Trump White House Considers Dropping Nukes on Iran
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.
363
Comments114
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.
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.
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
You might enjoy the short run of the TV show Jericho.
There’s also comics that continue the story a bit more.
If you can’t prove it, then they are doing the false flag operation right. Well; correctly, anyway.
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!
New Mexico had it coming tho.
Mostly Nevada
Nevada doesn't even own most of Nevada.
For science!…or something
The Science of War
Same thing but in spain
Don’t worry, Los Angeles isn’t a state :p
WHO GETS THE NUKE FIRST? IRAN, GAZA OR THE FIRST HURRICANE OF THE SEASON! sadtimes.
What’s the us city that matches the following:
It'd absolutely be somewhere on the west coast.
London? Bonus: has a Muslim Mayor
... US city. London.
NYC
Nah he's too connected to NYC.
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
California?
I would be scared if I lived in New Mexico …
That phrasing is kinda racist, yo
Same guy that kept ripping on Zelensky for "instigating" nuclear war
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.
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.
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.
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
"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.
Then I hope the rest of the world does something about it.
They will write a strong-worded protest statement.
“Art of the Deal”. Always start “negotiations” with a threat to go nuclear, then brag and posture and bully. Deal
You forgot the part where you Chicken out and go back on everything so you lose on both sides... No one ever sees it coming
Now it's crystal clear how this absolute idiot bankrupt a casino
I'm sure Jesus Christ would definitely 100% want this.
Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, if Trump met Him today he would send Him to CECOT.
Talked about sharing and didn't like rich folks. This admin ordnance a huge fan of brown socialists.
Nah, would be massively out of character for JC... his old man on the other side... well, HE got a nasty temper from time to time
What a great precedent that would set. Seems like humans are moving towards ending all life on earth. Just another dead rock in an infinite vacuum.
Not to say that nuclear war isn't bad, but we literally don't have enough bombs available to do that.
I just very much believe that a chain reaction after a nuclear war will kill everything alive on it. Almost certainly all humans would be gone pretty soon.
You can believe it all you want, the numbers just aren't there. There are only ~3800 nuclear warheads that are ready for launch, across all countries that possess them. That's not enough to put a permanent dent in the human population even if you launched all of them targeted to inflict maximum casualties. Which isn't how they'd be launched, of course - most of them would be aimed at military targets, such as ICBM silos and airstrips that are out in the middle of nowhere.
I expect you'll propose nuclear winter as the actual killing effect. Nuclear winter has been drastically overblown, often for this very reason - to scare people into an anti-proliferation stance. We know a lot more now than we did when the first wild predictions were made.
Again, not to say that nuclear war isn't bad. But if one is to make good decisions one should strive for realistic understanding of the world. It wouldn't literally cause human extinction.
offf. Ok. Thanks for all the perfectly factual and proven references, or ahhh...on-going debates, you gave.
Does any of it consider the wars that will be triggered? How the water supply will be affected? How the weather is going to be affected after an already fucked up atmosphere absorbs this damage? I could go on but this is pointless with a person like you.
Did you consider any of it? In an actually analytical way, that is, instead of just imagining the outcome you wanted?
I provided links, you provided nothing but belief and fearmongering. And downvotes, of course, which also prove nothing.
None of which comes close to rendering humanity extinct. That's been my point all along. Nuclear war would suck, but it would not render humanity extinct.
What's your point and why do you think it matters in this context?
I'm responding to someone who said:
That's the context.
My point is that this is not true, and I'm explaining why it's not true.
What is a country? A miserable pile of war crimes.
Turning a habitable area full of innocent people into a pile of radioactive rubble and dying people why? Because fucking the Israeli government wants to genocide palestinians without resistance? Damn we fucking suck as a country
So we'll have a war of aggression with Iran for? We don't like them? Israel has committed more violations of national borders and laws. The KoSA and Egypt's citizens were involved in 9-11 and they are "allies".
If any other country did the things Israel has done, we'd be sanctioning them at a minimum. We invaded Iraq both times for less.
Hell we made up lies about Iraq
This time we are past the need for that. It will all be everchanging bullshit from here on out with the us.
Maybe they've got Saddam's missing WMDs. . .
All that freshly baked yellow cake
Yeah but israel is our colonial outpost in the middle east, they can do whatever they want
9/11 killed a lot of Americans, ice kills Americans, do you see the pattern here, Jimmy?
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.
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?
One source
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.
Sounds like science stuff and facts. MAGA doesn't have any time for those.
Just think of the moths it would attract though
This is how you get Mothra.
I mean, do you promise?
He is going to back pedal because Iran is his boss's (Putin ) ally. He is once again talking shit he has no intention of backing up. I could see him ordering a nin-nuke strike on something that wouldn't get him in trouble with his handler though as a fake tough man move.
He floats the craziest idea so that whatever happens he can say "at least I didn't do that one thing" and his base will praise him for it--even though the thing he actually did was still moronic. This is the "permanent 300% tariff", "Canada will be the 51st state", or the "Golden Trump Gaza" video. It's the only way this imbecile knows how to negotiate.
The Golden Trump Gaza, what a fucking joke. I could be totally wrong but I'm going to take a guess and say that the Gaza strip is one of the most bombed out places in the world. If true it'll be littered with unexploded ordinance forever or at least practically forever. He wants to make a giant Mar'a Lago? Sure okay, I'm sure your guests would enjoy the risk of losing a limb or being killed cause a forgotten bomb goes off 10 years later.
It's nothing compared to, say, what the US did to Laos, but yes there are thousands of tons of unexploded ordinance in there and will take at least a decade to clean up.
He's gonna backpadel because he is a wimp, a paper tiger, he doesn't dare to send people to war as he's chickened out of Viet Nam.
TACO
The headline is a reading into it a bit. They said nothing is off the table, but they are confident that a conventional strike would accomplish the goal.
Not that a strike would happen anyway, but they rarely say that any option is completely off the table. A nuclear first strike should be one of those options off the table, but it's the Trump administration we're talking about.
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.
What the actual hell.
Worse president than Putin, worse people than Russians considering the power the people
havehad and the person they allow to do this.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.
"Considers". Fake news. They want the price of oil and gas to go up to please Putin.
Ya know, I can’t hate this take.
MADness.
Hopefully someone drops him beforehand.
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.
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.
OK, who had "The opening from Threads but in 4K" on their bingo card?
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.
I vote for tariffs on the nukes pls taco pls
Fine, start a nuclear war. It's the waiting I can't stand.
I'll wait for the US to demand that Israel destroy its nuclear weapons...this may take a while...
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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 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 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.
When the cure is worse than the disease.