What should the reaction be if Iran does develop nukes and uses them

Question:

If nothing is done now and the world decides to believe Irans 'non-nuclear weapons' and 1-2 or even 5 years from now Iran obliterates Isreal off the map with a few nuclear missles.....what should be done to Iran?

according to the vast majority of bleeding hearts -
Nothing! Take the abuse and blame your own government.

Pretty obvious really a mass nuclear attack on all there major military and civilian centers.

I think that what the original poster is trying to get at is, lets assume, as a hypothetical situation, that what many people want, peace and no-sanctions/action against ira, are taken. That we have good faith that Iran, while not perfect, isn't really interested in making nuke weapons, and that, while it would rejoice if israel was destroyed, would be the one to do it.

But then, years later, they've betrayed that trust, secretly made nukes, and used them on Israel. What is the acceptable response? Is the US justified in invading? Should Iran be kicked out of the UN? Should only sanctions be put on them?

We can take a reasonable guess at what most of the people who think iran should be hit pre-emptively would suggest, but what about the people not in favour of pre-emption?

You knew the question I wanted to ask....and did it sooooo much better than I did........

[edit on 21-4-2006 by ferretman2]

What should the reaction be?



Half a century of nuclear development put to use should be the reaction. (on military and nuclear sites)

Originally posted by ferretman2
with a few nuclear missles

gonna take a bit more than that.

First of all even if they had them, why, especially since so many people think that they are behind Hamas, Hizbollah, and Syria , would Iran even risk the chance that radioactive fallout could come right back in the east and potentially kill or cause radiation sickness to millions of other muslims PLUS the Palestinians that could be affected as well.

Secondly even if they did something so unthinkable as that, why would it have to be that just because the leader and government of that country made a disgustingly poor decision such as dropping a nuclear weapon, should millions more civilians have to pay the price of dying? Future children being mutated , radiation sickness and other disgusting things. Didn't you guys see what happened in Japan to all those innocent civilians? Did the people behind the attack on Pearl Harbor suffer? No. It was the people going about their business just like you, me or any one of our children outside playing with friends that died or suffered horribly.

They won't get nukes.... the world won't let them. If they do get nuclear technology it will be supervised by the UN or something.
Or
there will be war and they will be obliterated.

If Iran actually attacked another country, Israel for example, using nuclear weapons, the U.S. should respond with a massive and decisive NON NUCLEAR attack on Iran's military infrastructure. If nukes HAD to be used (?), I would hope that the only nukes used were strategic, low yield weapons.

Keep in mind that most Iranians are, well, regular people just like you and me. They have no real say in what their leaders do. They are innocent.

Just because Iran, in this scenario, attacks and kills countless innocent people using nuclear weapons does not justify OUR killing countless innocent people in kind. That is senseless.

I believe that most ATSers would disagree with me however, I also think that there are many ATSers who simply do not comprehend the consequences of using nuclear weapons. When a nuclear weapon is used NO ONE WINS.

Radiation would make an geographical area unusable for generations. Radioactive fallout would travel on the winds and would render large areas, downwind, subject to severe contamination and, in doing so, would subject even more innocent people to radiation disease, death and subsequent cancers for decades.

I am not someone would call a pacifist but I am realist. Nuclear weapons are an abomination and a crime against ALL mankind. I grew up in the fifties and sixties. I played the "tuck and cover" games in my grade school. My father prepared a fallout shelter in our basement during the Cuban Missile Crisis and we played those paranoid "what if" games until we all breathed a sigh of relief when the crisis ended. Since that time, I have read quite a bit about the effects of nuclear weapons and came to a simple conclusion; Nuclear weapons can NEVER be used.

The way I see it is that Israel has developed it's own nuclear arsenal (contrary to the UN resolutions that the US seems so keen to uphold.....sometimes)...

Let them look after themselves. Why should the US get involved at all?

In fact, Pakistan, India and even Russia are much closer to this area and all those countries possess WMD. I'm sure they would all have a more direct stake in either ensuring that Iran does not do such a thing, or if they do, then to take the necessary action.

Then there are countries in the region with capable conventional military forces such as Turkey, Saudi, Jordan, Egypt and Syria. I'm sure that they would not appreciate another country 'offing' nukes in their backyard.

Perhaps the US should not be taking such a personal interest in Iran at all. Besides, if I'm honest and I sit and think of the situation from the perspective of the 'ordinary' Iranian citizen, I would be feeling more than a little vulnerable right now. They have Israel to the west and Pakistan/India to the east, all who have nukes. They are bordered on the east by Afghanistan, currently occupied by the US (who they consider, rightly or wrongly as the 'Great Satan). They are also bordered to the west by Iraq, currently occupied by the US (who they consider, rightly or wrongly as the 'Great Satan'). From this perspective, I, as an ordinary Iranian citizen would be more than a little worried. Heck I would be wanting my government to develop nukes to deter what I would view as imperialist aggression by the US in neigbouring countries. The current 'sabre rattling' by the US would be simply fuelling my anxiety. I would therefore be much more ready to accept the rhetoric being spouted by my clearly flakey head honcho.

On the point about actually using any nukes if they got to the point of a workable device and capable enough delivery system, Mossad will have long since worked out that things were getting a little too tasty. I don't think they would sit there and wait for it to happen. Mind you, if Israel did pre-emptively strike Iran, they would be using weapons that they are not supposed to possess (contrary to the UN resolutions that the US seem so keen to uphold......sometimes)

Having said all that, I do appreciate that the resolutions that the US were so keen to uphold in the case of Iraq were under Chapter 7 of the UNSC set of resolutions that allow for all actions including military force, whereas the ones that Israel are in 'material breach' of are under Chapter 6 which only provide for peaceful means.

www.economist.com...

"The UN distinguishes between two sorts of Security Council resolution. Those passed under Chapter Six deal with the peaceful resolution of disputes and entitle the council to make non-binding recommendations. Those under Chapter Seven give the council broad powers to take action, including warlike action, to deal with “threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression”. Such resolutions, binding on all UN members, were rare during the cold war. But they were used against Iraq after its invasion of Kuwait. None of the resolutions relating to the Israeli-Arab conflict comes under Chapter Seven. By imposing sanctions—including military ones—against Iraq but not against Israel, the UN is merely acting in accordance with its own rules."

Even so, it all smacks of 'double standards' (at least it will to the ordinary Iranian citizen).

So in summary, it is my view that the US should do nothing. Unless of course Iran develops nukes and the capability to fly them over the pond to directly threaten US soil. Even then, this should not automatically lead to a pre-emptive strike unless there were real signs (not some cooked up by a crazy, christian fundamentalist, messianic (imo) president) that they were going to threaten or use the weapons.

Originally posted by benevolent tyrant
If Iran actually attacked another country, Israel for example, using nuclear weapons, the U.S. should respond with a massive and decisive NON NUCLEAR attack on Iran's military infrastructure. If nukes HAD to be used (?), I would hope that the only nukes used were strategic, low yield weapons.

Keep in mind that most Iranians are, well, regular people just like you and me. They have no real say in what their leaders do. They are innocent.

Just because Iran, in this scenario, attacks and kills countless innocent people using nuclear weapons does not justify OUR killing countless innocent people in kind. That is senseless.

I believe that most ATSers would disagree with me however, I also think that there are many ATSers who simply do not comprehend the consequences of using nuclear weapons. When a nuclear weapon is used NO ONE WINS.

Radiation would make an geographical area unusable for generations. Radioactive fallout would travel on the winds and would render large areas, downwind, subject to severe contamination and, in doing so, would subject even more innocent people to radiation disease, death and subsequent cancers for decades.

I am not someone would call a pacifist but I am realist. Nuclear weapons are an abomination and a crime against ALL mankind. I grew up in the fifties and sixties. I played the "tuck and cover" games in my grade school. My father prepared a fallout shelter in our basement during the Cuban Missile Crisis and we played those paranoid "what if" games until we all breathed a sigh of relief when the crisis ended. Since that time, I have read quite a bit about the effects of nuclear weapons and came to a simple conclusion; Nuclear weapons can NEVER be used.

What if we come to a situation where say a nuclear stockpile is hidden in a reinforced bunker really far underground, and we dont have the technology to destroy it conventionally? Of course we wouldn't senselessly launch minutemans at populated cities, I think we would use the nukes tactically where its needed, and for the shock and awe as long as it doesnt put hundreds of thousands of people in danger.

Originally posted by Animalmother
Of course we wouldn't senselessly launch minutemans at populated cities, I think we would use the nukes tactically where its needed, and for the shock and awe as long as it doesnt put hundreds of thousands of people in danger.

It is really worrying to me that so many people seem to be accepting of the fact that the use of Nuclear weapons is justified in any way other than as an absolute last resort. We are talking about a country that 'may' be developing nuclear technology and 'may' have designs on producing nuclear weapons. Even if they did make nukes eventually, what would be the point of them using them in an offensive way? They would simply be ensuring their total annihilation.

Once nukes are used 'tactically' we will be on a road that, in my view, will only lead to oblivion for all of us.

And to consider using nukes for their 'shock and awe' impact is more than irresponsible, it is abhorrent.

Originally posted by spearhead
They won't get nukes.... the world won't let them. If they do get nuclear technology it will be supervised by the UN or something.
Or
there will be war and they will be obliterated.

Hi there


Actually apparently, China is doing talks to supply Iran with the nukes, Russia is another possibility, and a couple of the middle Eastern countries.

As Iran has put up a lot of money to have these weapons..

MIKE