Fiddy nukes :(

Bush talked of using tactical nukes before he came to office. No idea why people elected him. Can anybody read down south?

Somehow, someone so far has talked him out of it, or the chance to use them hasn't come about. In the first years of his presidency someone in government perseuded him to back off tactical nukes until research was finished on the mega conventional bombs they were working on. They dropped one in Florida, largest conventional explosion ever, but still not as big as they needed to rival a nuke.

The experts agree that the nuclear bunker complexs in Iran are untouchable with conventional weapons, they're simply buried too deep. Apparently a small nuke could take them out, or at least contaminate the facilities and prevent them from being used for another 50 years.

Israel will nuke Iran with a silent nod from US when all avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. They would be forced too with whats been said by Ahmadinejad.

Hopefully Iran smartens up. A nuke nowadays would open the doors to their use by other nuclear nations.

We need to at least talk to the Iranians first before we nuke them.

You are sooooo FUCKING RETARDED :1orglaugh:1orglaugh

Got another question, our troops say there is nothing left to destroy in Iraq we have practically leveled the place ... so what is the real reason we are over there? All I know is to invade yet another country we will likely have to have another terrorist attack. I feel like a sitting duck.. Am I seeing this wrong or are the US residents chopped liver.

The Israeli lobby community is by far the most productive in DC, many a President have tried to put Israel in its place but sooner or later they all let it go as the jews all pull together their leverage, financially and otherwise. I'd dare to say the US would treat any WMD attack on Israel as an attack on US soil.

Apparently Putin is now also worried that new radars in Czech have upset the global strategic balance.. this could be concerning for the US/EU.

Tactical nukes, a new term invented and designed to trivialize nuclear bombs.

how could this even be debateable issue in the first place? US gov't is just trying to keep it's political power above any living entity in the world!morally wrong and illogical... and they are just justifying it and covering it up with the so-call war against terror , which is really a war against impending power grab from the white house...

Best Point yet,

Apparently there are some folks who don't understand the result of any nuclear class weapon, ground detonated anywhere in the Mid-East or the US.

Unfortunately I have a feeling we shall soon find out.

How do you think Russia will respond to US setting of a nuke in that area.

Fallout is a B*tch..

I'm sure the homosexuals, political prisoners, and the last communist leader would sure disagree with you, and what you totally believe.

The simple fact that republican primarys are talking about tactical nuking (preemptive) is SO far up crazy street..

If the americans are talking about "bombing them back to the stoneage", why the hell WOULDN'T iran try and develop nuclear missiles?

hopefully they dont drop anything..........:\

wouldn't be just russia.. it be basically everyone. No one would accept USA dropping nuclear weapons. They tried that idea in Korea, and the politicians balked. If they dropped it on Iran, AFTER stating that Iran isn't safe enough to have them.. sure goes along way at creating a "responsible" reputation

True, very true

The sad thing is that it seems that some political leaders have given up on reputation. We are in a shit-hole so deep that maybe "they", (I am using that term very loosely) feel that the only way out is to esculate and try to regain control with that aproach.

Sad situation..

And some still wonder why people are out to destroy us. Seems to me your thoughts are no different than the 9/11 terrorists.

Which bits? All I've ever heard him say... or vote for, is against alternative energy sources and that the free market will deal with peak oil and governments shouldn't invest to ease the transition.. which I find pretty ridiculous... Energy dependency isn't something we can afford to be reactionary about.

He didn't vote against alternative energy, he voted against the government funding it. He votes against a lot of things that the government wants to fund. He's a libertarian. Small government. Low taxes.