U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-05-2007, 07:45 PM
 
Location: Spots Wyoming
18,696 posts, read 35,415,173 times
Reputation: 2147483647

Advertisements

I don't remember Pres Bush talking about attacking Iran with Nukes. I don't remember him threatening to attack Iran with Nukes.

I do remember him putting together a small panel to investigate on how long it would take us to put our nuclear program together so that we could manufacture again if needed. And if memory serves me right he said, something to the effect of, "Because of N. Korea, Iran and some other countries exploring a possibility of a nuclear arsenal, we should be prepared to put our back on line.

That in no way, constitutes a threat to take a country. That's simply being smart for defense.

Hopefully, we will never, ever, have to use them. But when the thug knows you have a gun also, it seems to temper the cituation and get him to rethink his process.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-05-2007, 08:10 PM
 
9,716 posts, read 12,940,289 times
Reputation: 3315
Some of the articles I've read said that Bush/Cheney wanted to use tactical nukes that would go deep underground -- supposedly conventional bombs can't go deep enough.

Also, I think Wikipedia said that the Strait of Hormuz was only 21 miles wide.

I think the bigger problem in attacking Iran would be Russia and China since they won't vote to attack Iran and Iran is one of their energy suppliers. They also seem to see us as a threat to worldwide security since we attacked Iraq without provocation. They've increased their weapons cooperation since 2003.

Also, do some research on nanotech weapons since those seem to be the thing of the future.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-05-2007, 08:51 PM
 
Location: Spots Wyoming
18,696 posts, read 35,415,173 times
Reputation: 2147483647
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
Some of the articles I've read said that Bush/Cheney wanted to use tactical nukes that would go deep underground -- supposedly conventional bombs can't go deep enough.

Also, I think Wikipedia said that the Strait of Hormuz was only 21 miles wide.

I think the bigger problem in attacking Iran would be Russia and China since they won't vote to attack Iran and Iran is one of their energy suppliers. They also seem to see us as a threat to worldwide security since we attacked Iraq without provocation. They've increased their weapons cooperation since 2003.

Also, do some research on nanotech weapons since those seem to be the thing of the future.
You are absolutely correct in that the retaliation from China and Russia would be devistating. they currently supply arms to Iran. So they've already assumed the roll of big brother.

Straights. On a ship, with a deck height of the ship I was on, you could see the head of a 6ft tall man standing 13 miles away. because of curviture of the earth. While we were in Sohipa, making holes in the ocean, our box was about 20 miles by 20 miles. We couldn't see land at any time. Could see it on the radar, but not by eyesight. But we may have been a little north of the actual choke point. But we could watch it. I never did measure to see just how wide it was. When we left Diego Garcia, we went straight north to the Gulf. We didn't see land for 95 days straight until we pulled into Muscat Oman.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2007, 08:41 AM
 
11,564 posts, read 17,496,164 times
Reputation: 17201
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
Some of the articles I've read said that Bush/Cheney wanted to use tactical nukes that would go deep underground -- supposedly conventional bombs can't go deep enough.
Nuclear bunker busters! They would be very effective, less fall out because the explosion is underground. Probably less lethal and collateral damage then a B52 strike. Still - politically impossible to use anything with the word "nuclear" in it. Too bad.
They've never been developed past the test stage. On the contrary, Bush/Cheney dropped funding any nuclear bunker buster further development. A definite mistake in my opinion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2007, 09:05 AM
 
165 posts, read 281,046 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
Nuclear bunker busters! They would be very effective, less fall out because the explosion is underground. Probably less lethal and collateral damage then a B52 strike. Still - politically impossible to use anything with the word "nuclear" in it. Too bad.
They've never been developed past the test stage. On the contrary, Bush/Cheney dropped funding any nuclear bunker buster further development. A definite mistake in my opinion.
Too bad??

You seriously think it's a bad thing that we can't use nuclear weapons?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2007, 11:02 AM
 
11,564 posts, read 17,496,164 times
Reputation: 17201
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elishan View Post
Too bad??

You seriously think it's a bad thing that we can't use nuclear weapons?
No, it's a bad thing that political correctness prevents us in developing a weapon that will enable us to more quickly kill our enemy with less collateral damage. Anything with the word "nuclear" in it is considered a weapon of mass destruction so I or no one sane would approve of it's use in a war using conventional weapons lest they be internationaly condemed. However, in an alternate universe a tactical nuke of this sort would cause less collateral casualties and, by targeting command and infrastructure, end any war sooner and cause less enemy and freindly casualties. I would like to see it developed however for a "just in case" scenario.

Weapons are there for a reason, nothing pretty about it, nothing sentimental about it - they are to destroy the enemy in times of war.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2007, 12:02 PM
 
Location: CA Coast
1,900 posts, read 1,706,920 times
Reputation: 350
Great idea, to stop a nation from building nukes we will nuke them. I guess because we are morally superior to the lessor races we can do that with a clean conscience.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2007, 03:46 PM
 
9,716 posts, read 12,940,289 times
Reputation: 3315
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dd714 View Post
No, it's a bad thing that political correctness prevents us in developing a weapon that will enable us to more quickly kill our enemy with less collateral damage. Anything with the word "nuclear" in it is considered a weapon of mass destruction so I or no one sane would approve of it's use in a war using conventional weapons lest they be internationaly condemed. However, in an alternate universe a tactical nuke of this sort would cause less collateral casualties and, by targeting command and infrastructure, end any war sooner and cause less enemy and freindly casualties. I would like to see it developed however for a "just in case" scenario.

Weapons are there for a reason, nothing pretty about it, nothing sentimental about it - they are to destroy the enemy in times of war.
Actually your argument is the best reason the USA should be rushing to catch up to Russia and China on the nanotech weapons. Imagine a bomb the size of a bullet that can bring an entire building down! With absolutely no radiation fallout! Other countries are beating us on this one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2007, 09:55 AM
 
Location: CA Coast
1,900 posts, read 1,706,920 times
Reputation: 350
Bush Administration Changing Light Bulbs


This is one of the best commentaries we have seen on the white house MO

Question: How many members of the Bush Administration does it

Take to change a light bulb ? Answer: TEN

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed.

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed.

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb.

4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or

For eternal darkness.

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for a new light bulb.

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor and standing on a step

Ladder, under the banner "Bulb Accomplished."

7. One administration insider to resign and in detail reveal how Bush was literally

"in the dark" the whole time.

8. Another one to viciously smear #7.

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a

Strong light bulb-changing policy all along.

10 And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing in

A light bulb and screwing the country.

And after all is said and done, no one will notice that they never actually managed to

Change the light bulb.

Pass this on!! Help cure Mad Cowboy Disease..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-07-2007, 02:17 PM
 
165 posts, read 281,046 times
Reputation: 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by greatbasinguide View Post
Bush Administration Changing Light Bulbs


This is one of the best commentaries we have seen on the white house MO

Question: How many members of the Bush Administration does it

Take to change a light bulb ? Answer: TEN

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed.

2. One to attack the patriotism of anyone who says the light bulb needs to be changed.

3. One to blame Clinton for burning out the light bulb.

4. One to tell the nations of the world that they are either for changing the light bulb or

For eternal darkness.

5. One to give a billion dollar no-bid contract to Halliburton for a new light bulb.

6. One to arrange a photograph of Bush, dressed as a janitor and standing on a step

Ladder, under the banner "Bulb Accomplished."

7. One administration insider to resign and in detail reveal how Bush was literally

"in the dark" the whole time.

8. Another one to viciously smear #7.

9. One surrogate to campaign on TV and at rallies on how George Bush has had a

Strong light bulb-changing policy all along.

10 And finally, one to confuse Americans about the difference between screwing in

A light bulb and screwing the country.

And after all is said and done, no one will notice that they never actually managed to

Change the light bulb.

Pass this on!! Help cure Mad Cowboy Disease..
Nice one .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top