It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
gonna take a bit more than that.
Originally posted by ferretman2
with a few nuclear missles
"The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven. By imposing sanctions—including military ones—against Iraq but not against Israel, the UN is merely acting in accordance with its own rules."
What if we come to a situation where say a nuclear stockpile is hidden in a reinforced bunker really far underground, and we dont have the technology to destroy it conventionally? Of course we wouldn't senselessly launch minutemans at populated cities, I think we would use the nukes tactically where its needed, and for the shock and awe as long as it doesnt put hundreds of thousands of people in danger.
Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
If Iran actually attacked another country, Israel for example, using nuclear weapons, the U.S. should respond with a massive and decisive NON NUCLEAR attack on Iran's military infrastructure. If nukes HAD to be used (?), I would hope that the only nukes used were strategic, low yield weapons.
Keep in mind that most Iranians are, well, regular people just like you and me. They have no real say in what their leaders do. They are innocent.
Just because Iran, in this scenario, attacks and kills countless innocent people using nuclear weapons does not justify OUR killing countless innocent people in kind. That is senseless.
I believe that most ATSers would disagree with me however, I also think that there are many ATSers who simply do not comprehend the consequences of using nuclear weapons. When a nuclear weapon is used NO ONE WINS.
Radiation would make an geographical area unusable for generations. Radioactive fallout would travel on the winds and would render large areas, downwind, subject to severe contamination and, in doing so, would subject even more innocent people to radiation disease, death and subsequent cancers for decades.
I am not someone would call a pacifist but I am realist. Nuclear weapons are an abomination and a crime against ALL mankind. I grew up in the fifties and sixties. I played the "tuck and cover" games in my grade school. My father prepared a fallout shelter in our basement during the Cuban Missile Crisis and we played those paranoid "what if" games until we all breathed a sigh of relief when the crisis ended. Since that time, I have read quite a bit about the effects of nuclear weapons and came to a simple conclusion; Nuclear weapons can NEVER be used.
Originally posted by Animalmother
Of course we wouldn't senselessly launch minutemans at populated cities, I think we would use the nukes tactically where its needed, and for the shock and awe as long as it doesnt put hundreds of thousands of people in danger.
Originally posted by spearhead
They won't get nukes.... the world won't let them. If they do get nuclear technology it will be supervised by the UN or something.
there will be war and they will be obliterated.