If Iran had a nuke, would they use it on us?

[yurbud]

CNN has poll up asking if people are worried about Iran's nuclear program.

Somehow, nearly all Americans seem to have forgotten that we have about 8,000 nuclear warheads ready to go and 2,000 more in storage.

[ramapo]

1. I don't think they are suicidal

I don't believe that any leader is crazy enough to ever launch a nuke because the U.S. would turn them into glass, even if the nuke wasn't launched against our interests.

[yurbud]

7. yep--Am. Conservative article said Cheney wants nuke attack on Iran

in response to terrorist attack even if Iran didn't do it.

http://professorsmartass.blogspot.com/2005/07/cheney-plans-to-nuke-iran.html

KEY EXCERPTS:

The Pentagon, acting under instructions from Vice President Dick Cheney's office, has tasked the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM) with drawing up a contingency plan to be employed in response to another 9/11-type terrorist attack on the United States. The plan includes a large-scale air assault on Iran employing both conventional and tactical nuclear weapons. Within Iran there are more than 450 major strategic targets, including numerous suspected nuclear-weapons-program development sites. Many of the targets are hardened or are deep underground and could not be taken out by conventional weapons, hence the nuclear option.

As in the case of Iraq, the response is not conditional on Iran actually being involved in the act of terrorism directed against the United States.

Several senior Air Force officers involved in the planning are reportedly appalled at the implications of what they are doing--that Iran is being set up for an unprovoked nuclear attack--but no one is prepared to damage his career by posing any objections.

[elehhhhna]

2. as if they could deliver it! Our airspace is impenetrable. Y'all

remember 9-11, dontcha?

[yurbud]

9. impenetrable when we want it to be...

[Nutmegger]

3. Remember what North Korea said

something along the lines that they need them in order to protect against an increasingly hostile United States.

No one should have nuclear weapons; not Iran, not China, not the United States. How the hell can we be trusted with nuclear weapons after what happened???

[Walt Starr]

4. I can't vote in your poll

Tehre is no choice of "NO - Iran has no delivery system capable of delivering a nuclear device to United States territory.:

[Birthmark]

6. That's what I was thinking

How would they get it here, FedEx? "When it absolutely positively has to explode overnight?"

[High Plains]

10. Good one.

[yurbud]

11. you are right, but righties would cite the terrorist delivery system

even though it would be suicidal as noted.

Making or buying a missile should theoretically be easier than getting the nuke though.

[bullimiami]

5. its the hypocrisy of a government steeped in deadly WMD.

and developing new ones every day.
that has threatened to use them not only in verbal but in written policy statements.
who has a madman for a president that has started aggressive wars, tortured and used nuclear and chemical weapons against iraq.

that this country should tell anyone what they can and cant have and what rules they have to follow is monstrous.

[Richard D]

8. Except North Korea??????/

Don't you mean 'except the U.S."? After, the US is the only country talking about using tactical nukes and the only country to have used nukes against another country.

[yurbud]

14. I was thinking more recently of NK's poker game with us, but you are right

[MADem]

12. Pardon my doubleclick

[MADem]

13. Who is "us?"

Is "us" the USA? They presently do not have a delivery system that would permit them to reach us.

Is "us" our allies, the most obvious one being, of course, Israel, followed by their neighbors and our installed government in Iraq?

There's a lot of sabre-rattling going on there right now, some of it in response to our sabre-rattling. I don't think they are yet in a position to use a nuke, but down the road, who knows? I don't see it as their first option, frankly.

[yurbud]

26. good point--though for military purposes, Israel is US too

Delivery system is an obstacle, but the more important question is the WILL to use it.

Sen. Bob Graham asked that question of Tenet in the run up to Iraq War, and got him to admit Saddam would be unlikely to use it even if he had it.

[stray cat]

15. If an individual or group had a nuclear weapon would they use it?

I can think of alot of people I wouldn't trust if they got a hold of a nuclear weapon. I'm not crazy about unguarded nuclear facilities in the former soviet union or in the hands of governments with plenty of connections with individuals who could use them without discernable footprints back to the original source.

Also fear of retaliation didn't stop 9-11, or the previous bombing of the world trade center, or the bombing in lebanon under Reagan, or the ones in embassies in Africa.

[yurbud]

21. those terrorist acts were by stateless groups, and oddly, we didn't

punish the two countries that we knew gave aid to the 9/11 hijackers: Saudi and Pakistan.

Even George Tenet was forced to admit to the Senate that if Saddam had a nuke, he would not use it or give it to terrorists unless his life and regime were being attacked.

A case can be made for organizations having a death wish, but not countries. Countries generally act in ways that they at least think will advance their interests and survival.

Hitler over-reached, but it wasn't beyond the realm of possibility that he could have succeeded.

No one would believe that nuking the US would have a positive outcome.

Unfortunately, right now we are counting on China, Russia, and even Iran acting more sanely than the Bushies.

[tocqueville]

16. no, but it might use it on Israel

you could imagine a scenario where a religious "nuke-suicide bomber" would try a first strike on Israel. Israel could in that case only retaliate with their submarines. But while Iran due to its size would probably survive, question is if Israel would. Probably the Iranians wouldn't nuke Jerusalem, because it's a holy site for Islam. But you never know... And if the Palestinians would move into the radioactive rubble, it would be difficult to relocate them again...

[yurbud]

22. that would be a great help to the Palestinians, and Israel is so small

that it would slop over onto Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. Very bad manners.

[tocqueville]

28. how long did it take to reocuppy Hiroshima ?

not that long... the problem is that Israel have a population of 7 millions. With a strike only on the 4 major cities 2/3 of the population is gone. The Iranians are 70 millions. Both the Iranians and the Israeli understand the equation.

[Yupster]

30. My guess is

if Iran gets the bomb then a small dirty bomb or nuclear device will explode in Israel and no one will know where it came from and there won't be anyone to retaliate against.

[tocqueville]

37. pure vengeance ? I don't think so

the Al Quaeda amateurs could do so, but not the Iranians. They are too smart for that. If they go after Israel they are going to go big, because it would be their only chance. Imagine the guy caught with the dirty suitcase and singing under torture that the Iranians are behind ? Israel nuke them within 48 hours...

[Silverhair]

17. Only if they could hide where it came from.

They know that if they were found out that their country would cease to exist, and would be radioactive a radioactive glass parking lot.

[Yupster]

31. If Iran only had loyal terrorist groups

in countries neighboring Israel, then they'd be able to do it without getting caught.

[Yupster]

32. But they also know that many around the world

would blame Israel for nuking themselves, or would blame the CIA for doing it to Israel to start a world war.

I think there would be enough doubt expressed that there wouldn't be anyone to retaliate against.

Europe would appeal for calm. The Arab World would mostly blame Israel for nuking itself.

[Silverhair]

35. Nukes leave a signature that fingers the plant where the plutonium

was processed. The world would know. Nobody would give a damn what the Arabs thought. Europe would be scared that somebody fruitcake might target them (They have had some extreme groups too.)and would want the threat eliminated.

[Hobarticus]

18. In Pentagon-talk, it's called Mutually-Assured Destruction....

Meaning that if several nations have nukes pointed at each other, each knows that merely launching a nuke will trigger a devastating retaliation, possibly from every other nuclear-capable power. It's doubtful they would bother to find out where it was headed.

Russia, China, England, France...all the nuclear club knows the rules: pull the trigger, you're dead. It's nuts, but that's what happens when everyone's loaded for bear.

Iran may not be most level-headed guys on the block, but like anyone else, they'd rather be alive than dead.

Read "Wizards of Armageddon", it's frightening but fascinating. The first guys to draw up with nuclear strategy pretty much started drinking heavily, when the extremely high-yield weapons came on line. They realized that there was nowhere, at all, to hide, and that "winnable nucelar war" was a load of horseshit. WW2 thinking, with nuclear-age weapons.

[yurbud]

23. I think the guys at the Pentagon know this and the Bushies might get

an unpleasant surprise if they give a suicidal order.

[Hobarticus]

27. Those guys in the holes with fingers on the buttons are true believers

They have no qualms about their mission. They'll do exactly as they are told, turn their keys, and sit back and have a last cup of coffee while you and I wait to die.

Sleep tight!

[yurbud]

33. Ironically, it's guys with the stars on their shoulders who are balking

[cantstandbush]

19. NO country has ever used a nuke in history EXCEPT the US. n/t

[Peace Patriot]

20. Will the only country that has ever used nuclear weapons, a country

that is now ruled by a fascist junta, that gained power in two successive rigged elections, that has slaughtered tens of thousands of innocent people in an illegal and unnecessary war, and that has tortured hundreds and possibly thousands of others, and that is claiming dictatorial powers for its idiot puppet front man "president," use nukes to get its way in yet another Middle East oil reserve?

That should have been the question. Not what Iran would do. What the Bush junta would do. They have obviously deliberately sought to make Iran feel fearful and paranoid, and have pushed Iran to pursue nuclear weapons to defend itself. In 1953, the US/Israel destroyed Iranian democracy and installed the horrible Shah, whose SAVAK torture squad terrorized Iranians for 25 years. Iranians have no reason to trust us, and every reason to be afraid--particularly in view of what we have done to the Iraqis, putting virtually the entire US military right on Iran's border, and the Bush junta's relentless saber-rattling.

Be on the alert for disinformation on Iran. The war profiteering corporate news monopoly campaign is well under way to justify a nuke or some other kind of hit on Iran. And I'm afraid polls like this--asking the WRONG question--are not very helpful.

Long term? ELECTION REFORM, my friends! That is only way we can get our country back.

[yurbud]

25. "Not what Iran would do. What the Bush junta would do" EXACTLY

This isn't the wrong question, it's a disinformation innoculation.

If people remember the basics of nuclear warfare, MAD, and that we have more than enough to wipe out any small state that might make a handful, the PR won't work even when it has grains of truth in it (though I doubt that any of this does).

[Marie26]

24. This President? Yes, I think he would. nt

[Delphinus]

29. Would someone vote for me?

CNN hasn't let me vote in months. They must be tired of the truth. :)

[MrSlayer]

34. If they could they probably would.

But I doubt their first nuclear device will be an ICBM capable of reaching the United States. They may do Israel though. I think nukes should be kept out of their hands.

[jrd200x]

36. They wouldn't have to. Isreall would be enough for us to retaliate

and get us into a war.

[tocqueville]

38. not sure at all

Imagine Israel wiped out and "half" Iran in the same State. Are the US going to wipe out the rest ? for what purpose ? Iran would fall into the hands of the west like a ripe fruit.