re: Would you support Trump using Nuclear Weapons on Iran?

quote:

---

Anyone saying yes has never played Risk. Or needs to watch War Games.

---

Done both. No problem with nuking any non-nuclear enemy.

No

And apparently they have more assets in underground tunnels that weren’t destroyed. I served in the Middle East, Iran has been at war with the US for decades, I may be alone in this belief but I’m happy we have a President decide to finally fight back, but a ground war would be devastating for both Iran and the US. Iran is far more sophisticated than Iraq and Afghanistan with assets buried far below the surface for their protection, a ground war would be suicide, a nuke would actually save lives

Whatever this board says I'm going opposite. Sometimes you have to make tough, unpopular choices, to maintain complete power. Iran has been playing a game waiting for dems to get in power. They figure dems will want to help them rebuild plus provide much needed money. They are probably right knowing our whacktard dems

No. I don't think the results would be worth the political fallout.

quote:

---

If he do the moral high ground over with … Russia would in turn nuke Kiev

---

Apples and oranges. Such a ridiculous comparison. Kiev is highly populated and is not suspected of hiding nuclear material underground, but you already knew this. Or maybe not and you just really are dumb or ....

Any situation can be fixed with the proper application of explosives.
Should we blast Iran back to the stone ages, along with the rest of the Jihadists? I'ma say yes, oh hell yes.
Are nukes the proper application for doing so? I'ma give that a big hell no.

I don’t think so. Prefer he not. But, being in his position, he is in a much better place with intel to make that difficult decision.

quote:

---

Would you have supported the decision to nuke Japan?
What would have been your choice in that situation?

---

That's the thing, dude.

Nobody knew how over the top awful nukes were until we did that. The reluctance now is in the context of that decision, and the political consequences would be 100 times different.

Plus, today's nukes don't bear much resemblance to those. They're around 30 times more powerful. Which brings me to this:

quote:

---

think the decision they made worked out very well.
It sure was better than a land invasion or surrender.

---

Because today's nukes are so much more powerful, you can't just drop a few and think there wouldn't be worldwide ramifications. There absolutely would be. And I'm not just talking about political ramifications. I'm talking about a regional famine that would affect every country in the ME, as many as (estimated) 30 million people dead after the initial blast and resulting ionization, nuclear winter, famine, world economy collapse, stock market collapse...etc.

The whole reason we can't let Iran get a nuke is so that they won't cause all that themselves by bombing Israel with it. It does us no good to cause it ourselves.