Just Sayin....

[Plane]

There is no technical problem , we have the means to kill almost the whole population of them in minutes, and cleanly .

No, we don't. We just don't. And we would never do it if we could, but that point is moor, because we can't.

Sure we can ,I don't think we will, but we can.

Practically no one wants to do that , but the capability is not moot  just because we are not willing to open that can.

Unwillingness can be overcome .

[Xavier_Onassis]

Unwillingness can be overcome .


I cannot see that happening. We would airlift all of Israel to Miami Beach first.

The fight with Iran is nearly totally a war of words.

[sirs]

Their financially sponsored terrorist proxies, say otherwise

[Plane]

Unwillingness can be overcome .


I cannot see that happening.

So you think our unwillingness to fight dirty cannot be overcome?

I hope our worst enemies do not think that way, if so, we have wasted a lot of money and effort on weapons that gentlemen wouldn't use.

[Xavier_Onassis]

No country will use a nuclear weapon on a first strike, just as no nation will behead an enemy on prime time TV.

Isis can get away with this sort of crap because they are not a country and are appealing to a particular sort of audience.

There are 200 nations on this planet. we cannot afford to have 198 enemies.

[sirs]

With our current foreign policy, we're well on our way to that #.  But good news. ... as we make more and more enemies,  we're making nice nice with our current enemies, like Iran

[Plane]

  I consider use of Atomic weapons undesirable . I think most of us do.

  I can't fathom why you think their use is impossible , I can't see a physical obstacle .

  The point would not be 198 enemies , after an first use of atom bombs the point would be 196 survivors, with new attitudes.

[Xavier_Onassis]

It does not work that way.

Did the Blitz convince the Brits to surrender?
It is foolish to believe that  all the stiff upper lip was the work of Churchill alone.

There is no sane reason for the US to launch a first strike nuke at Iran.
And, no, we could never kill them all.

Hitler was very efficient, but his attempts to exterminate the Jews and the Gypsies were not successful.

[Plane]

It does not work that way.

Did the Blitz convince the Brits to surrender?

No .

But the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did work that way.

Not because the Japanese were any less resolute, but because the damage was that much greater.

Besides I was not mentioning surrender , I was speaking of killing, which is easer.
There is no need to make the dead surrender.

Right now there is a tiny minority that favors action so drastic as this , what would be the difference after the next 9-11 incident included Atomic bombs?

I don't think we have mutual assured destruction with Iran, their leadership is too stupid for it, and we are so much more equipped that there is not much "mutual" .

 

[Xavier_Onassis]

Right now there is a tiny minority that favors action so drastic as this , what would be the difference after the next 9-11 incident included Atomic bombs?
=========================================
I don't think that checking an atomic weapon on a scheduled airline is likely to work. Radiation is easily detected.

In the case that the US was attacked by nukes, then it would NOT be a first strike attack, would it?

The discussion was about the US launching a FIRST STRIKE attack on Iran and obliterating the entire country, just to teach 'em a lesson.

[sirs]

No, that's not been the discussion, especially in the supposed "teach 'em a lesson" rationale.  It's always been about Islamic terrorists vs Christian or Jewish terrorist organizations.  And that those countries with nukes, such as the U.S. and Israel, which are largely Christian & Jewish respectfully, that although we could practically eliminate a country like Iran, we wouldn't.  While a country like Iran, a chief sponsor of terrorist activity across the globe, now having been given the green light by Obama to go full speed ahead in building their nuclear arsenal, would if they could, absolutely try to eliminate 1st Israel, and last U.S.

In other words, just because we dropped 2 atom bombs that brought an abrupt end to WWII, doesn't make any subsequent nuclear strike NOT a 1st strike.  ANY ATTACK, without provocation is a 1st strike, which would include any nuclear attack

[Plane]

  Ok good points.

   It has long been the unwritten rule that the USA will not use a nuclear first strike.


   McAuther really wanted to , but neither Truman, nor Eisenhower thought it a good idea , even though it would have saved a lot of trouble in Korea.

     There may be some agreements written that define or imply that the US will not use an Atom bomb except in the case that the opposition is using them, but whether written or not , it is our national honor that prevents our not using atomic tools to solve our problems.

     Is it passing strange that we have enemies that depend on our honor to live long enough to kill us?