posted on Nov, 18 2011 @ 01:44 PM
reply to post by jcord
Well, it would have to be one of the world powers who would use it. For one, Iran does not have an air force to invade the united states, or to
utilize in nuke deployment. So, knowing that, any nuclear delivery would have to be by ICBM. If we did not have the Reagan "Star Wars," the United
States still has multiple surface based ICBM defense measures, which would be used to defend any nuclear attack on any of the "NWO" nations. Of
course the idea is that any nuclear attack that is to be carried out on U.S. or the like, soil would be in a suit case bomb, which would be
catastrophic indeed, but would not be as powerful as Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This however would still not be enough to warrant nuclear retaliation.
Think about it this way, the only interest in capturing Iran would be in taking control of the oil wells. If we turned the entire area to radioactive
glass then how could we possibly take advantage of the wells, if they are even still in existence.
I can see a valid argument in using a nuclear weapon on a nation like North Korea, as circumstances would be very similar to an attempt at invading
the Japanese islands. But what do we have to gain from invading North Korea?
A better question is, what does any nation have to gain by attacking the United States? Any legitimate attack would unite the populations of the
United States, which would provide a united industry as well as a massive boost in the number of soldiers in our military. But it wouldn't be
necessary. Our greatest weapon, in my opinion, is our predator drones. Today, carpet bombing is largely unnecessary on soft targets, as one UAV is
capable of eliminating a city, without, putting troops in harms way or giving the opposition a chance at fighting back. If our mission became as
simple and draconian as killing scores of unarmed civilians, this is the weapon we would use, and we would become very skilled at it.
In my opinion, the argument of ritualism, does not hold it's water.