Posted on 06/06/2007 10:30:44 AM PDT by pabianice
Republican presidential candidates would not rule out tactical nuclear strikes to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.
Four of the 10 candidates appearing at a debate Tuesday night in Manchester, N.H., were asked whether they would use tactical nuclear weapons in a pre-emptive strike. All four – Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore – said they would.
"I think it could be done with conventional weapons, but you can't rule out anything and you shouldn't take any option off the table," Giuliani said.
Later in the debate broadcast on CNN, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas), the single anti-war candidate, chided his colleagues.
"We in the past have always declared war in the defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody, but now we have accepted the principle of pre-emptive war," Paul said. "And now, tonight, we hear that we're not even willing to remove from the table a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a country that has done no harm to us directly and is no threat to our national security."
Candidates also cast withdrawal from Iraq in terms of the dangers it would pose to Israel.
"You withdraw to the borders and watch genocide take place inside Baghdad," said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) "You watch the destabilization of Jordan. You see further jeopardy of Israel because of the threats of Hezbollah and Iranian hegemony in the region."
Preemptive war using nuclear weapons?...cripes...these guys sound like Dr. Strangelove
why can’t the next debate have the question, “how many MOAB’s would you drop?” That’d be fun?
What are pres candidates supposed to say? ‘We have nukes but we won’t use them, so we might as well get rid of the nukes and let any tinhorn dictator take over American interests anywhere.”
I think Fred is the man, but if Guliani could drop his anti gun stance, I would like him. He has balls.
Save the nukes for when one goes off here. Then flatten the whole region. And let the mullas know up front what’s coming instead of pussyfooting around.
Oh are you one of these “We can nuke every one of thier cities if they nuke us first” guys?
Excuse me... but since I live and work in downtown Chicago, I’ll be dead and dont give a rip about any response.. they must never be allowed to even touch a nuclear bomb and if that means nuking them in order to prevent it, so be it.
Another ridiculous question by Wolfie....(eyes rolling)
If we decide that we need to strike Iran it will be preemptive in the same sense that any attack is meant to preempt the next attack by your foe.
The peace at any costs crowd will always consider any attack a preemptive attack.
What the heck happened to the Republican party?
What I’m saying is, use conventional bombs to blast their hopes. Not nukes. Yet.
Exactly! They should have shot back to Wolfie, "will you rule out executing a panic stop in your automobile as you drive home tonight"?
"I would authorize the use of tactical nuclear weapons if there was no other way to preempt those particular centrifuges," he said, while noting it could probably be done with conventional weapons.
But Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a candidate drawing about 2 percent in opinion polls, opposed a nuclear strike on moral grounds and because he believed Iran was no threat to U.S. national security.
"We, in the past, have always declared war in defense of our liberties or go to aid somebody," Paul said. "But now we have accepted the principle of preemptive war. We have rejected the just war theory of Christianity."
‘Exactly! They should have shot back to Wolfie, “will you rule out executing a panic stop in your automobile as you drive home tonight”?’
Or ‘will you rule out the ‘war slut’ Amanpour from demeaning America next time she’s on the air with you Wolfie?’
pure BS
If the objective is to destroy thier nuclear faciltiies, they are too hardened to be damaged by conventional bombs.
If you just bomb for the sake of bombing them (the facilities), then you just enraged their people for no effect.
Tactical nukes will probably have to be used in order to destroy the facilities. These facilities are not in the cities.
If you dont mean bombing their facilities then I have no idea what you mean by “blast their hopes”
You have a point there.
You need to update your world-view pal.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.