Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
I said, we paid for them so we shouldn't take the option off the table.
|
My bad. I misread what you wrote.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
Of course the prinicpals are the same. thats why it still has the word nuclear in the name. But thats also why I said thats the problem. The international community as well as half this country, would be up in arms. The NYT front page would read "USA NUKES IRAN." All sorts of images of mushroom clouds and melting skin come to mind. Pictures of Hiroshima get plastered all over the place. But the effects of one of these tactical nukes would not come close to the amount of death and destruction. Unless you were working in that nuke plant, you're safe.
|
We have conventional weapons that do exactly the same thing, albeit on a slightly smaller scale. From what I understand, both weapons work in similar ways and the main difference is the type of payload delivered. Wouldn't a conventional warhead accomplish the same thing without quite literally the entire world (with the exception of the Israelis) hating us?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by stevo
I'm not so sure we should use them. For the above reasons and for the reasons you've stated. I don't know how negative the world really would react to it. But ruling out the possibility of using them is stupid.
|
I can't see how taking them off the table for consideration could hurt us at this point and how it could only hurt us. Possible headlines: "US WILLING TO NUKE IRAN", "WILL THE US USE NUKES TO KEEP NUKES FROM IRANIANS?" and the everpopular "US TO SHOW IRANIANS WHY THEY WANT NUKES IN THE FIRST PLACE". I see where we have everything to gain and nothing to lose by taking the nuclear option off the table. It's just a flat out bad idea.