Should The US Nuke Iran?

[justoffal]

Trump attacked them first in a conventional war. There were better ways in play to handle Iran, but Trump needed an Epstein Distraction sooooo........

Playing the game of Chicken with nuclear weapons is a game for the supremely stupid. Putin danced around doing it when Ukraine was kicking his ass.

Dont know about Epstein but Yeah.....a blockade to begin with would have been a better idea than following it up with one.

 

[ChristisKing]

Dont know about Epstein but Yeah.....a blockade to begin with would have been a better idea than following it up with one.

How would that change the outcome of the Iranians finding a way around that with pumping their oil into the water though?

 

[justoffal]

How would that change the outcome of the Iranians finding a way around that with pumping their oil into the water though?

not sure if that's what they are doing....but I am sure it has occured to them to do it. Apparently the slick may be from a delipidated tanker that was being used as alternative storage....hard to say. But yeah you're right it wouldn't stop them....Rockwell Tory made the best suggestion....light it up and let the fire dissipate the oil....it is often done

 

[Crepitus]

Ok, so what? You wanna show where I was advocating for a nuke on Iran like you accused me of?

You just quoted it.

 

[Divine Wind]

Yeah but Trump is the first president with enough guts to go after Iran.

If you replace "guts" with "stupidity", I'd agree. Let's not forget he did this despite advice from Tulsi and General Caine.

 

[ChristisKing]

If you replace "guts" with "stupidity", I'd agree. Let's not forget he did this despite advice from Tulsi and General Caine.

Link?

 

[Divine Wind]

Link?

A few are seen below. It's pretty common knowledge in military and intelligence circles for the past 40 years that the Straight of Hormuz was the sticking point about attacking Iran which the bottom link points out.

https://www.cnn.com/2026/02/25/politics/caine-iran-hegseth-trump

Trump hits out at reports that top US general warned against attacking Iran

General Dan Caine has warned that strikes against Iran could be risky, potentially drawing the US into a prolonged conflict, US media report.

www.bbc.com

Tulsi Gabbard’s dangerous war

Trump's hatchet woman is weaponizing classified intelligence like never before.

www.motherjones.com

Trump, according to Axios, was displeased that Gabbard at this hearing did not wholeheartedly endorse his war in Iran and personally scolded her. He was also apparently mad that she had protected Kent, who had publicly undercut his rationale for the war. (In his resignation letter, Kent said Iran posed no “imminent threat” to the United States.) Trump began asking his top advisers if he should give Gabbard the boot.

A Brief History of U.S. Naval Mine Warfare in the Persian Gulf, 1979–Present - Center for Maritime Strategy

Iran’s claim to have laid mines across a broad area astride the Strait of Hormuz has again raised the prospect of a USS Samuel B. Roberts mine strike-incident and prompted renewed scrutiny of U.S. Navy mine-warfare capabilities. Observers have questioned the decision to retire and repatriate the...

centerformaritimestrategy.org

The 1987–1988 “Tanker War” (Operation Earnest Will) constituted the first major U.S. mine-warfare effort in the Persian Gulf. Prior to that period, the perceived threat to Iranian oil infrastructure from the neighboring Soviet Union was addressed through the Carter Administration’s Rapid Deployment Force, a precursor to today’s U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM). The naval component of this posture remained limited, with only episodic reinforcement during crises. The outbreak of the Iran–Iraq War in 1980—between Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the new Islamist regime in Iran—expanded conflict into the Persian Gulf and led to an increase in attacks on neutral tanker shipping, with Iran posing the principal threat. In May 1987, the United States proceeded with plans to reflag Kuwaiti tankers and escort them through the Strait of Hormuz. A U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee report concluded that the U.S. Navy was “ill-prepared to execute its new role in the Persian Gulf.” The mining of the Strait of Hormuz was also raised in other congressional hearings. In one such hearing, Senator Dan Quayle asked Under Secretary of Defense Michael Armacost, “Do we have any minesweepers that will go up in there?” Armacost responded in the negative and stated that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Bill Crowe, did not assess mines as a significant threat. The Joint Chiefs instead assessed Iranian, Chinese-made Silkworm cruise missiles as the greater danger. In July 1987, however, the reflagged tanker Bridgeton—the first such vessel escorted by the U.S. Navy—struck an Iranian-laid mine. Although the damage was limited, the U.S. naval presence in the Persian Gulf expanded from six ships to thirteen, and then to thirty by year’s end, to include minesweepers and minesweeping helicopters. USS Samuel B. Roberts subsequently struck a mine and was nearly lost. Ultimately, the operation contributed to deterring further Iranian attacks on merchant shipping

 

[The Duke]

If that's his reasoning, we are in deep shit. The population is 92 million. The largest protests were only a very small fraction of the population. Also, most of those protestors were not seeking an overthrow of the goverment but more freedom in their daily lives. The Supreme Leader is the highest-ranking political and religious authority in Iran, serving as head of state and commander-in-chief. The biggest problem is that there has been no political figure that has the support of people nor is able to unite the varied political interests.
Do to years of religious indoctrination, the military is fiercely loyal to the leader. They may not be able to stand up against the US military but they will certainly be able to put down any uprising.

Baring nuclear weapons, there is only only one way to subue Iran, a full scale military invasion with boots on the ground.

^That there is what is called a false dichotomy fallacy.

False Dichotomy

Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there are really many different options, not just two—and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends.
Example: “Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students’ safety. Obviously we shouldn’t risk anyone’s safety, so we must tear the building down.” The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question—for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn’t hold classes in those rooms.
Tip: Examine your own arguments: if you’re saying that we have to choose between just two options, is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you haven’t mentioned? If there are other alternatives, don’t just ignore them—explain why they, too, should be ruled out. Although there’s no formal name for it, assuming that there are only three options, four options, etc. when really there are more is similar to false dichotomy and should also be avoided."

Fallacies – The Writing Center

What this handout is about This handout discusses common logical fallacies that you may encounter in your own writing or the writing of others. The handout provides definitions, examples, and tips on avoiding these fallacies. Arguments Most academic writing tasks … Read more

writingcenter.unc.edu

 

[GavanPeacefan]

I know that Trump currently is trying a blockade hoping that Iran will negotiate, but now apparently Iran has started pumping their oil into the water which will cause a mass pollution for the environment and wild life and innocent people. So Trump has already set out a warning that if the Iranians don't sign an agreement soon Iran will glow.


Here's the question though, are nukes the ONLY way to solve the problem and end this war because it seems like there's just going to be a whole lot more problems if Trump gave the order than if he still was trying to negotiate with them even though they clearly have no interest in it. I just worry about the innocent Iranian people though.

Massive oil slicks spotted off Iran’s Kharg Island as Trump touts Hormuz clash

Satellite images show new oil slicks off Iran’s main oil export hub, raising leak fears and claims Tehran may be dumping crude at sea amid US blockade and storage shortages

www.ynetnews.com

(That's no leak btw, you can count on that.)

first of all, i only saw Trump mentioning nukes here in the 2nd vid, and ever so briefly - that's just what he does when he improvises a press meeting, ok.
he mentions several worthwhile endeavors though; such as the saving of those 8 protester young women, and the fact that Iran is under time pressure to restart their oil pipelines and refineries. the oil slick factor can be turned into an international scandal that criticizes the new Iranian leaders and give Trump full permission for a 2nd bombing run.

but to answer your question, from my not-always-humble perspective : OF COURSE WE SHOULD NOT NUKE IRAN!

 

[JoeB131]

I still fail to see how we started the war when Iran was the one who was going to start nuking Israel and probably the US too. Since they're so big on death to America that is.

hold on no, how do you know "what they were going" to do, exactly?

Iran doesn't have a bomb, and our own intelligence concluded they were nowhere near building one.

oooooh, they said mean things about us. Yup, that's a good reason to kill thousands of innocent civilians!

 

[JoeB131]

^That there is what is called a false dichotomy fallacy.

Not really.

He has a point.

What we are doing isn't working. We aren't going to bomb Iran into submission.

We aren't going to starve them out with sanctions because they've been living with sanctions since the 1970s.

And despite the title thread, Trump isn't going to nuke them.

We don't have a large enough army right now (even if we activated all our reserves) to do a ground invasion of Iran, which is three times larger than Iraq in terms of land and population. (And even if we did, we aren't in a position to do either an amphibious invasion like D-Day or to pass through Iraq, which has a pro-Iranian government.

So our only option is to sign an agreement. But even that's a bad option because the Iranians have no reason to believe that we'd live up to our end of any agreement.

 

[ChristisKing]

hold on no, how do you know "what they were going" to do, exactly?

Iran doesn't have a bomb, and our own intelligence concluded they were nowhere near building one.

oooooh, they said mean things about us. Yup, that's a good reason to kill thousands of innocent civilians!

Iran literally wants to kill us.

 

[GavanPeacefan]

hold on no, how do you know "what they were going" to do, exactly?

Iran doesn't have a bomb, and our own intelligence concluded they were nowhere near building one.

oooooh, they said mean things about us. Yup, that's a good reason to kill thousands of innocent civilians!

the Iranians did a lot more than say mean things about us. they were actively pursuing WMD to kill us and/or the Israelis off with entirely.

 

[GavanPeacefan]

Not really.

He has a point.

What we are doing isn't working. We aren't going to bomb Iran into submission.

We aren't going to starve them out with sanctions because they've been living with sanctions since the 1970s.

And despite the title thread, Trump isn't going to nuke them.

We don't have a large enough army right now (even if we activated all our reserves) to do a ground invasion of Iran, which is three times larger than Iraq in terms of land and population. (And even if we did, we aren't in a position to do either an amphibious invasion like D-Day or to pass through Iraq, which has a pro-Iranian government.

So our only option is to sign an agreement. But even that's a bad option because the Iranians have no reason to believe that we'd live up to our end of any agreement.

the Iranians practice 'fake it until you make it [to your own goals]'. and their goals are dishonerable and utterly insane.

 

[JoeB131]

Iran literally wants to kill us.

Do they? Could it be because we've spent 73 years making their lives miserable?

Hint. Nobody cheers for John Bobbitt even if they are horrified by what Lorena did. (If you are old enough to remember that story.)

We overthrew their democracy.
We put the Shah and the throne and supported him for 25 years.
We openly supported Saddam Hussein as he made war on Iran for 8 years.
We've imposed 47 years of sanctions on them.

I can't imagine WHY they hate us.

 

[JoeB131]

the Iranians practice 'fake it until you make it [to your own goals]'. and their goals are dishonerable and utterly insane.

How is their position "dishonorable" or "Insane".

We have essentially made war on them for having a form of government we don't like. Seems our position is "unreasonable".

 

[Kruska]

You just quoted it.

Clipper did not "advocate" for it. He told some brainless MAGA warmonger, who advocated to nuke Iran up and down to turn it into glass with it's 90 million population, that just nuking Tehran alone would kill 8-10 million people.

 

[Crepitus]

Clipper did not "advocate" for it. He told some brainless MAGA warmonger, who advocated to nuke Iran up and down to turn it into glass with it's 90 million population, that just nuking Tehran alone would kill 8-10 million people.

ok

 

[Flopper]

^That there is what is called a false dichotomy fallacy.

False Dichotomy

Definition: In false dichotomy, the arguer sets up the situation so it looks like there are only two choices. The arguer then eliminates one of the choices, so it seems that we are left with only one option: the one the arguer wanted us to pick in the first place. But often there are really many different options, not just two—and if we thought about them all, we might not be so quick to pick the one the arguer recommends.
Example: “Caldwell Hall is in bad shape. Either we tear it down and put up a new building, or we continue to risk students’ safety. Obviously we shouldn’t risk anyone’s safety, so we must tear the building down.” The argument neglects to mention the possibility that we might repair the building or find some way to protect students from the risks in question—for example, if only a few rooms are in bad shape, perhaps we shouldn’t hold classes in those rooms.
Tip: Examine your own arguments: if you’re saying that we have to choose between just two options, is that really so? Or are there other alternatives you haven’t mentioned? If there are other alternatives, don’t just ignore them—explain why they, too, should be ruled out. Although there’s no formal name for it, assuming that there are only three options, four options, etc. when really there are more is similar to false dichotomy and should also be avoided."

Fallacies – The Writing Center

What this handout is about This handout discusses common logical fallacies that you may encounter in your own writing or the writing of others. The handout provides definitions, examples, and tips on avoiding these fallacies. Arguments Most academic writing tasks … Read more

writingcenter.unc.edu

Being that the purpose of the war was to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power so baring nuclear weapons, what other option is there to subduing Iran other than a full scale invasion with boots on the ground?

 

[eagle1462010]

Being that the purpose of the war was to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power so baring nuclear weapons, what other option is there to subduing Iran other than a full scale invasion with boots on the ground?

Seige