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 8:20 pm to BobBoucher
Posted on 11/2/26 at 8:20 pm to BobBoucher
It wouldn’t be mini Hiroshima, there are no populated areas around the nuke sites
Posted on 11/2/26 at 8:21 pm to AgSGT
No, but do have to put boots on the ground. It’s the only way to actually plant the flag.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 8:38 pm to 2x4
The same was said about Japan, but in the end it took nukes to bring them to the table. That’s the unfortunate part about history, it’s a precursor to what could happen
Posted on 11/2/26 at 8:44 pm to Tampa Ray
Posted on 11/2/26 at 8:52 pm to Tampa Ray
Is this serious? I doubt even Trump is that big of an idiot.
If he dropped a nuke on Iran, how could we defend it or say anything if someone used one on us?
If he dropped a nuke on Iran, how could we defend it or say anything if someone used one on us?
Posted on 11/2/26 at 8:56 pm to Tampa Ray
Only on Mecca and only if any attack on American homeland occurs that involves a muslim.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 9:06 pm to 3down10
I’ve done the terrain analysis, the urban centers would be spared
This post was edited on 11/3/26 at 12:36 pm
Posted on 11/2/26 at 9:22 pm to Tampa Ray
quote:Huh? We've "obliterated" their nuclear capabilities. Like 37 times. Why would we nuke them? Just keep declaring victory every 2 weeks. Are you tired of "winning"?
Would you support Trump using Nuclear Weapons on Iran?
Posted on 11/2/26 at 9:22 pm to Taxing Authority
I preferred your aviation posts much better 
Posted on 11/2/26 at 9:36 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
Iran still has no weapons and hasn't fired one at us first, no.
But you would wait until a US city was melted before unleashing the bad boy?
I see no need here under present circumstance, but waiting to be hit first seems a mighty poor military strategy.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 9:44 pm to Tampa Ray
Lots of people saying no that would be saying “well he had to” if he actually did.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 9:47 pm to Sams Crow
quote:
But you would wait until a US city was melted before unleashing the bad boy?
No.
But that was an awesome Straw Man.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 9:50 pm to Tampa Ray
No. Would be an awful decision.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 9:55 pm to AgSGT
quote:
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.
Sorry, I don't believe you.
1. You don't even name a target.
2. The actual targets are within 20 miles of a city with over 1.2 million people, another possible target is on the outskirts of another city with 2 million people.
3. You can't predict or control the weather and I'm guessing you don't even think about such things.
4. Saving lives is 100% a fallacy and something you are saying to promote an agenda.
5. Radiation doesn't stop when the blast ends. The long-term fallout will manifest as acute radiation sickness, generational birth defects, cancer spikes, and the permanent contamination of vital agricultural land and water supplies.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 9:56 pm to 3down10
quote:
Sorry, I don't believe you.
1. You don't even name a target.
2. The actual targets are within 20 miles of a city with over 1.2 million people, another possible target is on the outskirts of another city with 2 million people.
3. You can't predict or control the weather and I'm guessing you don't even think about such things.
4. Saving lives is 100% a fallacy and something you are saying to promote an agenda.
5. Radiation doesn't stop when the blast ends. The long-term fallout will manifest as acute radiation sickness, generational birth defects, cancer spikes, and the permanent contamination of vital agricultural land and water supplies.
I'm with you.
Everything I read online paints a completely different picture.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 10:02 pm to Tampa Ray
nukes don't work
not as they tell you
big vapor bomb, like moab
all a giant lie for fear
not as they tell you
big vapor bomb, like moab
all a giant lie for fear
Posted on 11/2/26 at 10:08 pm to wackatimesthree
quote:
I'm with you.
Everything I read online paints a completely different picture.
And I don't see where the same goals couldn't be accomplished with conventional weapons....especially since it's been claimed to have already done the job.
Not to mention the entire act of normalizing nuclear weapons to be used in other conflicts.
It's just a bad idea and would at best just be terrorizing the populations to try and bend their political will.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 10:15 pm to Tampa Ray
Absolutely not ...if innocent victims of the regime will die...
Tactical nuke to destroy underground centrifuges...yes.
Tactical nuke to destroy underground centrifuges...yes.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 10:38 pm to Tampa Ray
Yes, it’s time to rid the earth of that trash. Somebody has to win against Muslims at some point and I’m on the opposite from them so I say just get it over with.
Posted on 11/2/26 at 11:15 pm to Tampa Ray
No, lol, who would at this current level of “warfare”? A bridge and power plant or two would do the trick.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News