Is Trump ready to use THE_NUKE?

[PapaGanoush]

Don't think it applies here.

Oh contraire. Reread his post.

Tactical nukes with forewarning are one thing. Trump would never hit civilians & anyone who believes that is in the rent free zone.

 

[alaskanseminole]

But that's also the reason he surrounded himself with sycophants this term.

Yup. He ran off anyone of competance his first term and learned he only needed "yes" men his 2nd term. He's a pretty smart dumb person.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Low emission, precision nukes could be used on Iran nuclear sites. May be a good idea for ending their nuke program.

You're proposing using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear sites, while we're supposedly trying to prevent nuclear proliferation?

Oh annd your "low-emission"...which is actually low yeild(ish)...precision nukes doesn't exactly make a nuclear strike sound less nuclear. That sounds awfully clean for something that could plausibly kill hundreds or thousands of civilians depending on the target and yield...and probably expose many more to fallout. We already demonstrated we can hit these sites conventionally. So, why on earth would we jump from bunker-busters to nukes?

 

[Riveting]

You're proposing using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear sites, while we're supposedly trying to prevent nuclear proliferation?

Oh annd your "low-emission"...which is actually low yeild(ish)...precision nukes doesn't exactly make a nuclear strike sound less nuclear. That sounds awfully clean for something that could plausibly kill hundreds or thousands of civilians depending on the target and yield...and probably expose many more to fallout. We already demonstrated we can hit these sites conventionally. So, why on earth would we jump from bunker-busters to nukes?

Correction, we are trying to prevent apocalyptic Islamofacists whose motto is Death to America from getting nukes - which they are obviously and openly determined to do.

The point would be not to target civilians, but deep underground nuke sites.

I was speculating about on why some idiot podcaster type posted above was saying Trump had considered nukes. This could be the only possible reason. Don't you agree?

That is, if he considered it at all.

 

[alaskanseminole]

Correction, we are trying to prevent apocalyptic Islamofacists whose motto is Death to America from getting nukes - which they are obviously and openly determined to do.

The point would be not to target civilians, but deep underground nuke sites.

I was speculating about on why some idiot podcaster type posted above was saying Trump had considered nukes. This could be the only possible reason. Don't you agree?

That is, if he considered it at all.

Well ya, of course I agree w/ the basic objective of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon (while also not targeting civilians). But I don't agree that a hypothetical nuclear strike is the obvious next step. (also agree we don't know if it was said or not, but he does have a history of saying nonsensical things)

And I'm also pretty sure I remember us being told the Iranian nuclear program was essentially wiped out after the strikes last year...and this year and so on. ...and here we are still striking Natanz in 2026. It's very hard to trust this administration when it comes to accurate information dissemination.

 

[lucas80]

They probably believe a nuking them would lead to surrender.

Trump has a crippling fear of looking weak. He'd rather nuke Iran than look like a pansy and accept an agreement that is basically we go back to the status quo, plus Iran gets billions of dollars from the US and charges tolls in the Straits.

 

[lucas80]

You're proposing using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear sites, while we're supposedly trying to prevent nuclear proliferation?

Oh annd your "low-emission"...which is actually low yeild(ish)...precision nukes doesn't exactly make a nuclear strike sound less nuclear. That sounds awfully clean for something that could plausibly kill hundreds or thousands of civilians depending on the target and yield...and probably expose many more to fallout. We already demonstrated we can hit these sites conventionally. So, why on earth would we jump from bunker-busters to nukes?

Oh, nobody cares about Afghanistan, but Pakistan, India, China, the Gulf States... Will all care about the fallout. There is no such thing as a little fallout from a little nuke.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

Rent free.

Uh...if an admin is actively considering the use of nuclear weapons that sure seems like the time to raise a concern. The fact you have no concerns about even contemplating nukes IS WAY more cultish than anything I wrote in this thread.

 

[PapaGanoush]

Uh...if an admin is actively considering the use of nuclear weapons that sure seems like the time to raise a concern. The fact you have no concerns about even contemplating nukes IS WAY more cultish than anything I wrote in this thread.

Celine Dion level drama.

 

[Jfcarter3]

Just give low t rump another Bic Mac.

 

[Hawkfan_08*]

Oh contraire. Reread his post.

Tactical nukes with forewarning are one thing. Trump would never hit civilians & anyone who believes that is in the rent free zone.

You sure he would never hit civilians? Like what he totally didn't do in Iran? How does one not hit civilians with a nuke?

 

[Riveting]

Well ya, of course I agree w/ the basic objective of preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon (while also not targeting civilians). But I don't agree that a hypothetical nuclear strike is the obvious next step. (also agree we don't know if it was said or not, but he does have a history of saying nonsensical things)

And I'm also pretty sure I remember us being told the Iranian nuclear program was essentially wiped out after the strikes last year...and this year and so on. ...and here we are still striking Natanz in 2026. It's very hard to trust this administration when it comes to accurate information dissemination.

Very true, AK. That is why I say to watch what Trump does, not what he says.

Which applies to all presidents, btw, as I am sure you and Traveler will agree.

 

[SoProudNole]

When I think of "Trump using The_Nuke".

 

[Ktrain1969]

Celine Dion level drama.

What a cool cat you are. As JHP would say, Phaggot.

 

[Riveting]

Trump has a crippling fear of looking weak. He'd rather nuke Iran than look like a pansy and accept an agreement that is basically we go back to the status quo, plus Iran gets billions of dollars from the US and charges tolls in the Straits.

There is zero chance we will nuke Iranian civilian centers.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

There is zero chance we will nuke Iranian civilian centers.

I think the chances we actually nuke anything are very slim. The fact it might even be debated is noteworthy given the consequences of doing it and the utter lack of existential threat requiring it.

 

[pjhawk]

Nor should it. But what are they going to do about it?

We become a true rogue nation, the world system we created falls apart, dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency. Terrorist attacks, countries in the vicinity of the nuclear attack will also be dealing with fall out and effects from the explosion.

Basically, Trump ends our run as the lead country in the world and turns us into a pariah, actual world chaos breaks out. Been planning a trip to Ireland next year with my family, no way that's going to happen if Trump nukes Iran.

 

[kidmike41]

You're proposing using nuclear weapons to destroy Iran's nuclear sites, while we're supposedly trying to prevent nuclear proliferation?

Oh annd your "low-emission"...which is actually low yeild(ish)...precision nukes doesn't exactly make a nuclear strike sound less nuclear. That sounds awfully clean for something that could plausibly kill hundreds or thousands of civilians depending on the target and yield...and probably expose many more to fallout. We already demonstrated we can hit these sites conventionally. So, why on earth would we jump from bunker-busters to nukes?

We do have a bunker buster version. It would detonate underground. Maybe that contains the fallout some??

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I think the chances we actually nuke anything are very slim. The fact it might even be debated is noteworthy given the consequences of doing it and the utter lack of existential threat requiring it.

As I said earlier, I think it's more likely Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine.

A small one. Pushing the envelope. Seeing what the reaction will be.

Then what happens?

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

We become a true rogue nation, the world system we created falls apart, dollar is no longer the world's reserve currency. Terrorist attacks, countries in the vicinity of the nuclear attack will also be dealing with fall out and effects from the explosion.

Basically, Trump ends our run as the lead country in the world and turns us into a pariah, actual world chaos breaks out. Been planning a trip to Ireland next year with my family, no way that's going to happen if Trump nukes Iran.

This.

We're already a rogue nation but the world is trying to hold on until Trump is gone. He's crossed lines that few could have believed would have been tolerated by civilized nations.

Surely the next President will roll back much that Trump has done and try to repair much he's harmed. But even if it's a Dem with a blue Congress, will that be possible? I have my doubts.

 

[hawkeyetraveler]

As I said earlier, I think it's more likely Putin uses a tactical nuke in Ukraine.

A small one. Pushing the envelope. Seeing what the reaction will be.

Then what happens?

 

[alaskanseminole]

We do have a bunker buster version. It would detonate underground. Maybe that contains the fallout some??

Ya, it's the B61-11...supposedly it can't get deep enough to really contain the fallout, so that shallow underground nuclear detonation can actually eject radioactive soil and debris into the atmosphere and create significant local fallout.