_
Lv 6
_ asked in News & EventsCurrent Events · 8 years ago

Should the west use tactical nuclear weapons to stop Iran's nuclear programme?

Maybe already too late. Iraq's and Syria's were stopped by Israel alone. This time Israel may not be left alone to stop Iran's nuclear weapons programme (or Saudi Arabia's in response to Iran's). US has suddenly realised their bombs aren't powerful enough so they weren't paying attention.

Update:

A day for assumptions and libel on Yahoo answers, including one who ran away, but a few answers.

18 Answers

Relevance
  • 8 years ago
    Best Answer

    Nukes really are not a useful tool when you are trying to stop something like a weapons program.

    Remember that a nuclear weapon causes damage by three methods

    radiation (ionizing and heat) - Both effects are blocked by earth and rock, so the plants in the caves are not going to be affected much

    Blast - again, being buried in a bunker is a good defense

    EMI effects - The EMI pulse from a nuke is actually the best way to reach these underground plants, because the pulse can use the power lines and reach underground that way. How well these plants are shielded against EMI Blasts is a big dark secret, I'm sure. The problem is that we would never know how effective the blast was, as there would be no evidence the satellites could see

    The only way a nuke could really be used is it was encased in a deep penetrating bomb that would burrow way into the mountain before detonating. If done properly, the entire detonation would be trapped inside the collapsing mountain and fallout would be minimal. Of course, if Murphy showed up, (and he ALWAYS shows up at the worst possible time) the fallout would be horrendous. Wind patterns would blow the fallout over India and China, causing mega-deaths due to radiation poisoning.

    Which would be bad - really, really bad

    Which is why there are lots of options, but nuking Iran is not one of them

  • 8 years ago

    Nuclear weapons must never be used against any country because it could spark a chain of events that would end our species. The issue with Iran can be solved without pressing the big red button and risking our survival. The US are already making their bunker buster bombs synods powerful in order to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities if they decide to do so.

    I am in no doubt that the world will never and must never allow Iran to have nuclear weapons and spark a nuclear arms race in a volatile region, this must be prevented at all costs but not with the use of a nuclear weapon. Iranians do not deserve to die because of the gov't idiotic race for nuclear arms. Israel will stop Iran on cooperation with the US and others.

    Iran, in my view, threatens the security of the entire planet and cannot be trusted with a nuclear weapon which they would no doubt sell to terrorist organisations and would gladly sit back whilst a nuclear device is detonated in Tel Aviv or the US.

  • 8 years ago

    No, if you attack a nuclear missile silo it will cause the nuclear waste to escape, causing a huge amount of death and also some of the nuclear fallout would drift it's way to the west potentially. Not to mention the threat from other countries to retaliate.

    I don't think that nuclear weapons can ever be used again without huge consequences. It was always going to be an inevitability that unstable states like Iran were going to get their hands of nuclear technology eventually. I can't say I am comfortable about it, but really, there is nothing we can do.

  • 8 years ago

    You guys have been sucked in by the hate speech from Israel.

    IRAN does not have a nuclear weapons program, it has the UN. right to have a nuclear program for peaceful purposes as it is for the water reactor in Busher so that that dont use Oil for generating power.

    It dosnt have Gas to power generating stations, they actually import from Russia.

    You guys need to get educated rather than watching Fox news and Jewish propoganda sucking you into yet another war where 5000 Army&Marine could die like Iraq.

    Im not an Iran lover, just know what is tactically on the ground...

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • Mark
    Lv 6
    8 years ago

    Let's assume for a moment that it is the case that the west should use weapons at all. That, in itself, is debatable. But let's assume that weapons are to be deployed in smashing the Iranian nuclear programme.

    A nuclear programme is not concentrated into one place. It consists of enrichment facilities, laboratories, manufacturing facilities, transport hubs and storage, and so on... lots of different installations. Just think about the Manhattan Project; its facilities were spread all over the USA.

    Some of these facilities are in heavily built up areas, cities, universities, etc. Others will be deliberately remote and perhaps way out in the desert/mountains/boonies in general.

    Many of these facilities, if it is ethical to bomb them at all (think about innocent civilians in cities etc) will be perfectly susceptible to heavy conventional bombardment. An ordinary strike jet can routinely carry 500lb or 1000lb bombs, never mind what can be dropped out of a B52 or screwed onto the front of a cruise missile (much more).

    The extra explosive power of a tac nuke is enormous. Much, much bigger than is necessary for the purpose. Fine for wiping out a tank division or an airfield with one bomb, but only relevant to a weapons factory if it is "hardened" (ie buried under armoured structures).

    If the whole Iranian programme was in one place, under a 10 metre thick concrete roof like some sort of submarine pen, then tac nukes would make sense. Otherwise, conventional airstrikes/missile strikes make just as much sense.

    The extra "collateral damage" (ie murdering large numbers of innocent people) of a nuclear weapon is vast and probably unnecessary. Instead of crushing a weapons programme and attracting the fury of those who dispapprove of such an intervention, it would be crushing a weapons programme AND killing potentially tens of thousands of innocents, probably attracting the fury of absolutely everyone.

    There's just no gain.

    Your assertion that the US "has realised their bombs aren't powerful enough" is false. It's more to do with whether an attack should happen at all (and maybe the delivery mechanism) rather than a matter of what type of explodey-bangy device is in use.

  • 8 years ago

    Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons programme. Anyone who can't see this zionist propaganda for what is is needs de-programmed. The west should be focusing on the racist nuts in Israel and their very real nuclear weapons, which they wouldn't hesitate in using to erase every non-jew from the planet. Don't be fooled, Israel is the bad guy, and the biggest threat to stability in the region and the world.

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Yes but people on here don't understand what a tactical nuke is. They think its like the ones driloped on japan. They are basically very small bombs that work the same way nuclear bombs do so they pack a punch

  • Tracey
    Lv 4
    4 years ago

    The recently disclosed CIA intelligence rewards Iran for stopping their gorilla war against the American occupation of Iraq, and cools the level of the cold war between Iran and the US. The same intelligence was withheld in 2003 to create war hysteria against Iran, in order to make possible a military attack against them and to intimidate Iran by making them believe we would attack them. Barring such an attack, Bush II can attempt to pressure Iran into backing off of Iraq. The CIA releases the intelligence that will support the plans of Bush II. It is not an open democratic institution. For war against Saddam in Iraq it lied with claims of WMD. For the attempted attack against Iran (which now is on hold) it lied about the state of Iranian weapons development. Bush I was head of the CIA, and while he was there crafted a plan for military domination of the region, building underground bunkers in the desert of Saudi Arabia that we still occupy. When he became President, Bush I began to engage his plan by goading Saddam to attack Kuwait by telling him through diplomatic “back channels” the US would not object if he would take over Kuwait (an historical province of Iraq). Once Saddam invaded of course, Bush I unleashed war plans that allowed the US to remain in the region with military forces. As a democracy we cannot trust the CIA to give us truthful information. The elite view in government is that public opinion in a democracy has to be managed and manipulated. Fear of WMD seems to be their preferred method. In fact, Iran is developing WMD. One must question, however, how much of this is a self-fulfilling process resulting from Iran attempting to protect itself against the bullying of the Bush dynasty.

  • 8 years ago

    There's no need to resort to tactical nuclear weapons.

    Stopping Iran's nuclear program means destroying its weakest & most vital link:

    -Uranium enrichment.

    Without uranium enriched to weapons-grade requirements, Iran can't build nukes.

    The US has conventional weapons that can easily take out Iran's bunkered enrichment facilities:

    Link - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2062662/Is...

  • Anonymous
    8 years ago

    Are you mad, use nuclear weapons.

    Although I'm a firm believer in nuclear weapons as a deterrent, nuclear weapons should be one of the last if not the very last weapon to be used in any conflict.

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.