0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Would you support Trump using Nuclear Weapons on Iran?
Posted on 11/2/26 at 6:38 pm to AgSGT
Posted on 11/2/26 at 6:38 pm to AgSGT
If it means taking out where they are developing the nuclear weapon to distroy our country if it is our only option to stop them i would definately have it as an option.
Would you rather wait and let them develop and use them on us first.
Not population areas but to destroy the capability to achieve yes.
If we can do the job with bunker busters then no.
I am not an expert on our military or expert with the knowledge our military has to do the job right without them.
In a response to one from them absolutely.
Would you rather wait and let them develop and use them on us first.
Not population areas but to destroy the capability to achieve yes.
If we can do the job with bunker busters then no.
I am not an expert on our military or expert with the knowledge our military has to do the job right without them.
In a response to one from them absolutely.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 6:38 pm to Tampa Ray
No. Good Lord
Posted on 11/2/26 at 6:43 pm to Tampa Ray
Posted on 11/2/26 at 6:55 pm to Tampa Ray
What if they attack us first?
Posted on 11/2/26 at 6:59 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
No. I don't think the results would be worth the political fallout.
Not because of all the innocent people that would be killed or anything like that.
If you have 10 wheels for Jesus, it must be to run him over.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 6:59 pm to TigerAxeOK
I always find it interesting when people talk in definites about what we would assume is secret military information.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 7:00 pm to Tampa Ray
No nukes. But Trump does need to strategically cause significant damage to Iran’s power grid and wipe out the majority of the remaining hardliners.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 7:03 pm to Tampa Ray
No. I also don’t support bombing civilian infrastructure because I’m not a deranged blood thirsty lunatic
Posted on 11/2/26 at 7:08 pm to 3down10
The nuclear sites aren’t in populated areas, civilian deaths would be minimal
Posted on 11/2/26 at 7:19 pm to AgSGT
quote:
The nuclear sites aren’t in populated areas, civilian deaths would be minimal
Still going to have fallout.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 7:25 pm to Tampa Ray
frick yea
It’s time to remind the world who the big swingin dick is
It’s time to remind the world who the big swingin dick is
Posted on 11/2/26 at 7:35 pm to Tampa Ray
You're late for your meds. That rash won't go away by itself.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 7:39 pm to FleurDeLonestar
quote:It's a conundrum. I can easily look into the future and see Iran nuking Tel Aviv. There may be merit in the madness.
Voted for him 3 times and would NOT support this action.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 7:40 pm to Tampa Ray
No. Once you uncork that, you cant put it back in the bottle. That would lead to global exchanges, particularly by barely above 3rd world nuclear powers like Pakistan and India
Posted on 11/2/26 at 7:42 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
tactical, low yield nuke(whatever is needed to penetrate that granite),
A conventionally deployed nuclear warhead probably wont work very well for this assuming it is actually a hardened underground facility in a granite mountain. Their best effect is as an air burst weapon. A hardened deep bunker is a bitch to take out without kicking the door down and sending men in.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 7:45 pm to 3down10
quote:
Still going to have fallout.
Yes, but an underground detonation of a 2 stage nuke is going to be relatively clean. They already dont make a ton of fallout to begin with relative to the old school rigs.
The real issue is uncorking the genie. It hasn't been done in 80 years and the use back then was easily justifiable politically. Any other country would have used them to conquer the world back then. It could be a perfectly clean bomb, it doesnt matter. It's literally going nuclear, and the world's assumption has been the next country to do it will get the collective wrath of the rest of the world dropped on their heads.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 8:18 pm to Tampa Ray
I thought tactical was used strictly for higher destruction without the fallout.
I was wrong. A ground detonation like for a bunker would bring substantial fallout.
A mini Hiroshima isn’t worth it.
I was wrong. A ground detonation like for a bunker would bring substantial fallout.
A mini Hiroshima isn’t worth it.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 8:19 pm to BobBoucher
Posted on 11/2/26 at 8:19 pm to 3down10
I’m a geospatial analyst, did the same line of work when battle planning for Iran when I was in the Army. A nuke would save thousands of lives on both sides and the proximity populated areas are from where these sites are, would leave them fine.
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News