I want an honest answer

[MaryEllen71]

I am very worried about this.. If Israel and the US attack Iran, do you think global nuclear war will break out and do you think we will be nuked by the Russians and Chinese?

[dysfunctional press]

1. no.

nt

[skooooo]

2. nah!

If one country blows, everything blows, and no one will risk that.

[YOY]

3. Time to relax...

n.t.

[newmajority]

4. Nah, they'll just attack Israel

The fundies are praying for exactly that, as fulfillment of the prophecy in Ezekiel 38/39, which they believe to be the "opening kickoff" to the whole Rapture/Tribulation/End of the World thing.

[Gore1FL]

5. Not unless we used nukes

And that ain't gonna happen.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. "There is no safety in the Cosmos" - Alan Watts

Many people, at the time, predicted that there would never be another war because it was too expensive and too costly in lives and the "leaders" knew better.

Then came World War I that progressed to the great slaughter that even the participants didn't think could happen.

[Speck Tater]

7. No. Oil will go to $400 at least, and the global economy will collapse

making it impossible for any nation to afford war.

[TooBigaTent]

15. We really cannot "afford" it now, but the decision-makers are all making fortunes

and they will under any circumstances.

The rich never suffer.

[bryant69]

8. I'd be surprised if it did

That said there are plenty of good reasons not to invade Iran without fearing global annihilation.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[rox63]

9. Please see your physician for anti-anxiety meds

There's nothing we can do about any of this. And it wouldn't matter who nuked us, we'd still be f***ed.

[MaryEllen71]

21. I'm worried

but not to the point of needing meds i'm just worried because I think Bush and Cheney are crazy enough to do it.

[manitor]

10. no, of course not...

The whole theory of mutually assured destruction promises us that the invisible hand of international relations will never guide other places to nuke the U.S. That is because we have so many bombs we could destroy every human being on the planet, so no one would dare. So, WE are allowed to nuke places to keep order, and "leave every option on the table" like Mr. Barack says, but it is wrong for other places to consider having that kind of power.

Visit the Titan Missile Museum in southern AZ some time. It tells the story of heroic nuclear men and women who led our nation through a dark time by threatening to obliterate humanity. The fact that we are still here is proof that threats to obliterate humanity will probably never be acted upon. At least, they will never come back to haunt us.

So, the best option is to, like I said before, "keep every option on the table." This means we should keep our heroic men and women in uniform living in little metal booths, drawing salaries and health care while they keep their finger close to the trigger, ready to blow up the world if anyone points their missile at us.

With Obama as President, also, we will have a better diplomatic image, so people will be LESS likely to want to nuke us. That is another reason to vote for him, and not Grandpa McCain.

[Subdivisions]

11. I'm worried too. But I'm beginning to think it may not happen. But

I'm not going to elaborate just in case.

[DJ13]

12. Only if theres a radiation leak that moves towards another nuclear country

If that happens, all bets are off as far as retaliation.

It would likely be against Israel and our forces in Iraq.

[Gman]

13. No. It's called "deterrence"

Deterrence theory simply says that a country will not strike first with nukes for fear of being hit back with nukes. Both Russia and China have not only strategic interest but economic interest in Iran. Russia is a big trading partner with Iran. China needs Iran's oil. I have full faith that when Russia and China communicate to the US that if the US hits Iran with nukes, they will retaliate in kind on the Israel and/or the US, cooler heads will prevail even if they have to tie Cheney up and stick him in a closet.

The biggest problem with deterrence theory is that it's based on the assumption that all parties are rational which is why I feel that the cooler heads will prevail.

Do not worry.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gman]

19. No, you don't want just anyone's finger on the button

because you can't assume everyone is rational. I wouldn't want Pvt. Bob Boodalang Jr.'s finger on the button.

Rationality is the key.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Gman]

22. Well, by the book, that's a pretty much Cold War approach to how deterrence works

I personally think the world is past it to that degree for the most part.

[manitor]

24. Yes, we are even more advanced now

because we have TACTICAL nuclear weapons, which means only a little bigger than Hiroshima. We can use those to irradiate only a few hundred thousand Iranians, rather than millions, which will work much better when we are "bunker busting" their supposed nuclear facilities in order to stop the nuclear threat. And yes, some of that radiation might creep around the globe considering that we all share the same atmosphere, but everything seems so far away from here, I don't think it will be much of a problem.

So, deterrence is going to save us in the 21st century just the way it saved us in the past. It is pretty crazy to do anything other than make sure our nuclear weapons are as UP TO DATE as possible, and to "keep all options on the table." Besides, President Obama will only use them for, as they say, "God's ways and purposes." And so far, he is only planning on "keeping options" with Iran, so that is only ONE country he might nuke, unlike McCain, who might nuke several!

[SidneyCarton]

14. Dear MaryEllen71

Some things you need to understand:

At present the nation with the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth is the United States. This arsenal is fully deployable (if not fully deployed) and can reach any corner of the globe. Therefore, neither Russia nor China is likely to consider a Nuclear strike against the U.S. under the current circumstances, as doing so would result in an immeadiate nuclear retaliation against both nations laying them waste along with us.

Russia is currently undergoing a resurgence with high oil prices, President Medvedev (and more importantly Prime Minister Putin) are unlikely to walk into a nuking over Iran, no matter how much they back the Tehran regime.

As for China, there are far more effective tools they can use against us, such as calling in all of our debt that they currently hold, this would effectively collapse our economy. Hence, while nuclear war is a possibility, I do not think it the most likely. So, if you can afford the gas, feel free to plan your Labor Day vacation, most likely the country will still be there.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

16. If they invade Iran, sure.

Iran's got real and proper WMDs aimed at Tel Aviv, so does Syria. And I don't think either are just going to sit around and surrender. Of course if Tel Aviv gets gassed, Tehran gets nuked. I doubt Pakistan is just going to sit around with a nuclear war in their backyard. And if India and Pakistan are going to war, China's going to war. And if China's going to war, and the Taiwanese would be shit out of luck. And if the U.S. doesn't get involved in a nuclear exchange by then, the survivors will probably wish they had.

But then again, the U.S. and Israel won't be invading Iran.

[yardwork]

20. No.

The United States will definitely not be nuked by the Russians. On purpose, anyway.

[RaleighNCDUer]

23. No, but no American will be safe anywhere outside the US.

It could result in a limited nuclear attack -

Scenario:
Attack on Iran. Iran retaliates against Israel and US ships in the gulf. Counter-retaliation with bunker-buster nukes against hardened Iranian targets. Iran launches all out assault on US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, and massive missile attacks against US fleet. Unable to stop Iranian army any other way, US employs battlefield nukes to stop Iranian forces.

Every US embassy in the Middle east and many outside the middle east is sacked. US bases around the world are attacked. Rioters sack and loot US enterprises around the world.

Even in 'safe' countries there would be problems - snipers shooting at US installations in Germany and Britain, tourists beaten and killed.

And I wouldn't be surprised if nukes went off in major Israeli cities - Iran may not be able to build them, but is certainly wealthy enough to buy old Soviet warheads.

Russia & China wouldn't have to do a thing. We may be the only remaining superpower, but even we can't take on a quarter of the world's population in an area spanning 10% of the entire world.

[manitor]

25. don't be ridiculous

We "stand taller" and "see farther," like Ms. Albright said. And, since she is going to be one of President Obama's military advisers, we will "see farther" and not use nukes except as a DETERRENCE. Or to blow up possible nuclear sites of Iran's in order to prevent them from using the nuclear option.

Snipers at overseas bases in Europe? Come on, be realistic. If we were under attack there, we could either use tactical nukes--smaller and safer--or just ask their local police to help us out.

[RaleighNCDUer]

28. Who said anything about Obama?

Once Obama is in office I have NO worries about an attack on Iran. He would TALK to them, not bomb them.

This scenario is strictly in a pre-Jan 20 context.

And yes, if we participated in a nuclear attack on Iran (and we would only use tactical nukes, not strategic nukes), particularly while already engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan, we would see attacks against MANY of the 700 US installations overseas. Most would be purely local, minor incidents - a gunman here, a grenade there. And we are vulnerable to that. Nationalities that are currently friendly or neutral, like Jordan and Turkey and Moroccan, would become hostile and there are millions of emigrants from Muslim countries in 'safe' countries like Germany. And if we participated in a nuclear attack, we could not expect a lot of sympathy from most of the rest of the world when our people were attacked in turn.

[JuniperLea]

29. "don't be ridiculous"

That seems to be your patent subject line... I'm not sure why you are here if you think everyone is ridiculous.

:eyes:

[Rick Myers]

27. No, but gas would be $15 a gallon!!!