Should the west nuke Iran 'til it glows?

Arguments aside, in answer to your title.

Yes.  If you want to save 3 billion lives

No, If you think that we must save every life regardless of the lives they cost in the long run.

Actually, not just that, but once they have, will most likely use them on Israel, a country they have repeatedly stated should be wiped off the face of the Earth.

What facts are these? I certainly haven't come across them. There are suggestions from some commentators, sure, but I'd love to know where you're getting your facts from. Have stolen Iranian warplans been published?

Nuke-em, nuke palestine, nuke Saudi arabia, nuke N, Korea, nuke em nuke em all. oh yeh blast France too.

No. Anything that can be done with conventional weapons shouldn't be done with nuclear weapons. The stench of using nuclear weapons will never wash off, and not matter how much easier it ends up being it won't make it worth it.

The illusion that we are facing in the Middle East is that we are not at war with the people there. That's garbage, of course we are, as Iraq has shown. Any future wars need to be fought in such a way that the dying doesn't stop until the people themselves surrender, and there should be no occupation, no government building.

Enemies should be defeated in the way that best suits our self interest. It isn't in our self interest to use nuclear weapons, and it isn't in our interest to put ourselves in harm's way for anything short of total victory.

Should we nuke them until they glow? I'm glad it's a question and not a call to "here we go again"!

Any future wars need to be fought in such a way that the dying doesn't stop until the people themselves surrender, and there should be no occupation, no government building.

I've long said that the USA doesn't have the stomach for empire-building. Take an example from the most successful empire in history, Rome, and you'll see that they did just what you're saying. Fight in a way that they dying doesn't stop until the people themselves surrender.

Do I want that? No. But if the US empire is going to go anywhere, then our tactics must become much more ruthless. Otherwise, we should just stay at home.

Any future wars need to be fought in such a way that the dying doesn't stop until the people themselves surrender, and there should be no occupation, no government building.

Or they should be fought through Marshall plan generosity. I've always said that the greatest weakness of the US war machine is its halfhearted approach. It can't decide between doing what's right or doing what's most efficient, and so fails.

There's plenty of historical examples of provinces being won through economics and diplomacy. It just takes decades rather than weeks.

If it's necessary to win in weeks - that is of course assuming terpfan really does have the solid evidence he claims he possesses - then total military subjugation will be necessary. And that will require the deaths of everyone even remotely capable of rebelling against US interests, because otherwise the danger is too great of another Iraq. If the US uses its superior technology and weaponry to kill every Iranian over the age of 8 or so the likelihood of rebellion will be zero - there'd be noone to rebel. And think of all the movie stars who'll be able to have adopted foreign kids!

It'll solve two big problems in one go.

I'M sorry, I did not realise we (that being the coalition of the willing) were at war with Iraq, I must haved missed something. I was sure we were at war with terrorism.

Do I want that? No. But if the US empire is going to go anywhere, then our tactics must become much more ruthless. Otherwise, we should just stay at home.

I'd prefer we stay home.  Unfortunately, other people keep attacking us.  There was no remotely justifiable excuse for 9/11. 

OMG are the united states at it again? Who are they to meddle in foreign politics? Iran hasn't done anything.

Preemptive strikes are nothing but euforism for starting a war. I can't believe this shit.

I don't think a nuclear Iran is in anyone's interest, but I'm not sure a nuclear India is either, and the administration wants to help them improve their nuclear programs (energy, at least).

That being said, BakerStreet's right - nukes are a last resort weapon: as in we're in an all-out war with a superior opponent, which Iran is most definitely not.

I say continue the diplomacy, then, should all else fail, a few cruise missles at a few production/research sites go a long way.

Simple answer no.

I would like to know why its ok for countries like the US, China, UK to have nukes, but other countries aren't? You can tell me because these countries aren't a threat till you're blue in the face. These countries are super powers and right now they dictate what happens in this world, unfortunatley the US are losing their super power status everyday and after the invasion of Iraq and the balls up that was, the US are not any many peoples good terms.

I think people should watch the likes of China closely, they are in pole position to replace the US as super power and the scary thing is they know what they're doing. If China walks away from this, the the "west" should too.

Reply By: cactoblasta    Posted: Saturday, April 08, 2006Actually, not just that, but once they have, will most likely use them on Israel, a country they have repeatedly stated should be wiped off the face of the Earth.What facts are these? I certainly haven't come across them. There are suggestions from some commentators, sure, but I'd love to know where you're getting your facts from. Have stolen Iranian warplans been published?

You apparently don't get out often.

See link here: Ahmadinejad: Wipe Israel off map (from Aljazeera.Net).

Actually, I'll make it really easy for you:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has openly called for Israel to be wiped off the map. "The establishment of the Zionist regime was a move by the world oppressor against the Islamic world," the president told a conference in Tehran on Wednesday, entitled The World without Zionism. "The skirmishes in the occupied land are part of a war of destiny. The outcome of hundreds of years of war will be defined in Palestinian land," he said. "As the Imam said, Israel must be wiped off the map," said Ahmadinejad, referring to Iran's revolutionary leader Ayat Allah Khomeini.

Let the comments continue, though, hmmm, let me add this twist/clarification to the question at hand --

If the only way to make sure that Iran doesn't continue developing nuclear weapons is to use nuclear weapons against them, then does your answer change?

I say we delete trash from anonymous users that can't keep their replies to language that they wouldn't be afraid to use in front of their own grandmothers.

If you want to say that the righty war mongers should be the ones to taste blood (their own, their own families, or that of the enemy) that is fine, but do it with more taste and decorum and less of the toilet language that indicates either the age or i.q. of a 13 year old that is wasting their parents money...

Actually, I'll make it really easy for you:

That didn't make it easy at all, because everyone knows that Middle Eastern leaders say that kind of thing all the time and don't mean it. I have a feeling though that neither of us will be in any position to judge Iran's intent until such time as they actually do attack. So I'm over speculating for now.

That didn't make it easy at all, because everyone knows that Middle Eastern leaders say that kind of thing all the time and don't mean it.

I'd say that the recent tests of Iranian missiles that most definitely have a range capable of hitting Israel and have capability of delivering multiple war-heads shows more than a little intent to deliver on the hyperbole that the Iranian President was spouting off.

You can put your head in the sand and ignore the statements and pretend it's just propaganda and has no basis in fact, but I think that if Iran had a chance they'd take nuclear toys and start a wonderful little war with them if possible.

I'd say that the recent tests of Iranian missiles that most definitely have a range capable of hitting Israel and have capability of delivering multiple war-heads shows more than a little intent to deliver on the hyperbole that the Iranian President was spouting off. You can put your head in the sand and ignore the statements and pretend it's just propaganda and has no basis in fact, but I think that if Iran had a chance they'd take nuclear toys and start a wonderful little war with them if possible.

I'm not pretending it's propaganda. I don't, however, take the general overblown posturing of Middle Eastern potentates as anything particularly meaningful. I certainly don't consider their words sufficient reason to authorise a nuclear strike on a civilian population, which would be necessary to ensure the destruction of any city-based warheads if it really is necessary to avoid conventional arms.

As for the recent missile tests I don't consider them important at all. That was a display for the benefit of other states to demonstrate their capacity. India and Pakistan frequently clash and the rhetoric from both capitals can be just as flowery and excessive as from Iran. And yet neither has launched a nuclear strike. Missile tests are not an indication of an intent to launch. They have many purposes, but that's not one of them.

Nuke-em, nuke-em and then nuke-em some more, no aid, no help no nothing till the entire world surrenders and declares me KING!

It's amazing reading the absolutely ignorant comment on issues that far outsize their mental capacity.

Yup

Gung ho! While preparing to invade Japan or Formosa, I was saved by nukes, but I'm not proud of it.

Japan was actively engaging in wartime activities.

Iran may or may not be engaging in enrichment processes for the creation of nuclear arms. Apples / oranges.

Using nuclear arms in a pre-emptive strike opens up a Pandora's box of possibilities, including the launching of nuclear arms in our direction and of course stirring up the ant's nest of agitated Muslim jihadists. If anything, a conventional strike would suffice.

But uh, ya'll are scaring me with talking about nukes vs Iran when North Korea already has the bomb, 1 million troops and a big bunch of saber rattling.

"Using nuclear arms in a pre-emptive strike opens up a Pandora's box of possibilities, including the launching of nuclear arms in our direction and of course stirring up the ant's nest of agitated Muslim jihadists. If anything, a conventional strike would suffice."

Yeah, it would suck if the jihadists suddenly started hating us and chanting death to America and stuff...

Yeah, go ahead, I don't own any property there.

Ok, time to offer my thoughts here....

First, I really, really, hope that things don't get to the point that we must attack Iran, but with that said, I believe we must whole-heartedly do it right.

All of the intel that I've heard/read tells me that Iran learned some hard lessons rather easily by watching what happened to their neighbors back when Israel took out the Iraqi reactor so many years ago. They have spread their efforts throughout their country and worked hard to hide them and keep them from being ready and easy targets.

While I believe that between most of the Western civilizations (U.S., U.K., etc.) and Israel we have much better intel about the sites within Iran, there's no guarantee that all of the sites could be hit in any one, or even several attacks. That tells me that any strikes that are made must be made hard, and must be devastating. They have to be strong enough to completely destroy Iran's ability to recover from them for years to come.

On the other hand, we also need to be cogniscant of the civilians that could be hurt by such attacks, and we must do what we can to minimize the damage to collateral targets.

It's a tough thing to balance, but if we believe that the only way to stop the Iranians is to use our own nuclear weapons to do so, then I think it's the right thing to do. Would it perhaps create more jihadists and terrorists to come after us? Possibly. But at least those individuals and/or groups wouldn't be armed with weapons of mass destruction, or at least not nuclear based weaponry.