- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
- politics@lemmy.world
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.
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.
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.
When the cure is worse than the disease.
You want them to retaliate with dirty bombs? Get into another terrorist pissing match?
I mean, that may happen at any time, that’s how terrorism works.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
I ask you a simple question: Name the only nation that has already used a nuclear weapon in a war… twice.
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
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.
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.
Sounds like science stuff and facts. MAGA doesn’t have any time for those.
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.
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.
Just think of the moths it would attract though
This is how you get Mothra.
I mean, do you promise?
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.
Unfortunately, ground burst or partial underground bursts are significantly dirtier than air bursts. You only get partial completion of the reaction on the parts closer to the ground or underground which further irradiates the debris that is kicked up. Its all kinds of bad news.
Source?
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.
My worry is he will drop one on an American state.
Wouldn’t be the first time, but those were on accident and thankfully didn’t detonate.
Edit to add reference: 1961 Goldsboro B-52 Crash
I mean we also blew up a lot of nukes on American soil on purpose too!
For science!…or something
The Science of War
New Mexico had it coming tho.
Mostly Nevada
Nevada doesn’t even own most of Nevada.
I agree with you completely. He’s fascinated with nukes, and believes naked demonstrations of power show that he’s strong. If he does drop a nuke in Iran, you can guarantee that Russia will use them in Ukraine, and that quickly opens the door to a much wider war in Europe. Strategic thinking is not Trump’s strong suit, and he’s likely to bumble us into a nuclear WWIII.
WHO GETS THE NUKE FIRST? IRAN, GAZA OR THE FIRST HURRICANE OF THE SEASON! sadtimes.
What’s the us city that matches the following:
- democratic
- least amount of white people
- more than 100k inhabitants
- doesn’t have critical military infrastructure
- Trump doesn’t go golfing there or at least doesn’t like to
London? Bonus: has a Muslim Mayor
… US city. London.
It’d absolutely be somewhere on the west coast.
deleted by creator
NYC
Nah he’s too connected to NYC.
California?
Probably still owes payment on construction in NYC
Wouldn’t that give him extra incentive to blow it up?
Yes, saves him the legal fees of drowning his contractors in court to avoid payment
I fully expect him to nuke a blue state in a false flag attack. I can’t prove it, but I won’t be surprised if he does
Removed by mod
If you can’t prove it, then they are doing the false flag operation right. Well; correctly, anyway.
You might enjoy the short run of the TV show Jericho.
There’s also comics that continue the story a bit more.
I would be scared if I lived in New Mexico …
Don’t worry, Los Angeles isn’t a state :p
Removed by mod
That phrasing is kinda racist, yo
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
I vote for tariffs on the nukes pls taco pls
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.
What about MOP?
What about stuxnet? But i guess no-one involved is looking for non violent solutions.
My point was that the “nuclear bomb is viable vs. other weapons” argument is wrong. MOP is a missile that seems to be specifically crafted for such purposes.
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.
Or they’re just running clips of Oppenheimer for him
I’ll wait for the US to demand that Israel destroy its nuclear weapons…this may take a while…
“We want to stop nuclear proliferation by starting a nuclear war.” - these fucking geniuses, apparently
Hey, you can’t deny the world will have a lot fewer nuclear weapons in it afterwards!
WW4 will be fought with sticks and stones.
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.
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.
Congress isn’t stopping him doing anything. I don’t see them suddenly changing just to prevent global nuclear war.
Congress’ billionaire handlers all have their doomsday prepping done, so they won’t interfere.
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.
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.
Welp, time to see if aliens really are keeping us from extinction
They’re waiting to see if we can get past this stage on our own.
Alien Narrator: But they wouldn’t.
What the actual hell.
Gleefully sounding the trumpet for the end of the world
Can somebody please please stop him before he kills us all?
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.