cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/31683994

Fox News reports that Donald Trump may consider using nuclear weapons to eliminate Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility

The U.S. military has reservations regarding the success of using a bunker-buster bomb, a non nuclear weapon, to eliminate Iran’s Fordo nuclear facility, buried deep in a mountain. Two defense officials were reportedly briefed that only a tactical nuclear weapon could reach the facility.

  • SpongeBorgCubePants@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    16 days ago

    The fact that experts concluded that a tactical nuke would do the job doesn’t imply that they are considering using it. I don’t like the US administration, but this is wildly overblowing statements and pure fearmongering.

  • tehn00bi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    16
    ·
    16 days ago

    I mean, it makes the most sense to hit that facility with a bunker busting tactical nuke. Probably the only way to significantly ensure enough damage to end production at the facility.

    • rumba@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      16 days ago

      You want them to retaliate with dirty bombs? Get into another terrorist pissing match?

    • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      16 days ago

      No

      You drop nukes and you cross the line. There is a goddamnrd good reason why nobody uses nukes and trump gets in and now all of the sudden everyone and their mother goes “weeeeeeelll, a tactical nuke, might make sense?”

      Fuck. That. Shit.

      You do NOT blow up nukes, ever.

      • tehn00bi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        19
        ·
        16 days ago

        So you want / have to hit a facility designed to survive most attacks, even potential nuclear attacks and you chose to not use the weapons best suited?

        • Serinus@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          16 days ago

          Yes, correct. Absolutely. Because there are ramifications way fucking beyond that one instance.

          Similarly, if my neighbor’s dog sometimes pisses on the petunias, a gun would absolutely solve the problem, yet despite being extremely effective it may not be the best solution.

        • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 days ago

          I hate how the Internet has made all these arm chair idiots think that they are experts now on military strategy and weapons.

          But to answer your question:

          No, you do not use nukes. If you really need to get in, drop your bunker buster bombs five times more, you have the airspace as you claimed. Hell, drop twenty of em, still cheaper than a nuke but more importantly YOU WONT BE DROPPING NUKES

          What part of “nukes are different, nukes are the end” do you not understand?

          Once the first nuke drops, you can rest assured that the second will follow soon for -of which I’m sure will be explained as really really- good reasons and then the third will follow closely after because now we found another good reason…

          Nukes aren’t just extremely powerful, they’re also extremely devastating to the world and humanity for a long, long time.

          Once nukes start, humanity is done.

          You. Do. Not. Use. Nukes.

        • SuperCub@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          16 days ago

          You’re a fucking clown for suggesting nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons are evil, go watch some history videos of what happened to people who were hit by one. And not only that, the destruction is long-term. Using a nuclear weapon to penetrate the Earth will definitely leave the region poisoned for multiple lifetimes.

      • the_wiz@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        16 days ago

        I ask you a simple question: Name the only nation that has already used a nuclear weapon in a war… twice.

        • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          16 days ago

          The USA, of course. Did I win anything?

          Anyways, now I’ll ask you a simple question

          What does that matter? That was some 80 years ago and no nukes have been blown up in a hostile avt ever since for very good reasons.

          The few times someone even thought a nuke was flying we got to one step distance from WWIII. Wasn’t it a Finish weather rocket launch that damn near caused Russia to end the world? And the time that some training data somehow got mixed up and they thought an invasion was imminent? It’s half a miracle we’re still here and alive.

          You set off a nuke in a hostile act and so many things happen. For one, you cheapened its use and I fucking guarantee you that after the first, the second one will follow shortly. Don’t worry about the fall out, these tactical nukes (I HATE that they had to give those a cool sounding name, especially with people like trump who salivate just over the name) are needed right?

          I mean, Iran almost has nukes right? Netanyahu said so, right? Oh wait, that was 10 years ago. And 8 years ago… And 5 years ago… and…

          You know, maybe Iran has nukes, maybe it doesn’t. At this point it doesn’t really matter anymore as we have religious doomsday wishers in the whitehouse led by a child who would love nothing better than to be the first president ever in the modern world to launch nukes. Iran is barely a threat on that chart, as evil as it’s regime is.

          Either way, that the US dropped nukes 80 years ago is not relevant here

  • NotASharkInAManSuit@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    16 days ago

    At this point I’m alright with a nuclear apocalypse, we had it coming. I just hope I’m close enough to a blast sight to not have to deal with the aftermath.

  • LovingHippieCat@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    17 days ago

    Ah yes, very smart, let’s use a nuke to blow up a nuclear facility. There couldn’t possibly be a much larger explosion and spread of radiation because of that.

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      17 days ago

      Well, there actually wouldn’t be a much larger explosion, that’s just not how nukes work.
      A nuclear explosion is an incredibly delicate process, and the material just won’t go critical because there’s another detonation nearby. It’s not like dropping a bomb on a dynamite warehouse. There’s not a great analogy for what it is like though. Expecting a satellite launch to happen because you blew up a tank of rocket fuel next to it? Not quite there.

      Additional contamination from onsite material is a different matter. Most nukes detonate above their target since that maximizes damage, but it also reduces fallout. There would, however, be vaporized material that would be sucked into the air by the vacuum created by the detonation. It’s not clear if the presence of radioactive material would make it significantly worse than the general “radioactive dust and molten sand” that would normally be sent into the air.

      In general, if you nuke something there’s going to be radioactive issues afterwards, and you shouldn’t do it. Adding a nuclear facility to the mix is kinda just throwing rocks at the windows on 9/11.

      • opavader@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        17 days ago

        tons of enriched uranium becoming part of the fallout plume and spreading across middle east and possibly some parts of europe and asia is a very likely outcome.

        netayanahu is scum enough to not care and trump is too stupid to care. then there is possibilities of pakistan launching nuke in return on israel and then idf activating samson.

    • catloaf@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      17 days ago

      Explosion no. Extra fallout, maybe. But the facility we’re talking about is deep underground, so even if it happens, hopefully that contains some of the fallout.

  • Fredselfish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    161
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    17 days ago

    Trump will drop a nuke before leaving office. He been begging to use one since his first term. They literally had to stop him from nucking a hurricane. He wants to do it. My worry is he will drop one on an American state.

  • RabbitBBQ@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    16 days ago

    The fact is that conventional bombs can’t eliminate all the underground and mountainous facilities. This requires either a large ground invasion and occupation, at a very high cost, or nuclear weapons.

    A ground invasion can’t happen for a number of reasons and Israel and the U.S. can’t allow Iran to continue having a nuclear program means that they will see no other choice but to use tactical nukes.

  • Grandwolf319@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    ·
    17 days ago

    Something tells me he has already given the order multiple times but the people around him have to carefully explain to him why that’s a very bad idea until he backs down.

  • bitjunkie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    16 days ago

    “We want to stop nuclear proliferation by starting a nuclear war.” - these fucking geniuses, apparently

  • peoplebeproblems@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    Just please wait until after I’ve seen Dune Messiah a couple dozen times in theaters. Please. That’s all I’m asking. I don’t even need to get laid again, that ship isnt even that important and it happens to a lot of people every day. I just want to see Dune Messiah before we all die.

  • Yawweee877h444@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    52
    ·
    17 days ago

    If this were to happen, it would be a green light for Putin.

    Let’s hope to all fuck that our idiotic congress or who the fuck ever, prevents this abject, fucking, idiocy.

    • floofloof@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      41
      ·
      17 days ago

      Congress isn’t stopping him doing anything. I don’t see them suddenly changing just to prevent global nuclear war.

    • charade_you_are@sh.itjust.works
      cake
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      I thought I could write solid, dark comments but your comment about having our only hopes based solely on congress wins all the awards for darkest comment ever written.

    • opavader@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      17 days ago

      excluding few hard left or right leaders, our entire congress works for aipac so fat chance of that. they will approve nuking LA and SF if israel told them to.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    17 days ago

    Gleefully sounding the trumpet for the end of the world

    Can somebody please please stop him before he kills us all?

    • obvs@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      17 days ago

      He will commit whatever horrible atrocity he’s going to commit, and then the world will say he went too far, and only then will the world put an end to it. But unfortunately, the atrocity will come first.