It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


The Human Costs of Bombing Iran

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 04:31 AM

“The number of deaths could exceed a million, and the number of people with increased cancer risks could exceed 10 million,” according to a backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists from May 2005.

The National Academy of Sciences studied these earth-penetrating nuclear weapons last year. They could “kill up to a million people or more if used in heavily populated areas,” concluded the report, which was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Defense.

Physicians for Social Responsibility examined the risks of a more advanced buster-bunker weapon, and it eerily tabulated the toll from an attack on the underground nuclear facility in Esfahan, Iran. “Three million people would be killed by radiation within two weeks of the explosion, and 35 million people in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India, would be exposed to increased levels of cancer-causing radiation,” according to a summary of that study in the backgrounder by the Union of Concerned Scientists.


Bush called it “wild speculation,” and McClellan said the United States would go ahead with "normal military contingency planning."

Those are hardly categorical denials

Do you still think this is a war and we should use up our nukes because we have them? Do you think those innocent men, women and children deserve this?
Do you think there will be immediate retribution if not from Iran, from other countries toward us? I do. Our president seems to think this option is a proper one. You know what? He's dangerous and i beleive he will use nukes. Then what????

[edit on 15-4-2006 by asala]

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 04:35 AM
...ooops i did it again....Mods? Can you fix my stuff? ^

Sorry. AGAIN.

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 05:38 AM
and what will be the human cost if Iran uses their nukes?
weigh it out, what may cost more in the end.

I do wish they would re-consider using conventional weapons, this just looks hypocritical.

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 05:56 AM

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
I do wish they would re-consider using conventional weapons, this just looks hypocritical.

Indeed it does....

In a simplistic nutshell, it is "Don't even think about building any nasty Nukes, even though we have no proof, or we'll Nuke you just in case......"

Hmmm, sounds odd, doesn't it?

Loss of life anywhere is reprehensable, we cannot allow ourselves to rationalise that killing 1 million Iranians would be better than 1 million dead Israelis.

Neither is desirable and both should be avoided, at all costs.

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 06:02 AM
I see your point.

But Bush finds himself at the height of nuclear technology, and madman that he is. he cant wait to try the new toys.

One question remains. Who is crazier? America or Iran? The world is at the hands of two nuts.

Now is the time for the Antichrist to step in.

This can be handled without the use of nuclear weapons. We take out what we assume to be his nuclear powerplants, if necessary.
We dont have enough manpower because of Iraq. Thats the problem.

I wish this administration never existed. If wishes were horses.........

posted on Apr, 15 2006 @ 07:14 AM
Just another reason why an attack on Irans nuclear facilities will never happen.

top topics

log in