What happens if this fucker uses "tactical nukes" against Iran?

[BushOut06]

First of all, what the fuck is tactical about using a nuclear weapon? Even a "tiny" tactical nuke can cause thousands of deaths, and produce enough radiation to kill tens of thousands more.

Is it just me, or do repugs almost seem gleeful about the chance to use tactical nuclear weapons against Iran? For years, they've been telling us how difficult it would be to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities. They've been laying the groundwork to use nukes against Iran, trying to rationalize mass murder. They have these newfangled weapons and by gawd, they're going to use them.

I don't even want to think about the worldwide response in the event that * decides to unleash his newest "toys" against Iran. I'm convinced that * and some of his top generals think of these deadly weapons as "toys". The way that we've been pissing off Russia lately, I don't think that their reaction would be very nice at all - especially given Russia's relationship with Iran. Do we finally storm the White House with torches and pitchforks and drag the motherfucker out? Would Pelosi have the nerve to DEMAND his immediate arrest?

I can't think of a more heinous war crime than what is being seriously contemplated against Iran. This would make Abu Gharib, Guantanamo, and all other * crimes pale in comparison.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. Conyers, and Pelosi will go down in to history as Enabling tyranny, though

While it's going on it will just seem like another day in Shrubs Amerikkaa.

[leftyclimber]

2. We will get tactically nuked back by countries other than Iran.

Most of us will be bald, sick, and generally glowing in the dark.

God, I never thought I'd say this, but can I have the Cold War back, please?

[Warren Stupidity]

7. no we won't.

Who is going to do that? Russia? China? And risk our retaliation? Not likely.

[leftyclimber]

11. I'm at a point where I think almost every government on this planet has lost it.

Maybe it's the nicotine deprivation.

If I could find a way to move to Mars for a couple of years, I would. I'm just so fatigued with this constant sabre-rattling on all sides.

Ever wish you could just stamp your feet, yell "Stop it!" and everyone would listen?

[Bake]

16. Everybody should just have a smoke and chill out!

Best suggestion I've heard all week!

Bake

[Henny Penny]

13. Unless of course they happened to have some kind of

mutual defence pact with Iran.

And they don't ...do they???

[Warren Stupidity]

19. Even if Russia or China had such a pact they would not attack us.

It is the rule of MAD. Only insanity or accident is going to cause a nuclear war between nuclear powers with survivable nuclear forces. Why would Russia or China commit suicide to come the defense of Iran?

[theboss]

12. Who?

Why?
For what possible reason?

[NI4NI]

3. For starters, my quess is

U.S. Embassys worldwide get attacked, or at best marched on.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

4. People might stop eating at mickedeez and drinking cokes,

which after all, might not be a bad thing. Pass me some freedom fries....

[zeemike]

5. First of all they would never admit it if they did

And the type of device would be a low yield bunker buster that does not spew a lot of radioactive material in the air, so it could be hard to prove.
But if they did and we found out about it, pitchforks and torches would be the appropriate response as far as I am concerned, and after the removal of bush and Chaney from office our next in line for the presidency would be Nancy Pelosy the first woman president.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. Lots of Iranians and other people in the region will die.

The planetary civilization will be stunned. The lone superpower will be revealed, naked for what it is, a brutal arrogant tyrant. Otherwise not much will happen. I'll protest, as will hundreds of thousands of others, but what would be needed to bring down the regime, to really bring down the regime, a general strike by millions, will not happen. We don't have the intelligence or the courage or the organization for that.

[CJCRANE]

9. The general decline will continue

or speed up...less tourism to and less trade with America, other countries forming alliances, Americans and American assets abroad under greater threat etc etc not to mention the troops trapped in the ME with no way out.

[GreenZoneLT]

8. We don't have those yet.

They're still developing the bunker-buster nukes; they're not in the arsenal. Interesting point about "tactical," too; using them to take out Iran's nuclear program would be a case of using a "tactical," battlefield weapon in a strategic role.

I'm telling ya, Cheney IS Dr. Strangelove. The neocons are acting like a bunch of horny teenagers about going to war with Iran; it's like they've got blue balls and are afraid we're going to find a peaceful resolution that doesn't involve blowing things up.

It's not like it's imminent, though; even these idiots would threaten and bully and give Iran ultimatums before they pulled the trigger, just as they did with Iraq.

[ET Awful]

10. Not entirely correct.

Tactical nuclear weapons have existed for decades. The purpose of a tactical nuclear weapon is for use against troops in the field and other close range targets (typically less than 300 miles, unlike a strategic nuclear weapon which is designed for long range use against strategic targets, civilian populations and infrastructure). A tactical nuke is nothing more than a low yield - short range nuclear weapon designed for battlefield use.

http://www.armscontrolcenter.org/prolifproject/tnw/chap2.pdf

Also, nuclear bunker buster bombs DO exist. Vis a vis the B61-11

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html

[Solo_in_MD]

14. Tactical nukes are smaller yield weapons designed to be launched from within the theater

vice ICBMs from a nation's heartland. The term normally means ground launched vice air dropped. Notionally the US developed them to breakup large armor and troop formations they thought they would face should the Warsaw Pact attack NATO.

[Norquist Nemesis]

15. pssst!...Memory Lane

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52564-2005Jan31.html

[roamer65]

17. World War III.

[mainegreen]

18. We'll get to experience economic sanctions first hand. n/t

[tom_paine]

20. Then the door to HELL cracks open...

There is simply no way to predict that horrors that will befall millions of innocents, including Americans, if he does this.

It could go as bad as WWIII, which of course then SOLIDLY AND OBJECTIVELY places Little Boots Bushler as the primary candidate for the AntiChrist, if you believe in such things.

There is also the small chance, perhaps 1%, that the incident will be isolated, the conflict contained and no further nukes will be exploded by either side.

1% is probably generous...if Little Boots Bushler is crazy enough to use nukes.

[blues90]

21. I don't know why people think this won't happen

We used nukes on Japan so what makes anyone think they won't do this again ?

I don't feel they have any conscience about this at all . If there is money to be made and a war to be had they will do it . If this draws the attention away from a failed Iraq war they will do it .

I feel it's not if anymore but when .