We should nuke Iran

Toronto Sun (Canada) ^ | Saturday, September 2, 2006 | MICHAEL COREN

[Saint Louis]

I think use of neutron bombs on nuclear installations would be effective.

Consider all of the positive tactical and strategic values to destroying the Islamo fascists in Iran.

We need a Republican victory in the elections to pave the way for Bush to do what is necessary.

[RJS1950]

Keep in mind that the Tomahawks were originally designed to carry tactical nuclear warheads and still can. That would still be the best payload to ensure destruction of their capabilities.

[RJS1950]

Their leaders are there because they permit it and allow it to happen/continue. Germans civilians died in WWII because they allowed corrupt and evil leadership to happen and thrive. You don't allow evil leadership to hide behind civilians.

[SuziQ]

My reasoning still applies. The regular Iranians on the street have no control over their leaders so why should they die for their leaders' hubris and intransigence?

[SuziQ]

We can accomplish what we need to accomplish without destroying an entire country and making it unliveable for centuries to come.

What makes you think Iraq is being lost? Are you basing your opinion on what you see in the news or what a few pundits happen to say?

Iraq may continue to be volatile and even violent for many years, but they've tasted that freedom that comes with self-determination, and I don't think they're going to forget that.

[SuziQ]

You don't allow evil leadership to hide behind civilians.

So, by your reasoning, if a slim majority of Americans elects a corrupt President with which Iran has a beef, then Iran has the right to nuke us? Heck, why don't they have the right to nuke us right now? They think we are the Great Satan, and that our President is the worst kind of human. Iwannajihad thinks he's totally justified in nuking Israel and us. Would you agree that it would be justified since the American people and the Israeli people voted for and support their leadership?

I don't agree with that, that's why I don't agree with nuking any other country and killing non-combatants, because we believe their leaders, elected or not, are dangerous.

[monkeywrench]

Look, their side is gearing up for nuke war. The question is, what is acceptable number of civilian losses to you? Do we wait for them to nuke first?

The iranians have built their nuke processing facilities around civilian centers. So sorry, but, if it's between their children and mine, I know where I stand.

[mkjessup]

I tend to agree, but there is something you are missing. Unfortunately, the fallout would contaminate a large portion of Pakistan and India.

They would need to take cover for a minimum of 2 weeks, possibly 3 to 4, until the worst of the fallout decayed.

If we nuke Iran, Pakistan and India will just have to bite the bullet. Let 'em build fallout shelters, it was good enough for America in the 50's and 60's, it's good enough for them.

If Iran gets a nuke operational, you can bet the rent they won't be worrying about any residual effects on their neighbors. If anything, U.S. nukes are "cleaner" than the dirty sort of weapon likely to come out of Tehran.

Bottom line: areas receiving fallout depend largly upon wind patterns on the day of detonation. Some areas will be lucky, others not quite so.

[mkjessup]

Look, their side is gearing up for nuke war. The question is, what is acceptable number of civilian losses to you? Do we wait for them to nuke first? The Iranians have built their nuke processing facilities around civilian centers. So sorry, but, if it's between their children and mine, I know where I stand.

Those are excellent points.

Let's roll the clock back to a hypothetical Summer of 1945, America has just completed the finishing touches on Little Boy and Fat Man, and President Harry Truman receives intel from the Far East strongly suggesting that the Japanese are within a few months or less of having their own atomic weapon.

How long do you think Harry would wait?

I daresay he would be telling Curtis LeMay to get those g-damned B-29s atom-armed and in the air this afternoon.

[RJS1950]

They don't nuke us right now because they do not have the full up delivery or actual weapon capability or both. They have said that they want to destroy us and they will if they achieve that capability. The nazis would have done exactly the same if their program had moved along at a faster pace.

If someone repeatedly expresses the desire and will to destroy us and we know that we can preclude that with a preemptive strike then we do exactly that. Regardless of the precautions taken and I know from having been involved with strategic nuclear planning, some level of collateral damage (dead civilians) will occur. Too bad, so sad. The goal is to defend/protect our country and population and not to worry about the civilians in attacking countries who might die from the blast effects. That is a problem that their POS leadership does not care about and one that we can't risk worrying about other than to try to minimize it.

Make no mistake that Iran would and eventually will place nuclear capability in the hands of terrorist allies with the expressed goal being to strike on U.S. soil. At that point long-range delivery systems are a moot point.

If any western leader through concern about civilian casualties in the offending country allowed that country to strike us in any way when it could be prevented then that leader is corrupt.

Yes Virginia, I don't give two hoots about Irans civilian population and they can all die if it prevents a nuclear strike on our or our allies homeland.

[fanfan]

Canada has Nukes?

Not that I've been told about! LOL!

[doc30]

Let's assess, fairly, to all whom blame is due: Carter, Bush I, Clinton, and thus far, Bush II. Same goes for North Korea.

And don't forget to blame a State Dept. that believed in atability over resolution. Conflict is bad for diplomacy and for certain busness interests.

[sandbox]

Article makes a good argument. Perhaps nuking just one facility--say the Nantez reactor, as a example of what is to come. Also will minimized radioactive fallout.

[Fair Go]

One thing is for certain - Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons. We also need alternatives to oil from the Middle East.

[Springman]

Well I do think the Ontario branch of the Michigan Militia has gotten a little more firepower, since my visit to your Great Country!!!

A little something off the USS Michigan. And they only asked if I was carrying firearms!!!;)

In all honesty, it is good, to read, what a lot of people are thinking. We, as in all of us, will have to deal with Iran, sooner or later. Hope sooner, w/o nukes.

[ConservativeStLouisGuy]

This thread is screaming for a pic.... :-)

[fanfan]

Nice pic!

[ConservativeStLouisGuy]

Thanks, eh! :-)

[hellinahandcart]

review

[Alexander Rubin]

You'd be surprised.