Americans would support the use of nuclear weapons in war with Iran (Putin, soldier)

[X14Freak]

Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981

Not every country. I will say this though, if China can have nuclear weapon, so should Japan.

Unfortunately for Japan, if it decides to pursue nuclear weapons, South Korea will abandon the US alliance system and join with China to contain Japan and essentially make Japan a pariah state in Asia.

[lilyflower3191981]

Originally Posted by X14Freak

Unfortunately for Japan, if it decides to pursue nuclear weapons, South Korea will abandon the US alliance system and join with China to contain Japan and essentially make Japan a pariah state in Asia.

Not true at all. South Korea views China as bigger threat.

[X14Freak]

Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981

Not true at all. South Korea views China as bigger threat.

I guess that's why South Korea is neutral on the South China Sea issue.

[lilyflower3191981]

Originally Posted by X14Freak

I guess that's why South Korea is neutral on the South China Sea issue.

yes.

China faces a strong U.S.-Japan alliance — and will probably face an even stronger U.S.-Japan alliance in the near future. Closer ties between Beijing and Seoul would put both the United States and Japan on significant alert. What’s more, for South Korea, the 60-year alliance relationship with the United States probably means more than two decades of diplomatic relations with China. Given the current situation, could China really undermine the foundation of the ROK-U.S. alliance and, even further, replace it with a China-ROK version?

http://thediplomat.com/2014/08/why-a...e-wont-happen/

each country, please defend yourself, otherwise, pay up. Not really rocket science.

[my54ford]

Originally Posted by GregW

I read of a war game run by the US Navy portraying a US invasion of Iran. A senior US Marine General was commanding the Iranian forces. He attacked the American fleet just after they launched aircraft to start the attack. He launched every missile the Iranians had at the same time. The result was devastating to the invasion forces. When the computer got through with calculation the results the US Navy had lost 3 carriers and 30 out of the 32 support ships. The casualties were in the thousands.


Of course the Navy gamer's response was to reset the game and tell the Marine not to do that because it worked. They wanted a more measured and easier to defeat response. I'll bet the Iranians read the same report and are building a LOT of anti shipping missiles. I certainly would.


As far as using Nuclear weapons on Iran or anywhere else is absurd. The result is not victory but only mass destruction. MAD keeps these things out of wars even if they do frustrate some generals and the rapacious businessmen that rather steal then buy.

Maybe before we Aegis and AIM-54. now??? As in Desert storm any invasion would be preceded by a standoff sub/ship launched cruise missile/SLAM attack that would devastate them and improve my GE stock

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by X14Freak

Would the U.S. Drop the Bomb Again? - WSJ

Here is an excerpt:



I would say this is quite insane.

Fortunately for all of us, the decision to employ nuclear weapons wouldn't be left to a random sample of the public.

And Iran is such a minor threat to the US that a nuclear strike is practically unthinkable.

If by some fluke Iran was able to effectively attack one of our carriers (highly unlikely), they'd have hell to pay, but it wouldn't be in the form of a nuclear strike.

[oberon_1]

Originally Posted by X14Freak

Would the U.S. Drop the Bomb Again? - WSJ

I would say this is quite insane.

I agree 100%. It's also the best reason for preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. (Doing that may actually prevent conventional wars as well).

[X14Freak]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

Fortunately for all of us, the decision to employ nuclear weapons wouldn't be left to a random sample of the public.

And Iran is such a minor threat to the US that a nuclear strike is practically unthinkable.

If by some fluke Iran was able to effectively attack one of our carriers (highly unlikely), they'd have hell to pay, but it wouldn't be in the form of a nuclear strike.

I am aware of that. The thing that really shocks me is how bloodthirsty the public is. I mean they still want to nuke Iran even in a scenario where Iran surrenders albeit in a conditional surrender with Khamenei remaining in power as a figurehead. Even increasing civilian casualties by 20 fold had no effect on lessening support for using nukes.

[zortation]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

Fortunately for all of us, the decision to employ nuclear weapons wouldn't be left to a random sample of the public.

And Iran is such a minor threat to the US that a nuclear strike is practically unthinkable.

If by some fluke Iran was able to effectively attack one of our carriers (highly unlikely), they'd have hell to pay, but it wouldn't be in the form of a nuclear strike.

Don't be so quick to assume the Iranians can't attack carriers. They have access to present-day Russian missile tech, I'm no expert but they may have some impressive weapons that are designed to kill aircraft carriers.

[Unsettomati]

Originally Posted by jambo101

To add/

Those bombs could have been dropped on military targets or off the coast rather than on mostly innocent non combatants in downtown Hiroshima and Nagasaki, an action that still would have brought about an immediate end to the conflict.

Actually, it probably would not have.

Even Hiroshima didn't give Japan pause - it wasn't until after Nagasaki that the Japanese command got serious and moved in the direction of surrender. Hiroshima was selected in part because it was mostly untouched. Therefore, the Japanese would know that all the damage they were seeing was from one bomb. This was as opposed to, say, Tokyo, which had already been reduced largely to rubble with conventional bombs.

A drop over the ocean? It would've just been a bright flash and a shockwave. In fact, Tokyo Bay was on the initial list of considered targets, but was rejected because it was assumed the Japanese wouldn't be too impressed by a flash and a boom that didn't actually cause any damage that they could see.

Originally Posted by Dockside

I brought this up once before but I think it's timelier than ever.

The last above ground nuclear test was 1962...54 years ago. People blithely throw around the idea of nuclear war like it's just another military option without understanding just what the hell they're talking about.

The French conducted atmospheric tests until 1974, the Chinese until 1980.

Originally Posted by Dockside

We need a heavily publicized nuclear test. Build a pretend town. Live-stream it around the world, then blow it up. Yes, it would violate all sorts of treaties. Yes every liberal alive would scream...who cares. Once you start getting polls like these, where 59% of the public backs dropping a bomb on Iran, then you realize people don't understand what they're talking about when it comes to nuclear war.

What a remarkably bad and ludicrous idea.

Originally Posted by Mircea

The Japanese 2nd Army was headquartered in Hiroshima. Ever meet a survivor of the 2nd Army?

There weren't any.

At the end of World War II the Japanese Second Army was stationed on the island of Celebes (then - Dutch East Indies; now - Indonesia).

In your woeful confusion, you are probably thinking of Field Marshal Shunroku Hata's Second General Army, which was HQ'd in Hiroshima. Most of the 400,000 men under his command were on Kyushu, a completely different home island from Honshu, where Hiroshima is located. Suffice it to say, they were quite safe from the blast. Hata himself was only lightly injured in the attack. Much of his senior staff survived as well. And while the blast did kill a majority of the HQ personnel, it did not kill them all, and it most certainly didn't even harm the vast number of men in the Second General Army.

Your trite little anecdote is as silly as it is wrong (there's no way even an army, much less a general army, would ever be amassed in a small enough space to be entirely taken out by a 15-kiloton device).

Originally Posted by Chowhound

I would only support that if we were attacked with nukes, and the world all sorta keeps itself in check that way, the threat of mutually assured destruction, cause like back in the day, we knew that if we hit Russia/soviet union first, most certainly they'd lob nukes right back at us, so it behooved all to not use nukes, way way too many innocent civilians perished when we nuked Japan.

And that's pretty much what possession of nuclear weapons has devolved to. The taboo is such that nations with nuclear weapons simply will not contemplate their use short of an existential threat.

They didn't deter the Chinese from entering the Korean War in 1950.
They didn't deter the Arab states from massing to attack Israel in 1967, or from actually attacking Israel in 1973.
They didn't deter Afghan resistance against the Soviets beginning in 1979.
They didn't deter Argentina from seizing the Falklands in 1982.
They didn't convince Saddam Hussein to leave Iraq in 1990.

Originally Posted by X14Freak

I am aware of that. The thing that really shocks me is how bloodthirsty the public is.

Well, remember - part of that public wants to bomb a fictional movie from an animated movie, because:
a) They think bombing anything with an Arabic-sounding name is a good idea, and
b) They're too ignorant to understand that it's not actually a real place

Poll: 30% of GOP voters support bombing Agrabah, the city from Aladdin | US news | The Guardian

Originally Posted by zortation

Don't be so quick to assume the Iranians can't attack carriers. They have access to present-day Russian missile tech, I'm no expert but they may have some impressive weapons that are designed to kill aircraft carriers.

Well, you got that much right.

Do you know what kills modern supercarriers? Anti-ship missiles and torpedoes. That's it. Well, and nukes if the excrement has really hit the fan. But our Persian friends don't have any nukes.

First, the anti-ship missiles. Everything Iran has is home-grown. Nothing Russian.

Next, the torpedoes. Well, the best submarines the Iranians have are three Soviet/Russian Kilo-class diesel-electrics. These are 1980s-vintage boats. And there's only three of them. What do you want to bet that the United States Navy knows, at all times, exactly where every last one of these (LOL - all three of them!) are? And, no, they'll never get close enough to hole a carrier.