Would the USA's use of a tactical nuke start WW3?

[yourout]

Hell yes!!!

The next nuke used as a weapon by a country.....any country. Will
start the end of the world as we know it.

[DS1]

1. The world is ending 'as we know it' every second

It's one of those terms that meand absolutely nothing

[ConcernedCanuk]

2. As opposed to a NON-tactical nuke?

.
.
.

USA drops one nuke

the world will go to shit

hell

after the crazies do a nuclear war, maybe the planet will have a chance to survive

I can't think of one species on this planet that will miss us humans

[HuffleClaw]

12. oh, i'm pretty sure there are legions of house cats that would mourn

our passing.

[ConcernedCanuk]

15. I guess your right about that

.
.
.

Black flies, mosquitoes, deer-flies, horseflies etc. would have to find somewhere else to suck the blood they love so much

Rats. mice and cockroaches would need to find another source of food other than our run-down housing

yeah - we would be missed

silly me

[midnight armadillo]

16. roaches

The German Cockroach is so assimilated into human dwellings that it has no known natural habitat.

[KansDem]

21. And evolution will see to it that the Republican Party is born again!

Black flies, mosquitoes, deer-flies, horseflies etc. would have to find somewhere else to suck the blood they love so much...

Give or take a few hundred million years...

on edit: Don't forget fleas, ticks, and leeches.

[breakfastofchampions]

3. The most dangerous thing that could happen

Is Iran getting a nuclear weapon.

We should use any method except using nukes to stop that.

[PATRICK]

5. The most dangerous thing

is too prop up the unpopular mullahs by lack of diplomacy and saber rattling. They will come apart faster than they can obtain a nuke. Their problem is their own people. Something, the one thing, Washington seems to agree with them on. Let's destroy the innocent and democracy. This has reversed the progress being made under Clinton when the chief action considered was against NK which Bush just let slip by.

Bush 1 created the problem that led to the Gulf Wars. Iran was on the path to peace and reform before Bush 2. The line must be drawn NOW to stop us from getting dragged further into the bloody schemes of tyrants.

In order for ANY of the world's nuclear issues to be resolved needs a reversal of current policy that selectively allows nukes, encourages nuclear energy and destroys treaties. The US IS the nuclear threat that must be stopped in its deliberate left hand policy of proliferation and bullying.

Right now, the nuclear energy option is a piece of dangerous hypocrisy. Nations only want this poisonous costly alternate energy BECAUSE they can produce prestigious defensive nukes in the future. And along will come trouble someday surer than leaky containment fields. Bushes don't care so long as we have world killing hi-tech superiority and corrupt control of elections and smaller nations.

The Bushes have enabled and let slip all of the current world's nuclear dangers. NK is ten times more nutty and unstable than Iran and Pakistan(our "ally") could turn very quickly into what Iran MIGHT become in years if its own unpopular government thrived.

In the large, distant and immediate future the chief threat of all is Bush.

Now what means short of you-know-what do you propose using to deal with him?

[breakfastofchampions]

9. I don't believe Bush has threatened to annhilate a country

Bush is bad, but not Mahmoud bad

[drthais]

11. no...incorrect

the most dangerous thing that could happen
is for the people of this country to sit by in complacency
while the neocons do their take-over-the-world dance

'any method except using nukes'..

I see your participation in various threads here

quit the baiting

anyone with two brain cells that met and shook hands
knows that using any kind of nuclear weapon
under any circumstances
is a death wish

[HuffleClaw]

13. bullshit

that is pure bushco. propaganda that has been demonising all things arab and muslim for far too long. a childish excuse to rape yet another country for its resources.

[IChing]

19. When do you sign up Mr. Danger of champions?

Sounds like you want war
and why the hell did you put me in your "we" statement.

Sounds more like you have a mouse in your pocket, for your "any method" statement.

[Javaman]

20. Stop drinking the kool-ade.

Iran is years and years away from a nuke.

Using war to end war only causes more war.

[brokensymmetry]

4. Technically, no....

I think WWIII began when the U.S. entered Iraq. The next act is Iran, of course; but I think the U.S. cannot win, no matter what we do. If we walk away, we lose. If we attack, we lose - more quickly. If we engage in diplomacy, we still lose.

One might liken Iraq to Poland, circa WWII. Iran might be like France, only tougher and far more determined. And the analog of Russia? That would be China. China will wait quietly as we rend ourselves, and pick up the pieces inexpensively.

[Flabbergasted]

8. Which makes use of a nuclear weapon feasible. Last resort to maintain

military supremecy

[norml]

6. You mean Dubya Dubya III?

[Ian David]

7. Did you watch The Sopranos last week?

Tony got it into his head that looking weak in front of his mafia friends puts his life at risk. And at least in Tony's case, he's right.

So what did he do?

He picked a fight with the most muscular guy in the room (his bodyguard) and beat the crap out of him for no reason.

Just to prove he's still The Captain.

We've gotten our asses kicked in Iraq.

Now, Bush is going to need to beat the crap out of the toughest kid on the block that he thinks we can beat.

Now, THAT is the BEST CASE SCENARIO.

The worst case scenario (and what I think is actually the case) is that Bush believes he is fulfilling Biblical End Time prophesy and actually WANTS to destroy the world.

If so, then we'll all be dead sometime between October 2006 and January 10, 2009.

My money's on 6/6/06 or perhaps 10/6/06 at 6:00 AM GMT.

[creeksneakers2]

10. If we do it once, Iran is wiped out.

If we attack Iran, conventional or nuclear, they'll respond with terrorist attacks. The US would respond to the terrorist attacks with massive bombings.

The US has held the position with other countries that any weapon of mass destruction will produce the same response as a nuclear weapon. The US will play Iran the same way. If Iran attacks us with WMD, they'll be blown off the map. Nevertheless, I think if we hit Iran once the Iranians will respond with everything they've got, and set off this chain of events.

I don't see how anyone else would want a piece of it though, except terrorists who would want to launch more terrorist attacks on the US.

[PFunk]

14. No. It will cause another great depression instead.

Because China and all the other countries will pull out of the US monitariy. Followed by major boycotts worldwide. And result in the US becomming a Pariah state which no one will deal with.

I takes alot of cash to support a military such as ours.

[Telly Savalas]

17. Does it really matter?

[PatrioticLeftie]

18. Yes, but Shrubco doesn't care