Wouldn't an attack on nuclear facilities and the ensuing fallout risk endangering Israelis as well and the general area?

[edit on 4-10-2007 by Wendigo]

reply to post by Wendigo

---

No, of course not. The US has magic bullets that can strike only the bad guys without affecting their allies. These magic weapons also prevent the baddies from banding together and coming up with a cohesive plan to fight bad. And to top it off, these weapons also contain any potential radiation leak or fallout that might result. It's shockingly awesome!

Sarcasm out.

God damned war nations...

YOU HAVE HIT THE JACKPOT!

That is absolutely right. I have been thinking it also. And it is a true given.

I've been doing research about fed reserve. The US dollar isn't backed up by gold. The feds been printing money ever since it could. In times of war in the past, the US would drop the gold standard to print money to pay for the war. AS any country would.... The Federal Reserve is a joke. Just prints money. The 9 trillion in debt doesn't matter. Where's the 9 trillion in debt owed to? The Federal Reserve? They just print money constantly anyways. And please someone tell me who had 9 trillion dollars to begin with? Cmon... The US can go on printing money. The federal reserve is a joke.

With all the propaganda going about its a sure definate that the US will attack Iran. No doubt in my mind about it. I also believe the US is headed for a planned and orchestrated economic crash.

Nuclear Bunker Buster


^^ that is the biggest misnomer in the world

why? a nuclear device tested underground can and will breach the surface

www.youtube.com...

at a depth of 300 feet the device was only 100kt it still breached the surface.

`enhanced penetrators` used on so called bunker buster bombs will not even get to 100 feet let alone 300 - so all they are doing is surface detonating nuclear weapons.


video.google.co.uk...

these are tests of weapons at depths of up to 2000 feet and still there is surface collapse (and in a famous case a full breach from a deep device)

"Iran's Nuclear Facilities May Be Dug In Too Deep To Hit"

Correct me if Im wrong as im no weapons expert, but why would a nuke need to "go deep" in order to destroy Irans nukes? If you drop a nuke on top of a certain area, then that area becomes a wasteland for the next 100 years anyway. Anyone underground is going to be stuffed eventually when they rise for food and water.

I dont get it.

5>10 years not 100 - Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving cities now


if you start nuking targets openly then the gloves would come off and pandora`s box would truely be opened - imagine China nuking parts of taiwan to ensure succes in `liberation` or the UK nuking Buenos Aires to ensure they wouldn`t reinvade the Falklands again.

Perhaps, but if any radiation was released it would be a small amount because bunker busters don't detonate until the bomb is underground and the explosion is forced downwards. However, I seriously doubt IF we were to attack Iran that the U.S. would use any type of nuclear bomb.

No!
The plan from the beginning was to use ground forces to topple Saddam.


Again, it will be a air and sea attack only. No ground troops!

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan

---

can you please see my post above on shallow depth nuclear explosions and watch the video - the explosion is not `forced downwards` at all and will breach the surface cauing massive radioactive fallout.

edit for typo.

[edit on 4/10/07 by Harlequin]

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan

---

There is no such thing as a small amount of nuclear radiation being released from a nuclear blast and it will only be doubled or tripled by attacking a nuclear facility.

Where do people come up with such stupid notions? There is no such thing as a clean nuclear bomb or safe nuclear energy. Combine the two of them together in an attack on a plant and it only compounds the situation and it does not matter if it is underground or not.

Nuclear plants need water to regulate temperature and it does not matter if it is underground or not. Aquifers will be contaminated and the radiation will seep out into the atmosphere as well.

No matter how you cut it, to attack a nuclear plant with conventional weapons much less nuclear ones is a crime against all of humanity, not just Iranians.

So are you telling me that the same amount of radiation will be released by a high megaton nuclear device as by a small tactical bunker buster nuclear device? See....there is such a thing.


Where do you come up with your false notions?
I don't think anybody said there is such a thing as a clean nuclear bomb but nuclear energy is safe.

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan

---

Like you are going to blast a nuclear power plant with a nuclear weapon and its going to be like ok? Give me a bloody break.

Three mile island and Chynerbol prove you wrong as does all the thousands of tonnes of nuclear waste for which no safe home has been found.

I don't think we could go into Iran without instituting the Draft again. Especially after the debacle of "Shock and Awe" turning into "Long and Hard" in Iraq. I think the fundamental reasons for failure in Iraq have to do with underestimating the resolve of the people of Iraq. Underestimating the deep rifts among muslims as well, and failing to realize how effective a dictator Saddam had been. Without his iron grip, the Shia and Sunnis have been fighting to gain power. Imagine the Republicans vs Democrats here at home, only with automatic weapons, trying to gain congressional districts...

I believe that the US/Israel could knock out Iran's infrastructure, but I think in doing so, they risk creating more Jihadists. People who lose their families due to bunker busting bombs and cruise missles, only have one way to 'fight back' and that would be 'guerilla' or 'terrorist' techniques. I don't endorse the behavior of killing for revenge, but it makes a lot of sense in these situations.

I have never thought the USA should be the policeman of the world, but if it has to be, I want a friendly beatcop, who stops and help people. Not a fascist world policeman who sadistically maims and kills, because it is quicker than actually trying to sit down and talk things out. I don't know. Maybe instead of being the world's policeman, we should invest more here at home...

DocMoreau

Way to dodge my question. I suspect you did so because you realized your first assumption was inaccurate.


Wow, one disaster. Is that all you got?
That does NOT prove me wrong on anything. Nuclear energy is safe.
What would you consider a safe energy?

It's astonishing to read threads like this, when it's obvious to anyone not in the scope of US media brainwashing that

1) Iran has no military nuclear programme and the only ones who claim it does are US hawks with itchy trigger fingers

2) the US lied about WMD in Iraq and this is just more of the same

3) unprovoked aggression against a sovereign state is a war crime.

That's really all there is to be said. Most of the posters here seem completely ok with the US bombing anyone that it likes on the flimsiest of excuses. Good night, good Germans.

reply to post by 4thDoctorWhoFan

---

Three mile island was in the USA and Chernobyl is in Ukraine so , erm , its 2 really...

Your opinion, not fact!


Your opinion, not fact!


Your opinion, not fact! Your definition of unprovoked might differ from mine.


You are entitled to your wrong opinions.

The 3 mile accident led to no deaths or injuries to plant workers or members of the nearby community. So this is not a strong case to point out that nuclear energy is not safe.

Nuclear energy is safe IMO.
Airplanes are considered the safest way to travel yet look at all the deaths from crashes.

i never actually said it wasn`t safe BUT whilst there might not be any `direct` deaths associated with the explosion at 3 mile island - there was a release of radiation (granted nothing like the amount released in 1986) but even so there has been an increase in child defects and cancers in the years following the incident at 3 mile island.