Should the free world put together a military force to invade Iran?

[Deegan]

I don't think we need to invade, just drop some very big bombs, on some very important targets.

 

[UtahBill]

I don't think we need to invade, just drop some very big bombs, on some very important targets.

Yes, but not pre-emptive. Just tell Iran, and North Korea, to go ahead and build their destructive little toys, but if they ever use them aggressively, they should plan on having a thousand cruise missles for dinner the next day.
Take out their major military hardware capabilities first, then the next round of cruise missles can have neutron bomb warheads to kill off any concentration of troops, should that be needed.
No need to send troops to occupy either country. The smarter citizens will finish up the job for us, in Iran anyway. North Korea may take several rounds of neutron bombs before we kill off enough of the brainwashed troops to make it known to them that there is no defense from fast neutrons, unless they happen to have lots of very deep caves.:2wave:

 

[Donkey1499]

I honestly believe the only way to assure there is peace in the middle east is to keep countries like Iran and Syria disarmed.

What do you folks think?

YEAH! Let's nuke the Hell out of the middle east!!!! Screw those Camel Jockies!!! DAMN THEM ALL TO HELL!!!!!!!!

(Just kidding guys. I couldn't help myself.)

 

[SKILMATIC]

Originally Posted by Vader
I honestly believe the only way to assure there is peace in the middle east is to keep countries like Iran and Syria disarmed.

What do you folks think?

Fvck disarmament. More like extermination. :rofl

 

[Vader]

What hubris! Who are we to say we can have all the arms and nukes we want, in fact we've even used them, while countries that we don't like can't ? Nuclear disarmament isn't going to happen until we take the lead.

Ok.

1. WE HAVE NEVER EVER EVER EVER USED A NUCLEAR WEAPON.
2. THE WEAPONS IN WWII WERE ATOMIC (THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM NUCLEAR)
3. THE USA HAS NEVER SOLD NUCLEAR OR ATOMIC WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS.
4. THE USA IS NOT GOVERNED BY TERRORIST-SUPPORTING ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS
5. IRAN IS A COUNTRY THAT IS INFAMOUS FOR SUPPORTING TERRORIST ACTS AND THOSE WHO COMMIT THEM. (Ask the people who were held hostage by Iranian terrorists for 444 days while the Ayetoiletbowl Komonkeyboy DID NOT A DAMN THING.
6. IRAN WILL SELL THESE WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS ... THE USA DOES NOT
7. IF YOU THINK IRAN CAN BE TRUSTED YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

 

[Kelzie]

Ok.

1. WE HAVE NEVER EVER EVER EVER USED A NUCLEAR WEAPON.
2. THE WEAPONS IN WWII WERE ATOMIC (THIS IS DIFFERENT FROM NUCLEAR)
3. THE USA HAS NEVER SOLD NUCLEAR OR ATOMIC WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS.
4. THE USA IS NOT GOVERNED BY TERRORIST-SUPPORTING ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS
5. IRAN IS A COUNTRY THAT IS INFAMOUS FOR SUPPORTING TERRORIST ACTS AND THOSE WHO COMMIT THEM. (Ask the people who were held hostage by Iranian terrorists for 444 days while the Ayetoiletbowl Komonkeyboy DID NOT A DAMN THING.
6. IRAN WILL SELL THESE WEAPONS TO TERRORISTS ... THE USA DOES NOT
7. IF YOU THINK IRAN CAN BE TRUSTED YOU'RE AN IDIOT.

I...was under the impression that atomic bombs were nuclear weapons. No?

 

[Vader]

I...was under the impression that atomic bombs were nuclear weapons. No?

Little boy (the a-bomb dropped on nagasaki) and Fatman (the a-bomb dropped on Hiroshima) were Atomic in nature. They differ from the "nukes" of today mainly by strength. The bombs of today are many times more powerful then those used in WWII. Additionally, the materials used to achieve fision (the process of spilitting the atom) are vastly different. The old technology yeilded and explosion that produced a great deal less post-detonation radiation; however, the nukes of today produce so much post-detonation radioactivity that they would quite literally rendener ground zero, and an area of several hunderd miles around ground zero, totally unlivable for 100 or more years.

While the effect of these weapons (mass-destruction) is similar, the technology and the materials in each weapon are vastly different.

I hope this helps!

 

[Hoot]

How nice to see so many people in here resigned to all out nuclear war. Some of you even advocate it.

Talk about naive?

Just one of our nuclear weapons is more firepower than all the bombs dropped during WWII, including Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Of course we can't allow Iran to have a bomb of this devastation, but to pre-emptively attack another nation is a recipe for WWIII, and should be a last resort. ( Not the kind of last resort Bush spoke of) We can still try to use united world pressure to bring Iran into the modern world.

We want peace in the Mid East? How about lowering our prescence in this area of the world? How about weaning ourselves off oil? How about taking care of our own, and letting the Mid East blow the ---- out of eachother? If Iran develops and foolishly uses a nuclear weapon, it should be made clear, that this will be the beginning of oblivion for them.

I'd love to see a day when all nuclear weapons are banned ...including ours. This is one weapon that should never be used.

For the rest of you in here...isn't it time to go out and polish that gun rack in the back of your foreign made auto?

 

[Kelzie]

How nice to see so many people in here resigned to all out nuclear war. Some of you even advocate it.

Talk about naive?

Just one of our nuclear weapons is more firepower than all the bombs dropped during WWII, including Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Of course we can't allow Iran to have a bomb of this devastation, but to pre-emptively attack another nation is a recipe for WWIII, and should be a last resort. ( Not the kind of last resort Bush spoke of) We can still try to use united world pressure to bring Iran into the modern world.

We want peace in the Mid East? How about lowering our prescence in this area of the world? How about weaning ourselves off oil? How about taking care of our own, and letting the Mid East blow the ---- out of eachother? If Iran develops and foolishly uses a nuclear weapon, it should be made clear, that this will be the beginning of oblivion for them.

I'd love to see a day when all nuclear weapons are banned ...including ours. This is one weapon that should never be used.

For the rest of you in here...isn't it time to go out and polish that gun rack in the back of your foreign made auto?

Man, I said that the best choice was that nobody had them. Don't judge me. Judge them. :mrgreen:

 

[UtahBill]

Little boy (the a-bomb dropped on nagasaki) and Fatman (the a-bomb dropped on Hiroshima) were Atomic in nature. They differ from the "nukes" of today mainly by strength. The bombs of today are many times more powerful then those used in WWII. Additionally, the materials used to achieve fision (the process of spilitting the atom) are vastly different. The old technology yeilded and explosion that produced a great deal less post-detonation radiation; however, the nukes of today produce so much post-detonation radioactivity that they would quite literally rendener ground zero, and an area of several hunderd miles around ground zero, totally unlivable for 100 or more years.

While the effect of these weapons (mass-destruction) is similar, the technology and the materials in each weapon are vastly different.

I hope this helps!

You are still getting it wrong. They are all nuclear weapons, some are fission, some are fusion. The original atomic bombs were nuclear, period. The names were changed, but the explosion was the same, only more powerful as time progressed. Here is a link, scroll down to Types of Nuclear Weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon
Note that neutron bombs do little infrastructure damage, but kill every living thing in its range. That would be the choice for use on the millions of N. Koreans when they try to cross into S. Korea.

 

[Kelzie]

You are still getting it wrong. They are all nuclear weapons, some are fission, some are fusion. The original atomic bombs were nuclear, period. The names were changed, but the explosion was the same, only more powerful as time progressed. Here is a link, scroll down to Types of Nuclear Weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

That's what I thought but I didn't feel like researching. Thanks. :mrgreen:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I completely had this mind set until I learned about the difference between first and second strike capabilities. First strike capabilty is being able to hit first and limit your enemy's abillity to retaliate to acceptable levels. Second strike capabiltity is the ability to absord an enemy's attack and still have enough weapons to inflict unacceptable damage on them. The US and Russia have second strike capabilty. All developing nuclear powers have first strike capability. Big deal you say. Well, say you're a country with first strike capability and you here news that your enemy is planning on attacking your weapons silos. What do you do? If they attack it, that's it. You won't be able to attack them anymore. So you attack first. That's the danger of countries with first strike capability. It is too easily taken away, so they become trigger happy. A country that only has first strike is tempted to attack by the belief that his opponent could not retaliate. A county that has second strike capabilty knows that it can strike back so it is not tempted to strike first.

it's not all about the amount of nukes you have it's about the delivery systems IE submarine launched nukes are second strike weapons because even if the U.S. is hit they won't be able to hit the subs.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

a

Little boy (the a-bomb dropped on nagasaki) and Fatman (the a-bomb dropped on Hiroshima) were Atomic in nature. They differ from the "nukes" of today mainly by strength. The bombs of today are many times more powerful then those used in WWII. Additionally, the materials used to achieve fision (the process of spilitting the atom) are vastly different. The old technology yeilded and explosion that produced a great deal less post-detonation radiation; however, the nukes of today produce so much post-detonation radioactivity that they would quite literally rendener ground zero, and an area of several hunderd miles around ground zero, totally unlivable for 100 or more years.

While the effect of these weapons (mass-destruction) is similar, the technology and the materials in each weapon are vastly different.

I hope this helps!

ya fusion bombs were the ones that were used in Nagasaki and Hiroshima fission is what we have now. The difference is that in a fusion bomb you would use uranium (the densest element) to create a fission reaction in which things come together but in a fusion bomb you use hydrogen (the lightest element) to create a fusion chain reaction in which things come apart and this one is thousands (I think) times more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

 

[SKILMATIC]

a

ya fusion bombs were the ones that were used in Nagasaki and Hiroshima fission is what we have now. The difference is that in a fusion bomb you would use uranium (the densest element) to create a fission reaction in which things come together but in a fusion bomb you use hydrogen (the lightest element) to create a fusion chain reaction in which things come apart and this one is thousands (I think) times more powerful than the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs.

Actually the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Naga were fission not fussion.

A Fussion bomb needs a fission trigger to activate the level of fussion.

Let me explain the 2.

Fission ("splitting") occurs when the nucleus of large, unstable atoms, like uranium and plutonium, break into smaller atoms, releasing energetic radiation and neutrons.

Fusion ("joining") occurs when light atoms, primarily isotopes of hydrogen, fuse into larger atoms, releasing fantastic quantities of energy. Fusion powers the sun and "hydrogen" bombs, which are called "thermonuclear" for the intense heat needed to overcome electrical repulsion between positively-charged hydrogen nuclei. Fusion, however, is extremely difficult to control; although billions have been spent to tame fusion for electricity, practical reactors are decades away.

In bombs, the two forms of nuclear energy are often blended. Most fission bombs are "boosted" with fusion fuel. All fusion bombs are triggered by fission bombs, and most contain a second fission bomb, called a "spark plug."

I hope this helps everyone understand the difference between the 2 becaseu they are consistently confused.

 

[Kelzie]

it's not all about the amount of nukes you have it's about the delivery systems IE submarine launched nukes are second strike weapons because even if the U.S. is hit they won't be able to hit the subs.

Thank you Captain Obvious. I tried to argue with a wall...and by that I mean SKIL...in the WWIII is coming thread. Go read it. I explained in detail Russia's delivery systems.

 

[SKILMATIC]

Thank you Captain Obvious. I tried to argue with a wall...and by that I mean SKIL...in the WWIII is coming thread. Go read it. I explained in detail Russia's delivery systems.

Again, its not about hitting the subs initially. Its about hitting the incoming nukes from the subs which would occur via air defense and via SAM sites. Look, Kelzie you are mssing the point. I never said Russia isnt second strike capable. I said it just wasnt capable in delivering a second strike to the US.

Of course Russia could deliver a somewhat easy second strike to Zimbabwe but that wasnt the discussion. It was whether they could do so in concordance to the US. Everyone technically has the capability to deliver a second strike. However, the question is will you be able to?

So again your wrong. Russia is second strike capable but not in concordance to the US. They would fail miserably rendering the Russians having no second strike capability in concordance to the US.

 

[Kelzie]

Again, its not about hitting the subs initially. Its about hitting the incoming nukes from the subs which would occur via air defense and via SAM sites. Look, Kelzie you are mssing the point. I never said Russia isnt second strike capable. I said it just wasnt capable in delivering a second strike to the US.

Of course Russia could deliver a somewhat easy second strike to Zimbabwe but that wasnt the discussion. It was whether they could do so in concordance to the US. Everyone technically has the capability to deliver a second strike. However, the question is will you be able to?

So again your wrong. Russia is second strike capable but not in concordance to the US. They would fail miserably rendering the Russians having no second strike capability in concordance to the US.

I am not going to continue your sorry excuse for a debate in this thread. If you want to say the same thing you've said already without offering proof, go back to the original thread where I can ignore you.

 

[SKILMATIC]

I am not going to continue your sorry excuse for a debate in this thread. If you want to say the same thing you've said already without offering proof, go back to the original thread where I can ignore you.

No proof? Just like your no proof posts? A matter a fact I have submitted far more factual support than you even know what I am talking about. You dont even know what pebbles is or what a F22 islet alone understand warfare. The only sorry excuse is your effort to debate something you know nothing about. And it shows in your impedent posts. As they hold no sense whatsoever when it comes to these matters.

 

[Kelzie]

No proof? Just like your no proof posts? A matter a fact I have submitted far more factual support than you even know what I am talking about. You dont even know what pebbles is or what a F22 islet alone understand warfare. The only sorry excuse is your effort to debate something you know nothing about. And it shows in your impedent posts. As they hold no sense whatsoever when it comes to these matters.

Hardly. I posted numbers on Russia's defense and opinions from actual experts in the field. You post with the belief that you know more then not only the experts, but the President of the United States about the capability of ours and Russia's defense system.

Yeah, you sure won that one. :lol:

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Actually the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Naga were fission not fussion.

A Fussion bomb needs a fission trigger to activate the level of fussion.

Let me explain the 2.

Fission ("splitting") occurs when the nucleus of large, unstable atoms, like uranium and plutonium, break into smaller atoms, releasing energetic radiation and neutrons.

Fusion ("joining") occurs when light atoms, primarily isotopes of hydrogen, fuse into larger atoms, releasing fantastic quantities of energy. Fusion powers the sun and "hydrogen" bombs, which are called "thermonuclear" for the intense heat needed to overcome electrical repulsion between positively-charged hydrogen nuclei. Fusion, however, is extremely difficult to control; although billions have been spent to tame fusion for electricity, practical reactors are decades away.

In bombs, the two forms of nuclear energy are often blended. Most fission bombs are "boosted" with fusion fuel. All fusion bombs are triggered by fission bombs, and most contain a second fission bomb, called a "spark plug."

I hope this helps everyone understand the difference between the 2 becaseu they are consistently confused.

ok I must have gotten them mixed up but I know it has something to do with the density of hydrogen and uranium being the key reasons why they are used.

 

[Hoot]

Man, I said that the best choice was that nobody had them. Don't judge me. Judge them. :mrgreen:

Would sharing a bottle of Dom Perignon make up for it?

 

[Kelzie]

Would sharing a bottle of Dom Perignon make up for it?

Yes. Yes it would. :lol:

 

[UtahBill]

No proof? Just like your no proof posts? A matter a fact I have submitted far more factual support than you even know what I am talking about. You dont even know what pebbles is or what a F22 islet alone understand warfare. The only sorry excuse is your effort to debate something you know nothing about. And it shows in your impedent posts. As they hold no sense whatsoever when it comes to these matters.

You only know what you misread, and misquoted, when it comes to nuclear weapons. You did not win anything, except the glory of labeling yourself as one who does not check his few facts before he repeats them incorrectly.

 

[Kelzie]

You only know what you misread, and misquoted, when it comes to nuclear weapons. You did not win anything, except the glory of labeling yourself as one who does not check his few facts before he repeats them incorrectly.

I like you. :2wave: You're my new best friend.

 

[UtahBill]

I like you. :2wave: You're my new best friend.

Stop it, you're scaring me!!:2wave: