Kvatch Konsiders: The Day After We Bomb Iran
At least I'll have a legitimate excuse to drink more. :)
It will surprise me greatly if he leaves office without firing off at least one.
Note the "mistake" of loading up a B52 with them earlier this week...
Would they (we) accept a humiliating retreat? With the precedent of the NATA Cold War strategy available, I don't think so, and this really worries me. Tactical nukes against facilities is one thing, killing 10s of thousands of troops at a time is another.
Sewmouse... The kind of nukes I'm talking about aren't "strategic" but "tactical". The kind that would be fired off probably by retreating US Army divisions. But you're right, I wouldn't put anything past The Deciderer.
Agreed, but they'll use whatever they have. And nuking facilities is a road I'd never want to see us take, anyway. The next step is so much easier then. Precedent to these clowns only means a bar of lunacy that needs to be passed.
I love hearing from the "serious" types on the left that they'll never use nukes, that it's some tinfoil hat bullshit. Um, really? They've shown restraint in 6+ years? I'll never put anything past them. Not a goddamn thing.
I'm telling ya, I keep coming here for quality laughs and keep on getting depressed. :)
You know, some days the laughter muse strikes, and some days...not so much. But it's always best when a post just writes itself.
So Randal, just for you! ;-)
But if we do bomb Iran I do worry that Iran's army will attack our troops in Iraq leading to massive casualties.
Day 5: India will not let Paki's nukes go unanswered.
Day 6: ...---...
What's the difference? And I am not asking about technical differences (my husband is a nuclear physics major), I am talking about the precedent it would set, the radioactivity it would release, the normalizing of nuclear weapons, etc..
"Tactical nukes against facilities is one thing, killing 10s of thousands of troops at a time is another."
Most of these "facilities" are within miles of highly populated civilian cities. I do not see a difference. A nuke is a nuke and shouldn't be used. How hypocritical, not to mention evil and murderous, would it be of us to use nuclear weapons against a country to supposedly keep them from getting and using a nuclear weapon.
You know Navyswan...that's a good question, and honestly, setting aside the technical details, I'm not sure.
Strategic nuclear weapons won't be used against Iran no matter what. But w.r.t. tactical nukes, I just have the feeling that if we used them against advancing ground forces (basically the sole purpose being to kill large numbers of soldiers quickly), we're going to suffer much more than we would otherwise. But your point about the irony of the situation is well taken. The problem of course is that Bu$hCo is irony impaired and doesn't give a sh*t in any case.
No one seemed to care much back then....