Americans would support the use of nuclear weapons in war with Iran (Congress, Marines)

[X14Freak]

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

Here is an excerpt:

To explore how the U.S. public might react today to such choices, we asked YouGov last July to survey a representative sample of 620 Americans about a scenario evoking a 21st-century Pearl Harbor. To echo the dilemma the U.S. faced in August 1945, participants read a mock news article in which the U.S. places severe sanctions on Iran over allegations that Tehran has been caught violating the 2015 nuclear deal. In response, Iran attacks a U.S. aircraft carrier in the Persian Gulf, killing 2,403 military personnel (the same number killed by Japan at Pearl Harbor in 1941).

Congress then declares war on Iran, and the president demands that Iran’s leadership accept “unconditional surrender.” U.S. generals give the president two options: mount a land invasion to reach Tehran and force the Iranian government to capitulate (at an estimated cost of 20,000 American fatalities), or shock Iran into unconditional surrender by dropping a single nuclear weapon on a major city near Tehran, killing an estimated 100,000 Iranian civilians (similar to the immediate death toll in Hiroshima). The poll’s participants were reminded that Iran doesn’t yet have an atomic weapon of its own.

The results were startling: Under our scenario, 59% of respondents backed using a nuclear bomb on an Iranian city. Republicans were much more likely to support such an attack, with more than 81% approving, but 47% of Democrats approved the nuclear strike as well. Even when we increased the number of expected Iranian civilian fatalities 20 fold to two million, 59% of respondents—the same percentage supporting the nuclear attack with the lower death toll—still approved of dropping the bomb.

To further echo Truman’s choice, we ran a second version of the survey that offered respondents the option of ending the war by allowing Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to stay on as a spiritual figurehead with no political authority. We hoped to mimic an option facing Truman and his advisers, who wrestled with softening the Allies’ demand for an unconditional surrender by allowing Emperor Hirohito to retain his throne as a symbolic head of state. Some 41% of our respondents preferred this diplomatic option to either dropping the bomb or marching on Tehran. But virtually the same number (40%) still preferred dropping the bomb and killing 100,000 Iranian civilians to accepting this sort of negotiated peace.

I would say this is quite insane.

[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.

[T-310]

Twenty-four empty missile tubes, a mushroom cloud, it's Miller time.

[Gungnir]

Originally Posted by X14Freak

I would say this is quite insane.

Sure it is.

We can do that once, then the next time we get into a scrape with a nuclear power, guess who's going to be charcoal briquettes? The Marines, Airborne, Rangers, etc. and whatever Air Force are flying in the area, and US Navy ships are in the area too.

Then what we going to do? Launch a full strategic strike, and wait for the counter strike? Good Times...

Further if we can't or won't defeat Iran with conventional weapons, then we're more likely to be on the receiving end of greater aggression from nuclear powers, because they know the choices on hand. We appear weak because we don't want our service men at risk, so the threat of annihilation should make us poop our shorts, and they would know we would know what our choices are. Limited Nukes at the cost of thousands or hundreds of thousands of servicemen, or mutual destruction, given we'd not be prepared to lose people in a conventional war with a non-nuke power, what's the chances we'd choose mutual destruction?

Not to mention the violation of multiple international treaties, we're already considered by many countries to be close to a rogue state, that would just seal the deal. Then where we going to get oil? Invade Canada? Again?

It may return manufacturing to the US through necessity, so there is a silver lining. Of course we couldn't make anything high tech, because we don't have the resources, no developed Rare Earth Element extraction, or significant Lithium deposits, and we already consume around twice the refined copper we produce. I'm not even sure that the US has sufficient Pharmaceutical production facilities in the US to support heath care either, and we don't have the right kind of oil for it anyway.

[Frank DeForrest]

We worry about a nuclear Iran, while contemplating nuking Iran. It's too Orwellian to contemplate.

[GregW]

24 missiles and you would have just enough time for that Miller before your world and mine disappeared in thousands of fireballs. Not the optimal plan. I could care less about your world but I do want mine to continue. You know - the world without a nuclear war with anyone.

[zortation]

A land invasion with 20,000 American fatalities. That sounds like DoD proaganda.

[Frank DeForrest]

Originally Posted by zortation

A land invasion with 20,000 American fatalities. That sounds like DoD proaganda.

Sure does. In fact sounds liked he same lie that was used to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki

[PullMyFinger]

We never want to voluntarily replace the threat of nuclear attack with the inevitability of nuclear attack.

[PullMyFinger]

Originally Posted by Frank DeForrest

Sure does. In fact sounds liked he same lie that was used to justify Hiroshima and Nagasaki

What is this gibberish? Because if you doubt the bombs saved lives you are clueless. My old man was a marine on an invasion ship bound for the main islands of Japan when the bombs dropped. He then became one of the very first Marines to step foot on Japanese soil after the surrender. He saw the bunkers, the underground railroads that would have resupplied the troops in their bunkers. It was the sobering for them to imagine the carnage that was avoided.