerial battles. Will make for glorious history and war footage though. Has been too long since we seen a good air fight with modern weapons.

[edit on 4/14/2006 by DYepes]

[edit on 4/14/2006 by DYepes]


I'm not saying the planes can't be shot down.What I am saying are the Iranians good enough to get them. The Iranian military and it's weapons are not tested in real combat as the americans are.

In Gulf war 1 the Iraqis were supposed to be so tough and we would lose alot of men. They turned and ran. Same thing this time also.

It seems to me that these middle east countries talk tough but when the time comes to show your stuff they turn and run,or hide behind woman and children or in a mosque were we can't get them.



posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by DYepes
Umm Soloman what exactly are you trying to point out? I did mention that Invading forces would be unable to recover their destroyed aircraft from the battlefield with helicopters, which they did in the Kosovo war.

Oh well as long as you understand that American forces will definetly sustain a number of aerial casualties if they decide to engage in an assault, then we are on the same page.

Like I said, if our administration decides to duke it out, it would make wonderful entertainment on the media channels. I'll watch this war on my video phone everywhere I go. Cannot wait to see video footage of our wonderful weapons in action as well as the Iranian counter-forces.



The Iranian air force isn't tested like the US air force. I don't think we would lose that many planes to them. Thats even if their stuff works.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join