If the U.S. uses Nukes against Iran on their soil, would Iran be justified

[file83]

in using Nukes against the U.S. on our soil?

I mean, if Iran already has deep cover operatives with some form of nuclear weapon hidden somewhere in our country, would they be justified in using that weapon as retaliation against nuclear attack from the U.S.?

(Keep in mind, by "justified", I mean in the eyes of people around the world.)
on edit: (Or "justified" even in the eyes of potential American citizen targets of said hypothetical nuclear attack.)

What do you think?

Iran:nuke: :shrug: :nuke:U.S.

[wtmusic]

1. Why are eyes of people around the world

any different from our eyes?

[file83]

6. Good point, I'll change that "restriction"....

[Dead_Parrot]

35. People's eyes ARE different...

Freepers look at this picture and see one thing:



I see something else, and it scares the shit out of me.
(taken at an airshow, AFAIK)

[Ignacio Upton]

2. I would say yes

We hit them first with nukes, therefore we did the first strike. Ask the Japanese about a little thing called Pearl Harbor, and how it led to Hiroshima and Nagasaki. We'll end up like Japan in such a scenario.

[Pavulon]

11. We would be in the wrong

but in the event of a strike here we would retaliate with a multimegaton strike (hundreds of millions killed). Iran has a limited, if any, ability to place hundreds of weapons in the US. The us can launch hundreds to hit at the same time.

Us nuking anyone is a bad idea.

[file83]

15. Exactly. We MUST consider how Iran, Russia, and China would react

to such an aggressive move.

Don't forget that Iran would suddenly have the world on it's side, and if Russia/China decide to warn the U.S. that we face annhilation if we escalate in response to a counter attack from Iran, then we wouldn't be able to 'counter-act' with "full commitment" against Iran.

In-other-words, we'd have to just sit and take a Iranian counter attack, or face annhilation.

[file83]

12. True. However, one thing Iran would have to consider is the U.S.'s

ability to escalate the attacks by totally destroying Iran with "full commitment".

On the other hand, the U.S. would have to consider what Russia and China's reaction would be if we went with "full commitment" in reaction to a "justified" return attack from Iran.

If Russia and China go "full commitment" against the U.S., that pretty much ends the world.

So, this is a very dangerous game that Bush is starting to play with.

[Selatius]

3. What did Gandhi say about this? An eye for an eye makes the world blind.

If the use of tactical nuclear bunker busters are used against Iranian underground facilities and the nuclear fallout leads to the death of tens of thousands of innocent civilians who are downwind of the blast site, at the very most the world is justified in leveling economic sanctions against our fascist government and helping the American people deal with an out of control war machine, but not violent retaliation.

The last thing we need is a world war involving several nations mobilizing several million men all over the Middle East.

[file83]

16. Excellent point. If Bush nukes Iran, he himself is CREATING the EXACT

situation he claims to be attempting to prevent.

[Minnesota Libra]

4. Yes, they'd be justified in "retaliating" in like manner. nt

[file83]

9. It could be justified as a "defensive" action, like the U.S. used in WWII

against Japan.

[eleny]

5. Sounds like a declaration of war t me

:scared:

[file83]

7. What does?

[eleny]

27. Lobbing nukes at Iran

[file83]

38. Oh yes, I totally agree. That's pretty much the definition of war.

[Crunchy Frog]

8. Yes. n/t

[depakid]

10. Iran or anyone else

That's why you don't let the nuclear genie out of the bottle....

[file83]

14. Who says said "genie" isn't already out of the bottle?

Are you really willing to make that gamble?

[depakid]

23. Last I heard

Iran hadn't attacked the US- nor does it have the capability to attack the US.

So I'm not sure what "gamble" you're talking about.

[file83]

30. Then why would we be attacking them, if they don't have "capability"?

On the contrary, how can you be so sure "terrorists" sympathetic to Iran (because of U.S. nuclear attack) don't already have nukes inside our borders?

With less than 100% certainty and such high risk, that's called a "gamble". Take it or leave it.

[drdtroit]

43. Are you serious?

Don't you remember we attacked Iraq for WMD's? Oh, there weren't any.
Get it?

[ohio_liberal]

44. The nuclear genie came out of the bottle in North Korea

...while George Bush was busy killing Iraqis.

[YouthInAsia]

13. yup. It was an agressive, unwarranted, unprovoked attack

by the united states. I feel they'd be absolutely justified to "re-nuke" us.

[Selatius]

17. Some of you people JUSTIFYING Iranian RETALIATION ARE INSANE

Do you honestly justify a 747 full of hundreds of people suddenly blowing up in America's skies because an Iranian agent smuggled a bomb on board after we bombed Iran? Do you honestly justify an Iranian agent smuggling in an illegally purchased Russian-made suitcase nuke into Times Square in New York City that killed hundreds of thousands because we bombed and nuked Iran?

It's more innocent people dead in a war that has gone on long enough. Revenge is not the way. This way lies madness.

If the world decided to levy sanctions against our government in retaliation, I'd wholeheartedly support it, but I would NEVER justify any form of retaliation that would intentionally target AMERICAN CIVILIANS.

I know Iran would retaliate, but that's not the point I have to bring up with you people. What bothers me is that any of you would actually justify violent revenge.

[file83]

19. Well, they aren't saying the WANT it to happen. They are just saying

matter of factly that in the eyes of the world and as "defensive strikes" go, if one country attacks another with nukes, the defensive country has the right to counter act.

No one is recommending that it would be a "good" thing, just a "justified" thing.

[Selatius]

21. I disagree. What difference does it make to the dead why they were killed?

I know full well Iran WILL retaliate, but I am steadfast in stating that Iran is NOT JUSTIFIED in committing another atrocity in retaliation for the first atrocity we committed against them.

[file83]

31. And you call these people "insane"?

By your logic, the U.S. can go around the world attacking nations and NONE of those nations would be justified in retaliating.

That's a completely irrational expectation. Why do you think the USA is so righteous especially in light of all the relevations that all the reasons for going to war with Iraq were completely UNJUSTIFIED?

[Selatius]

42. Tell me where I JUSTIFIED the US ATTACKING FIRST?

Point to me where I said it's OK for the US to hit first. I never said such rubbish, and I never will.

[wtmusic]

40. Call it revenge if you like...others might call it defense

Does the Islamic Republic of Iran have the right to defend itself?

[Selatius]

45. Retaliation is not the same as defense

There's a difference between killing somebody inside your home because he broke in and threatened the lives of your family and killing somebody long after he burglarized your place and left.

A comparable scenario would be Iranian missile batteries trying to shoot down a swarm of US warplanes that violated Iranian airspace and began attacking vs. Iran sending in a cell into the US several months later to launch a campaign of terror on US soil to hit back at the US.

The US isn't justified in shooting first but neither is Iran in seeking revenge. The only justified military action in the equation would be Iran trying to repulse an act of aggression.

[tjwash]

18. Iran, China, Russia, France...

...and the rest of the countries that are fed up with our imperialistic, overconsuming, self gratifying, ego-centric, the-world-revolves-around-us bullshit.

Our name is already mud around the world, and an attrocity like this would just unite everyone around the globe, in the same manner that the entire world united against Germany in WWII. GBR may take our side like the Japanese took the side of the Germans, but that is it.

[file83]

20. One thing I haven't considered, would be that Irans BEST move would be to

do "nothing". That way, the USA would look like the "crazy" ones, and Iran would gain more "respect" and "sympathy" from the world for not acting in a way that they were justified.

This would make America look very stupid, proving that the USA was WRONG in it's assumption that Iran would EVER use nukes against the USA, because if they don't react to such a provocation, why would they ever?

[enigma000]

22. No....a better move for Iran would to be proactive

I don't think Iranian culture places much value in making others look "crazy". They might be tempted to try the Bush Doctrine: preemptive attack/strike. What if they could smuggle in a dozen small nukes into a dozen major American cities. An ultimatum could be issued demanding unconditional surrender, and, shortly thereafter, American strategic nuclear assets could be turned over to Iranian control. This would neutralize the US first strike capability.

This, of course, assumes rationality will prevail in the White House. And Tehran for that matter.

[ContraBass Black]

26. Nobody wins a nuclear war. The point is not starting it.

But when people go start them for no good reason,...

[file83]

32. That's only true in a situation of "mutually assured destruction".

The question is, if the U.S. attacked Iran, and Iran counter-attacked, would Iran stand "alone" or would Russia/China stand with them and warn the US that if they went with full nuclear commitment against Iran, to expect the same from Russia/China?

[tjwash]

25. They do not have nukes.

I got the hypothesis I gave you above, from reading the following over the past three years:

The ties that bind China, Russia and Iran

More ties here

Iran's Alliance With China

Iran, China Major Alliance during the formation phase

China 70 billion oil and natural gas agreement with Iran

Japan to Move Ahead With Iran Oil Deal

[file83]

33. But if Iran has friends with nukes (which you point out they do), then

how hard would it be for Iran to get their hands on one from one of their sympathetic friends?

That's kind of the point of this discussion.

If the U.S. attacks Iran with nukes, then if the world thinks the U.S. deserved the same treatment, maybe they would "give" some to Iran to play with. Who knows, and that's the spirit of this discussion:

A U.S. nuclear attack on Iran would change EVERYTHING.

[Selatius]

46. It's possible China and Russia would intervene if the US attacked Iran

I don't know by which form that intervention will take, but at the very least, they would try and bring economic sanctions against the US to try and bottle up the US regime. It would resemble the policy of containment employed against the USSR for 40 years before it disintegrated. Whether China or Russia will slip the Iranians some nukes is probably not something both those powers want, but they would probably be more willing to offer the Iranians military supplies to replace those destroyed by the US air campaign. Things like anti-aircraft missiles, radar systems, warplanes, tanks, artillery guns, etc. are possible.

[ContraBass Black]

24. Yes, absolutely.

Many other countries would also be justified in reprising us for an unprovoked nuclear attack on a non-nuclear country, as we would be the rogue nation using nukes without justification.

[file83]

34. One reaction would be China decides to call in our enormous debt

to them. That would hurt us, big time. They could also raise the prices of our goods: Bye-Bye US economy.

[Generic Other]

28. We learned the answer to this question in kindegarten

when we were told that if we hit someone first, that person might retaliate.

[file83]

36. That's kind of the premise I'm testing here. It seems that most agree.

I'm sure the world would too.

[Junkdrawer]

29. Here's the weird part...

If a nuke went off here, and it was AFTER we "surgically" nuked Iran, there would be an unstoppable "patriotic" push to strike Iran back, even if Iran denied any involvement.

[file83]

37. True, but I don't doubt for a second that Russia would warn the US

that if they return with "full commitment" (aka, annhiliate Iran), that we could expect the same. That way, Iran is protected and the US can't react because of mutually assured destruction from Russia.

[PublicWrath]

39. While we're on the subject, I have a question about "suitcase" nukes

If someone sneaked a small nuclear bomb into this country, and exploded it in a major city, would there be any scientific way to know where the bomb was produced or by which country's technology? I've always wondered if there was anything about the radiation itself (or whatever) that could identify the source.

[wtmusic]

41. Although the admin claims they could

most experts consider it bluster. They could have a good idea, but would it be good enough to justify killing hundreds of thousands of people?