Why Nuke the Nukes?

[seattlemetal]

ok so according to this:

US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060408/wl_mideast_afp/usirannuclearmilitary

Bush plans on using bunker busting Nukes to blow up bunkers full of nukes that Iran suposedly has stashed....right?

so I was wondering, if they truly do have nukes, why do we need to nuke the nukes? Wouldnt a regular bunker buster type bomb do the trick?



Because if there are NOT nukes, and we dont USE a nuke to blow it up...there wont be any nuke explosion...just a regular one.....

it would be proof that there werent any nukes there!

but if we USE a nuke, then there will be a nuke type explosion, and no one will ever know that there werent nukes in that particular bunker!



what makes me think that theres no nukes in Iran?

this:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=11434...

Now call me crazy....but I just dont believe what Bush says anymore....especially when he's saying all the same things as he said the last time...

ever hear of the Boy Who Cried Wolf?

[Rocknrule]

1. Because W always picks the deadliest and most destructive option available

[Eric J in MN]

2. I don't think the allegation is that Iran already has nuclear weapons

but that they're preparing to enrich uranium soon to make it.

But I agree that the US shouldn't nuke Iran.

Please tell your Senators to ban nuclear first-strikes. Don't nuke Iran.

http://contactcongress.blogspot.com/

[Elnendil Taramon]

6. Because Bush is a total loon

For many years, we have seen that fighting isn't always the answer. Since theres supposedly WMDs in Iran, Bush wants to wipe them out. Oh, but what about Korea? Because that would piss off China. Bush, to me, is basically "secretly making an empire". It's just fucking horrible.

Oh, and wasnt Bush and Iran allies in the beginning of all this? I could've sworn...

[leftchick]

3. because rummy needs to use all of his deadly toys!

:(

[DrDebug]

4. The jpost link gives an internal system error

10.5.1 500 Internal Server Error

The server encountered an unexpected condition which prevented it from fulfilling the request.


That's the worrying part about the Bush administration as well. The unexpected conditions which prevent it from doing sane things.

[Warpy]

5. All those big bombs are burning a hole in fratboy's pocket

and he reasons why have them if we can't use them? He so wants to see them all go boom.

He needs to be removed from office ASAP.

[Teaser]

7. They'll be no nuclear explosion

if you bomb actual nuclear materials. Just a spread of radiological material over a large area. It's actually rather difficult to engineer a nuclear explosion.

[enigma000]

8. Nuke the nukes? I don't buy it

Just drop LOTS of conventional bombs on the suspected WMD site.

Look, I think we should be debating the pros and cons of a conventional attack on Iran. I don't want to come across as advocating an attack on Iran, but we need to consider what the grounds for such an attack would be. Because this issue will come up, if not in the Bush Presidency then in the next one.

My worst fear is that the Iranian leadership is crazy and would use nukes. That would lead to many, many dead.

[killbotfactory]

9. Well... Iran won't have nukes for some time

Even if we left them alone. We will just be destroying their first steps towards building a nuke, not actual nukes. We must pre-emptively destroy their pre-emptive nuclear weapons, I guess.

[LostInAnomie]

10. You have to trot out the big guns every now and then...

... to show that you are willing to use them.

It has long been the opinion of right wing nuts and immature children that there is not point to having nukes if you aren't going to use them. So instead of doing the responsible thing and disposing of them they think that it is more practical to drop them on anyone who disagrees with them.