We should nuke Iran

Toronto Sun (Canada) ^ | Saturday, September 2, 2006 | MICHAEL COREN

[BigBobber]

Carter had a very valid reason to attack Iran. The other presidents did not, once the hostages were released.

Carter actually thought the Islamic revolution would be good for Iran. In his puniest of peanut brains, he never figured out why the dog he released from the pound turned around and bit him.

He still doesn't get it.

[badpacifist]

http://www.mojoflix.com/Embed/Lets-Bomb-Iran-1/

[cooldog]

Why the finnickiness? Nukes are a threshold, largely psychological, that we don't want to ANYONE to cross. Dresden showed how conventional ordnance can accomplish the same thing.

This is precisely why nukes should be used. We have yet to demonstrate that we really are serious about the issue of jihad, and it will never cease getting worse until we do.

No need to use the huge 50 megaton variety, but tactical ones on all military and government sites that are hardened, or too large to be dealt with by conventional weapons.

Think of the salutory effect it would instantly have on Syria's behavior, and we could also then credibly demand Pakistan give up their nukes before Musharraf gets deposed by a jihadi fanatic.

[Squawk 8888]

You can put Canada in the"abandoned" column. In the 1950s we had American-produced nukes on the Bomarc surface-to-air missiles but they were returned to the USA. We do have the capability to produce a nuke in fairly short order but all of our technology is currently used for civilian production of electricity and medical radioisotopes (that's the official story, anyway).

Topic drift- IIRC Canada is the world's no. 1 producer of radioisotopes.

[mkjessup]

I thought we should nuke them until recently. One of my buddies helps design the Tomahawks, and he says we can easily take out Iran's nuclear capability with the latest Tomahawks.

That may well be true however only utilizing Tomahawks to take out Iran's nuke program will only buy a little time, they will immediately begin to reconstruct, and in the interim we can expect any and every sort of Iranian-terrorist response worldwide.

Unfortunately, the nuke option is the ONLY option with Iran, because that rogue state is led by a pack of maniacs who desperately need an international b!tch-slapping and the humiliation that follows. They think they're so invincible that their sh*t doesn't stink.

They (and specifically that little runt Ahmadjihad) need to be utterly humiliated and their collective, figurative faces slammed into the dirt until they scream not "allah akbar" but "UNCLE!" (as in SAM!)

It is LONG overdue.

[CZB]

If I was going to use nuclear weapons regarding Iran, I think I would hit North Korea simultaneously. There are political and tactical reasons for this:

1. On the political side, you get just as much PR blowback from one bomb on one day than if you use 30 that day. It's the Michael Corleone approach--do 'em all at once.

2. North Korea is the principal contractor for Iran's program. You wake up a year after nuking Iran only to find the same threat gathering elsewhere in the Muslim world, backed by North Korea.

I don't agree with the Toronto Sun writer that only a nuke will do in Iran. I think the facilities can be made functionally useless no matter how difficult they are to directly bomb if you take out the supporting infrastructure around them with conventional (if extremely high powered) weapons. If you eliminate access and egress, logisitics, you eliminate the facility itself. Kind of a "no-fly zone" approach. I'm not sure the Sun writer understands all the options available or contingencies in play (or, that any of us does). His heart is in the right place, though.

[Lazamataz]

We should nuke Iran

We should nuke Canada too.

Maple-syrup lovin' hosehat wearin' beer swillin' moose-maters, all.

[Cobra64]

Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran. Since this article is from the Toronto Sun (Canada), I'm assuming the author is suggesting that Canada drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.

Does Canada have a nuke?

As for his remarks on killing innocent civilians, he and a lot of people should understand what the Allies did to Germany in WWII.

http://www.rense.com/general19/flame.htm

And Tokyo

http://www.wjla.com/headlines/0305/212573.html

[Cobra64]

Nukes should be an absolute last tactical option.

No civilised nation will light a nuke fuse first. No Western nation wants to win a war any longer. Just the same old pin pricks. Truman had it right. IMOHO

[RichardW]

I'm with you. Do it NOW!

[etlib]

No, we shouldn't. If we were inclined to kill some Iranians, we need to go after Mr. Iwannajihad and his cohorts. Most other Iranians are not complicit in his plans and machinations, so why punish them for the actions of their leaders?

I agree with the approach (assassinate the leaders) but not your reasoning.

The Arabs respect applied (not threatened) power, follow their leaders and have cowards as leaders. If you quickly remove the leadership it:

• Shows that we have power and are willing to use it.
• Eliminates the leadership resulting in a leadership vacuum. The Arabs will then proceed to kill each other in an attempt to fill the vacuum. We should stay out of this, because
• whoever the new cowardly leader is will realize that if he continues on the same path he will be the next dead man.

In my opinion this is the path we should have taken in Iraq.

[CertainInalienableRights]

Like many on this thread, I am reluctant to have the U.S. use nukes on anyone, even Iran. As effective as they are, they are horrible weapons even when justifiably responding in kind.

That said, we're at the point now, and may be for a little while longer, where we can still stop the leadership of Iran from detonating such a horrible weapon on our shores, or those of our allies. I believe it is extremely likely that, given the chance, Iran would detonate a nuclear device in a heavily populated city, resulting in catastrophic damage, after which, someone in the Western nuclear club would have to respond at least in kind, and likely with an even worse response.

So, we can wait, lose at least one Western city, potentially another Iranian city (or two) with millions of innocents killed, economies damaged, large areas uninhabitable, radioactive fallout spread over the lands of friend and foe alike, etc. etc., and then we still have to either take out their leadership, or castrate them of the ability to produce and deliver more or the carnage will continue.

Or, we can take out the leadership now and/or remove their ability to develop these weapons, and prevent the millions of innocents on both sides who will be killed, the destruction of cities, etc. etc.

Decisions like these are the gravest, and certainly shouldn't be made lightly or without deliberation. However, at some point, choices have to be made, and that's why we elect leaders and voluntarily give them the power and means to act on our behalf.

Doing nothing (or engaging in something which is bound to be futile) is also making a decision, and the potential ramifications, at least IMHO, are far worse than even a nuclear first strike, especially if it was confined as much as possible to strategic targets in Iran.

[Earthdweller]

"We should nuke Iran"

We who? Who will do this, send in troops to clean up the mess and pay for it all? We indeed.

Someone desperately wants the US to be Iran's "daddy" I think.

Let the EU's take care of it this time. I will gladly sit back with a bag of popcorn and cheer on any European country that wants to take out the Nutter.

[Prost1]

Now this is a good article.

Think about it...comparisons to Hitler are unfair to Hitler!

Who are Iran's enemies. Where are the threats to her borders?

None and nowhere. Yet, they desire to destroy a people and a nation and moreover desire to reconquer the Persian empire, the Ottoman Empire and all other Empires.

Reading this article is reading sound advice.

[GMMAC]

"We who?"

"We" per my post #38.

"I will gladly sit back with a bag of popcorn and cheer on any European country ..."

You'll definitely be better off eating popcorn than you would be holding your breath while waiting for 'old Europe' to do much beyond engaging in empty pontification while delusionally basking in its former glory.

[Asfarastheeastisfromthewest...]

This form the Toronto Sun ???? Will wonders never cease.

Actually, this is not surprising writing for the Toronto Sun. You probably are thinking about the Toronto (Red) Star which is nauseatingly liberal. On the other hand, Michael Coren is frequently all over the map.>/p>

[Earthdweller]

"You'll definitely be better off eating popcorn than you would be holding your breath while waiting for 'old Europe' to do much beyond engaging in empty pontification while delusionally basking in its former glory."

I don't think the slimy socialists/commies will just let the Islamic fascists take over. But thats just me. LOL.

Maybe I'm just wishful thinking but wouldn't it be fun to watch too enemies of the west duke it out?

How's that saying go?...If two of your enemies are fighting , try your best not to interfere.

[GarySpFc]

Unfortunately, the nuke option is the ONLY option with Iran, because that rogue state is led by a pack of maniacs who desperately need an international b!tch-slapping and the humiliation that follows. They think they're so invincible that their sh*t doesn't stink.

I tend to agree, but there is something you are missing. Unfortunately, the fallout would contaminate a large portion of Pakistan and India.

[Solitar]

Wait until this "little Hitler"conquers most of Europe.

Iran thus is Europe's problem, is it not? Why should America AGAIN spend its blood and resources to AGAIN come to the rescue of Europe--Thy Name is Cowardice (the subject of another FR discussion thread).

[A CA Guy]

I think a bunch of Syrian bombs might accidentally go off in Iran.