Good Idea to Nuke Iran?

Partially.

 

Hi Scott,

Is it me or are the others ignoring me when I say that we ought to use alternatives?

 

Phillip, no one is ignoring you. The fact is, we aren't going to use nukes. End Time Bible prophecy says that Persia (of which Iran and Iraq are a part) will be attacking Israel at Armegeddon. God will be the one Who destroys them, not the US. OTOH, the USA is NOT mentioned in End Time prophecy, which means, they might nuke us. Of course, if and when that happens, I don't plan on being here.

 

A tactical nukes would cause a lot of collateral damage, but they would not destroy the country of Iran. People are so used to hearing that nuclear bombs destroy the world that they don't realize that a small tactical nuke actually doesn't have a fireball any bigger than the MOAB. The part that IS bad is the nuclear radiation and fallout; even though a larger number would die from this, it does not preclude the fact that it COULD be done.

Don't get me wrong, I don't condone it, but I see nothing in the Bible that says tactical nukes aren't used. Israel also has about 70 tactical nukes.

 

"...And his tail drew the third part of the stars of heaven, and did cast them to the earth...

 

Actually, I've often wondered about that verse. So I just now went & got out the big concordance, and it seems that word can also be translated to angels. Another commentary said Satan will be gathering his followers from heaven. Nobody, however, will say it's an absolute.

But the imagery & poetry of Revelation makes one tremble.

 

I don't think Nuke is necessary from the beginnig in this case. Any Pin-Point Bombing by Missile will bring the sufficient result. Then the enemy may react to it, then another reactive attack will be possible. Thereafter, if there is still reaction, then Nuke may be used. There is no need to burn the barn down to get rid of the mice from the beginning, but if it expands, it's their responsibility.

 

By the time of Ezekiel 38-39, I expect, USA have disappeared already by that time, which will be a great pity to the people of loving God, while EU and Catholic dominant countries exult about it. Israel may have to accept the stationing of the Multi-National Forces inside their territory and Temple Mount will be handed over to Vatican as Arafat promised at Oslo Agreement. Then the Pope General of World Religion will stand in the Holy Temple as Daniel prophesied.
Even though I don't like the development of that situation , Lord has to come again.

Iran will be one of the important acting power under Russia. By that time Israel will realize what they did to Messiah as in Zechariah 12:10.

 

I don't believe that nukes should be an option. The first country to use nukes will probably the second country to recieve them.

 

Points worth noting:

1. If we "nuke 'em," we are going to validate the claim by the fundamentalist Muslims that there is a war against Islam. That will probably serve to unite the entire Muslim population against us. There will be more than just 40,000 Iranians ready to get us.

2. If we "nuke 'em," then we will most likely become the rogue nation on this planet, uniting everyone against us. After all, the same country that dropped the H-bombs on Japan is also the country who utilized their nuclear arsenal one more time. That would be rather foolish to claim that the Iranians will use nuclear weapons, and then subsequently use them in an attempt to rid the world of a nuclear threat.

3. If we "nuke 'em," we put more than just the soldiers in Afghanistan at risk. What about all the servicemen in Iraq, as well as those Iraqis that were supposed to greet us a liberators?

4. What about Israel? What if the fallout drifts to the West?

Nuclear detonation is absolutely the worst possible choice that could be made. I pray every day that it does not happen.

Regards,
BiR

 

Nukes are most effective when not used. They make a great deterent but a very poor battle option.

 

True Scott, besides, there are alternatives and it ain't the MOAB.

 

Scott and I agree on something? We must be getting close to the tribulation, huh?

Regards from Tennessee,
BiR

 

If Bush is foolish enough to attack Iran, then Iran could easily take its 4 million bpd of oil off the market, could easily close down the Strait of Hormuz through which much of the world's oil travels, could easily sabotage Saudi Arabian oil fields.

The result would be $150/bbl. oil, $6.00/gal. gasoline, and another great depression as the U.S. and other nations' economies crater.

 

no thanks to used cooking oil fuel or hydrogen power?

 

"Amidst all the discussion and debate about whether President Bush should wage war against Iran, it’s important that we not lose sight of an important fact: we now live in a country in which the ruler wields the omnipotent power to send the entire nation into war for any reason he deems fit. (Just trust him.)

No matter that the Constitution precludes the president from attacking Iran without a declaration of war from Congress. No one can deny that in our country, the president, as a military commander in chief in time of “war,” now wields the power to ignore the Constitution.

If the president attacks Iran, he will say that that this new war reinforces his omnipotent commander-in-chief powers over the American people.

Unfortunately, the American people, remaining deeply frightened about the “terrorists” who are coming to get them, continue to play the role of the blissful and innocent sheep, as they continue permitting — even encouraging — the voracious, power-seeking president and his minions to devour their rights and freedom.

No one should ever suggest that President Bush is not a smart man. His actions will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the most ingenious routes to dictatorship ever."

- www.fff.org/blog/index.asp

I find Mr. Hornberger's points to be quite salient and spot on.

 

Oh brother. Tell you what, if Bush becomes dictator , and rules America after his term is up, I'll sign my car over to you.

 

The problem is that the Iranians must believe the threat is credible. They have to believe that Bush is as zealous about what he believes as they are about what they believe... They have to believe that he is crazy enough to do it.

The rulers of Iran are not nice folks... and hopefully no one here is foolish enough to buy the notion that they're intentions are benign. I doubt that they really want to use nukes because of the collateral damage. For instance a nuke strike on Israel would definitely destroy holy Islamic sites in Jerusalem... and possibly even contaminate Mecca if the weapon was large enough and the prevailing winds were right.

What they are probably looking for is a stronger hand in world politics to use against Israel and the west.

OTOH, it would make alot of sense to strike Israel's distant protectors... say particularly the US and Britain... perhaps Australia as well. It wouldn't really take total destruction either. Our economy went into a tailspin after the 9/11 attacks. Imagine the effects of having two or three major cities destroyed. Probably a near total disruption of the economy and daily life for all Americans.

 

I say nuke Mecca.

 

Iran is up to something. They are the last country in the world to need nuclear power. They have massive oil reserves and the second largest natural gas reserves in the world. Of the natural gas they only utilise 2%.

Their move toward nuclear power is for military reasons. Whether nukes are too much is hard to say. Whether anything else will really do the job is a good question.