• Guests may view all public nodes. However, you must be registered to post.

There is no indication that the United States is making any plans to use nuclear weapons against Iran at this time.

GBS61 said:
someone who calls himself a Democrat
Click to expand...
Um? I’ve been open about my politics for years. I lean liberal on domestic social policy, but I am unapologetically hawkish on foreign policy.

If I had to put a label on it, I’d say I’m closer to an old Cold War Democrat.

👉My view is simple, a country’s ability to sustain social policy depends on the security, stability, and strategic position that its foreign policy helps preserve. Without that foundation, the rest becomes a luxury built on sand.

So I do not fit neatly into either party. I lean left domestically and very right leaning on foreign affairs.

Also being against "Trump" doesn't make you automatically a Democrat...
 
NuclearID said:
Um? I have been pretty open for years on my politics. I am liberal when it comes to social policy. HOWEVER I am very hawkish on foreign policy.

I am a old cold war Democrat. Essentially very right leaning on foreign policy and believe that America only is able to derive/have social policies because foreign policy/US sitting on top of the hill is what enables it. Pretty simple logic, can't have social policies without it being secured by foreign policy in Americas instances, every country is different after all.

I am not a Democrat. Not a Republican. As I lean both ways. Swing left at home, swing very right abroad.
Click to expand...
My voting pattern reflects that split pretty clearly.

At the state and local level, I have usually voted blue down ballot.

At the national level, I have often voted red, largely because I place more weight on foreign policy and national security.

For me, that is not a contradiction. It is a hierarchy of priorities. Social policy matters, but I view foreign policy as the outer wall that protects the system underneath it. If that wall weakens, everything behind it becomes harder to preserve.
 
william said:
Yes, the US has never declared a "no first use policy." The United States maintains calculated ambiguity and the President could order the first use of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
That seems like a leap to go from "the US has no rule against first use" to "it's time to accept that the US will use nukes in Iran." We're not there yet. There is no justification for the use of nuclear weapons in Iran at this time. Using one at this time will be globally destabilizing and possibly open the door for Russian use of a nuke in Ukraine. I can't see any Defense Department calculation that determines nuke use is strategicly advantageous at this time.
 
Global leadership requires more than the capacity for overwhelming force; it demands the maturity to use it as a last resort. While the United States maintains unparalleled military dominance, true superpower status is sustained through diplomatic endurance and the cultivation of alliances. In a landscape where adversaries like Iran may operate without moral or humanitarian constraints—often weaponizing their own populations (see what is happening in Karezun for example) the U.S. cannot afford to descend to impulsive maneuvers. We need to must pivot back to 'Smart Power,' using strategic intellect.
 
The geopolitical fallout from using nuclear weapons against Iran would be...nuclear (pun intended).

The only time the US did use nukes was to avoid a million casualties when invading Japan.

No use in Korea, no use in Vietnam, no use in Afghanistan.

Why suddenly Iran? I think claims that the US using nukes in Iran is more based in political agenda and bias rather than reality.
 
DEFCON Warning System said:
The geopolitical fallout from using nuclear weapons against Iran would be...nuclear (pun intended).

The only time the US did use nukes was to avoid a million casualties when invading Japan.

No use in Korea, no use in Vietnam, no use in Afghanistan.

Why suddenly Iran? I think claims that the US using nukes in Iran is more based in political agenda and bias rather than reality.
Click to expand...
And even domestically, can the current US administration afford to use a nuke without having the congress to impeach Trump?
 
NuclearID said:
My voting pattern reflects that split pretty clearly.
At the state and local level, I have usually voted blue down ballot.
At the national level, I have often voted red, largely because I place more weight on foreign policy and national security.
Click to expand...
That sounds almost … sane. We simply cannot afford that kind of talk here in the forums. You will create a dead zone of measured thought and reason.
 
teekay99 said:
That seems like a leap to go from "the US has no rule against first use" to "it's time to accept that the US will use nukes in Iran." We're not there yet. There is no justification for the use of nuclear weapons in Iran at this time. Using one at this time will be globally destabilizing and possibly open the door for Russian use of a nuke in Ukraine. I can't see any Defense Department calculation that determines nuke use is strategicly advantageous at this time.
Click to expand...
You are absolutely right. I was just pointing out the US retains that option. The President has the sole responsibility for the release of nuclear weapons. How would you like to carry that weight with nuclear missiles being fired just about every day and you're not sure what kind of warhead is on it. Could be nuclear, could be dirty. I think the USs current nuclear use policy is to absorb a first strike if it is deemed to not be targeted at population areas. That is what the boomers are for.
 
Onoya said:
And even domestically, can the current US administration afford to use a nuke without having the congress to impeach Trump?
Click to expand...
Not to worry, the President can't just wake up one morning and decide he wants to nuke somebody. The military does have the obligation to follow legal orders. The recommendation for the use of nuclear weapons would come from the military, not just because the President wants to do it out of the blue. There are checks and balances even in the chain of command for the use of WMD.
 
GBS61 said:
No one mentioned that Israel might use nuclear weapons
Click to expand...
I have raised that possibility publicly, and I have discussed it privately with staff as well.

👉To be clear, I am not saying Israel will use nuclear weapons. I am saying that if Israel ever concluded it was facing a true existential threat, I do not believe any option would be automatically off the table.

👉That threshold would not be ordinary escalation. It would be something far more severe, such as U.S. support weakening at a critical moment, interceptor stockpiles being depleted, Iran’s hardened underground nuclear infrastructure remaining intact, or Israel suffering a dirty bomb attack or another form of WMD strike.

👉In that kind of extreme scenario, especially if Iran still refused to back down, Israel could find itself weighing options that would otherwise be unthinkable, including tactical nuclear use against hardened targets.
 
GBS61 said:
No one mentioned that Israel might use nuclear weapons with the blessing of the US.
Click to expand...
I can see there being more of a chance of that happening than the US using nukes. Israel has a legitimate reason. Even then, though, Israel has been incredibly restrained. So it is unlikely that Israel would use them, either. Iran just doesn't have the capacity to inflict the threat necessary for Israel to resort to nuclear use.
 
GBS61 said:
No one mentioned that Israel might use nuclear weapons with the blessing of the US.
Click to expand...
The part highlighted in orange is not helpful...

Frankly, I do not know what purpose it serves other than to inject anti-Israel framing into the discussion.

I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE BROADER POINT that Israel could, under an extreme set of circumstances, resort to nuclear use in this conflict.

👉But I would not describe that as happening “with the blessing of the US.” If it ever happened, it would be because Israeli leadership concluded it was facing a genuine existential threat, potentially in a scenario where U.S. support had weakened and they believed no other viable option remained.
 
NuclearID said:
The part highlighted in orange is not helpful...

Frankly, I do not know what purpose it serves other than to inject anti-Israel framing into the discussion.

I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE BROADER POINT that Israel could, under an extreme set of circumstances, resort to nuclear use in this conflict.

👉But I would not describe that as happening “with the blessing of the US.” If it ever happened, it would be because Israeli leadership concluded it was facing a genuine existential threat, potentially in a scenario where U.S. support had weakened and they believed no other viable option remained.
Click to expand...
This isn't anti-Israeli at all. The current war
is being waged by both countries, isn't it?
I consider this war to be for Israel.
 
GBS61 said:
This isn't anti-Israeli at all. The current war
is being waged by both countries, isn't it?
I consider this war to be for Israel.
Click to expand...
No it's not anti Israel to be critical of Israel & US relationship. It can be questionable at times. However to insert feelings into analysis isn't helpful is what I am saying.

What you said had merit. However you ruined that 'merit' by trying to inject feelings over US & Israel relations that honestly contradicts (IMHO) the real discussion to be had.

Which is. Israel may very well use nuclear weapons if faced with a existential threat, but that threat would likely only occur if US pulls out early, they run out of interceptors/Iran refuses to make peace, or a WMD is used against them. Not because US said it was okay. Okay? You feel me?

Trying to give you credit. Please give me credit too. ;)
 
NuclearID said:
What you said had merit. However you ruined that 'merit' by trying to inject feelings over US & Israel relations
Click to expand...
I know personally. Because I am also guilty of this. But in the opposite side of the spectrum. However been trying to work on myself if anyone's noticed over the last year and half.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom