Is he unhinged enough to do that?I certainly hope not but I think he’s perfectly capable of it.

Yes!

Honest answer.....no.....he's not that unhinged?......maybe if there was a big button on the Resolute Desk, blinking red, James Bond style he might be tempted.....but apart from Miller and Hegseth, there must be enough level-heads around him to prevent him.

Why? This question is kind of silly.

Iran cannot even defeat a small Jewish country, so why would any Western power need Nukes for them. They are cowards. Took them 5 weeks to shoot down our fighter jets. Hell, the Somalis are laughing at them. They took out two BlackHawk helicopters in one day. Lybia shot down our jets in the 80's in one day. But, big, bad, tough guys in Iran ran like rats and finally got lucky after 5 WEEKS.

Just now, Taboo2 said:

Why? This question is kind of silly.

Iran cannot even defeat a small Jewish country, so why would any Western power need Nukes for them. They are cowards. Took them 5 weeks to shoot down our fighter jets. Hell, the Somalis are laughing at them. They took out two BlackHawk helicopters in one day. Lybia shot down our jets in the 80's in one day. But, big, bad, tough guys in Iran ran like rats and finally got lucky after 5 WEEKS.

Oh, and the Iraqis did a much better job shooting down our F-18 on Day 1 than Iran.

I'm not so sure he wouldn't use a low yield nuke.

The guy wanted to nuke Hurricane Maria in Term 1 (probably because it had a female name and he's a misogynist), but it seems Gen Mattis or maybe the National Weather Service talked him out of it.

Trump is all about Trump. So far, only Truman used nukes. Trump might think using a nuke will get him more pages in the history books, plus it would make him feel manly. I don't think he has any guardrails in his Administration, unlike Term 1. While the odds are against it, I might say there's a 30% chance he would use a tactical nuke*, perhaps in Isfahan against where it is believed Iran's MEU is located.

Maybe Trump's "48 hour" ultimatum is in order to set, package and deliver such a nuke or two into the theater from the US, and what Trump's means by "raining hell" on them if they don't reopen Hormuz.

*something with a yield of maybe 3-5 KT with contact detonation, not an airburst.

2 hours ago, Tug said:

Is he unhinged enough to do that?I certainly hope not but I think he’s perfectly capable of it.

Where are you thinking? San Fran? Seattle?

You should have made this a poll.

I don't expect the US to claim to nuke Iran. However, I fully expect Israel to claim to be the ones who eventually nuke Iran.
Then? Within a month, Israel will be a smoking hole in the ground.
Then? I expect we'll be back to the same standoff as we had during the "Cuban Missile Crisis."

"Duck & Cover Drills Anyone?" 👈 We did those back in 5th grade. Remember them well.

If Trump were to nuke Iran what would he say after?

The regime was killing it's people?

Actually, if he drops 1, he will drop more.

I could see him authorizing a low yield nuke over Isfahan and the MEU. Then a second similar nuke dropped in the crater of the first. Then a third nuke dropped into the crater of the first two.

Afterwards Trump would proclaim: "Nobody has dropped more nukes than me! It's Trump 3, Truman 2."

And then Russia would nuke Kiev. Israel would nuke Tehran. China would invade Taiwan.

Can of worms.

Anyone who uses nukes gives carte blanche to every nuclear power to do the same. That's a bell that can't be unrung.

I would hope the military would have enough integrity left to refuse the order.

Aside from the fact that there is no need to do so, the Gulf Arabs will not agree to the use of a nuclear weapon. Even Israel could be expected to oppose as it sets a terrible precedent. It would allow China to do the same on Taiwan, Russia on the Ukraine, Pakistan and India against each other.

Wait until later this week once the Arab nations decide what they will do. They are building a consensus and if it gels, it does not bode well for Iran.

2 hours ago, connda said:

You should have made this a poll.

I don't expect the US to claim to nuke Iran. However, I fully expect Israel to claim to be the ones who eventually nuke Iran.
Then? Within a month, Israel will be a smoking hole in the ground.
Then? I expect we'll be back to the same standoff as we had during the "Cuban Missile Crisis."

"Duck & Cover Drills Anyone?" 👈 We did those back in 5th grade. Remember them well.

That sounds like a very optimistic outcome, if all that happens is we get a bit nervous. The UKm never did drills in school, just scary government TV information campaigns.

No one I think built a refuge in their houses from their doors and luggage stuffed with earth. I'm not sure the government of the day atually thought any of that would actually work.

4 hours ago, Taboo2 said:

Why? This question is kind of silly.

Iran cannot even defeat a small Jewish country, so why would any Western power need Nukes for them. They are cowards. Took them 5 weeks to shoot down our fighter jets. Hell, the Somalis are laughing at them. They took out two BlackHawk helicopters in one day. Lybia shot down our jets in the 80's in one day. But, big, bad, tough guys in Iran ran like rats and finally got lucky after 5 WEEKS.

Its a small Jewish country wth a defence budget less than the NATO target, and subidized by a bigger country.

The question is not about what Iran can do, its about whether nuclear weapons are necessary to defeat Iran.

Define defeat.

The President had his idea what defeat would look like. His idea of defeat would be after a short but intense aerial bombing campaign, Iran woud accede to all the demands put to them. He is not a military man with any kind of expertise or experience in the field, so you would have expected that he sought advice from those around him who had that experience.

But what was the question? And did he listen to only the answers he wanted to hear.

You would hope that at least one General had explained that there has never been a war in history where air power alone resulted in victory.

Initially they had hoped an aerial campaign would work, because some dissenting voice in the room suggested there is always a first time. Evidence for this is through the lack of preparation of ground troops. It took several weeks to mobilise marines all the way over in Japan.

The it evolved to a siege plan. Another voice in the room would have chipped in Germany 1918. A combination of violent war and a full blockade forced Germany to surrender. Where those voices might have been economical with the actualitie was that the blockade took 4 years, and Germany absorbed 750,000 civilian deaths, before throwing in the towel. This is the idea of the Kharg Island plan. BUT, while Kharg Island is important to the Iranian economy, its not the only source of income. And Iran is 90% self sufficient in food. Another voice in the room would chip in a German blockade in WW2 never defeated Great Britain. The thinking is the lack of income would deprive the regime of the ability to pay salaries. That would be impossible, literally.The populaton would always be paid. The government prints the money But inflation would be ramapnt. But look at Russia; high inflation, a basically broke government, sky high interest rates, but no realy threat to the institutions after 4 years of a self inflicted war (it could be argued that Iran's pain is self inflicted because they didn't surrender in the first place).

The Americans seem to be veering toward increasing the bombing, by targeting the civilian infrastructure. I think Trump would have asked about a nuclear bomb "just a little nuke". I would hope a General would explain to him what a low yield tactical weapon would actually do. In recent years, the US has deployed a 8kT W76-2 missile on subs, as an alternative to the 0.3kT B61 gravity bomb. You would hope another General would chip in and explain the cost on whatever remains of a "Western Alliance". Another General would point out no one really knows the outcome of such an attack, on the outcome of a war. In the 1960s, RAND ran a war game on the outcomes of a nuclear war, where some Generals were arguing it was possible to predict a victory. The RAND analyst replied "General, I have fought just as many nuclear wars as you have.".

How many MOABs (GBU43.Bs) does the US have? 15 I think. Been used once, in 2017, against an ISIS target in Afghanistan. Caused a big bang. Did it wipe out ISIS? Western estimates are 94 KIA, so safe to say, no. Did ISIS surrender? Very much no. In fact the Taliban are still waging a campaign against ISIS (that will cause many heads to explode, that the Taliban are not actually ISIS).

The MOAB is not a penetrating weapon. Its an air burst bomb. So its useless agains the underground garrisons Iran has built. I suspect the Hell on Earth threat is to target a garrison town with a MOAB. That will likely make no change to the Iranian position.

The US has the ability to defeat Iran, just like it had the ability to defeat Vietnam. But it lacked the will. Will can mean a full time commitment, irrespective of risks to your economy or own casualties. That was WW2, where I don't think there were any dissenting voices to the conduct of the war, that the Pacific war was costing too many lives, or that Operation Overlord was costing too much. The other Will, which is where Hegseth I think is, is a willingness to breach certain behaviours that the US, in general, has not made policy. The US doesn't have a policy of genocide, or a policy to deliberately inflict pain and suffering on civilians as a war aim. Hegseth I think is close to that.

But Iran thinks Time can defeat the US. Time defeated the United States in Vietnam. In May 1972, Nixon effectively signed the conditional surrender of the United States in the Vietnam; the condition being a ceasefire to allow the United States to exit the battlefield. The Americans will like to call it Peace Talks, but then, Germany went through Peace Talks with the Allies in 1945.

Some have suggested the deadline to ending the was is 14th May, when the President travels to China. Its already been delayed once. With a war still raging, the President has much less leverage on Xi.

3 years of bombing of Germany rendered 45% of housing in cities unusable. 2.7 million tonnes of bombs were dropped. Germany was wrecked but it was not in the stoneage. About 3 tonnes per square km. Israel dropped 85,000 to 120,000 tonnes of bombs on Gaza. Thats about 300 tonnes per square km. To date, in 2026, the US and Israel have dropped 25,000 tonnes of explosive on Iran. Iran is 1.6 million square kms, of which 16,000kms is "urban". To achieve levels of Gaza-like destruction (which would be most people's idea of "being bombed back to the stoneage") would take 4.8 million tonnes of explosive. Probably 6 million tonnes, given that not all the bombs will be on target. Thats 6mT, or 30 average US nuclear bombs.

The rhetorical "bomb back to the stone age" is stupid. If Trump uses a single nuclear weapon, even if lackey Generals acede to that, he's finished politically, and I think, ICJ or no ICJ, he's on a fast track to a criminal trial, possibly for his life. There is no threat to the United States that would justify such an act.

2016 Trump would have acted differently. He would be just the sort of person, because he sat down with the Taliban, to thrash out a non-agression pact with Iran, maybe even becoming pals with them, and he'd think it a great idea for Iran and the United States to jointly collect tolls in the Straits of Hormuz. Allies might bleat about it, and international law, but not for long, if it effectively adds $1 to a barrel of oil, while given the US a material advantage (they are not paying that $1 on Gulf oil, they're getting cash back).

Many live in the hope that the saner heads at the top of the military would not countenance the use of nuclear weapons.

However, Trump and Whisky Pete do seem to be removing an awful lot of what may be described as experienced "sane heads".

10 hours ago, Tug said:

Is he unhinged enough to do that?I certainly hope not but I think he’s perfectly capable of it.

No...next.

4 hours ago, Roadsternut said:

Its a small Jewish country wth a defence budget less than the NATO target, and subidized by a bigger country.

The question is not about what Iran can do, its about whether nuclear weapons are necessary to defeat Iran.

Define defeat.

The President had his idea what defeat would look like. His idea of defeat would be after a short but intense aerial bombing campaign, Iran woud accede to all the demands put to them. He is not a military man with any kind of expertise or experience in the field, so you would have expected that he sought advice from those around him who had that experience.

But what was the question? And did he listen to only the answers he wanted to hear.

You would hope that at least one General had explained that there has never been a war in history where air power alone resulted in victory.

Initially they had hoped an aerial campaign would work, because some dissenting voice in the room suggested there is always a first time. Evidence for this is through the lack of preparation of ground troops. It took several weeks to mobilise marines all the way over in Japan.

The it evolved to a siege plan. Another voice in the room would have chipped in Germany 1918. A combination of violent war and a full blockade forced Germany to surrender. Where those voices might have been economical with the actualitie was that the blockade took 4 years, and Germany absorbed 750,000 civilian deaths, before throwing in the towel. This is the idea of the Kharg Island plan. BUT, while Kharg Island is important to the Iranian economy, its not the only source of income. And Iran is 90% self sufficient in food. Another voice in the room would chip in a German blockade in WW2 never defeated Great Britain. The thinking is the lack of income would deprive the regime of the ability to pay salaries. That would be impossible, literally.The populaton would always be paid. The government prints the money But inflation would be ramapnt. But look at Russia; high inflation, a basically broke government, sky high interest rates, but no realy threat to the institutions after 4 years of a self inflicted war (it could be argued that Iran's pain is self inflicted because they didn't surrender in the first place).

The Americans seem to be veering toward increasing the bombing, by targeting the civilian infrastructure. I think Trump would have asked about a nuclear bomb "just a little nuke". I would hope a General would explain to him what a low yield tactical weapon would actually do. In recent years, the US has deployed a 8kT W76-2 missile on subs, as an alternative to the 0.3kT B61 gravity bomb. You would hope another General would chip in and explain the cost on whatever remains of a "Western Alliance". Another General would point out no one really knows the outcome of such an attack, on the outcome of a war. In the 1960s, RAND ran a war game on the outcomes of a nuclear war, where some Generals were arguing it was possible to predict a victory. The RAND analyst replied "General, I have fought just as many nuclear wars as you have.".

How many MOABs (GBU43.Bs) does the US have? 15 I think. Been used once, in 2017, against an ISIS target in Afghanistan. Caused a big bang. Did it wipe out ISIS? Western estimates are 94 KIA, so safe to say, no. Did ISIS surrender? Very much no. In fact the Taliban are still waging a campaign against ISIS (that will cause many heads to explode, that the Taliban are not actually ISIS).

The MOAB is not a penetrating weapon. Its an air burst bomb. So its useless agains the underground garrisons Iran has built. I suspect the Hell on Earth threat is to target a garrison town with a MOAB. That will likely make no change to the Iranian position.

The US has the ability to defeat Iran, just like it had the ability to defeat Vietnam. But it lacked the will. Will can mean a full time commitment, irrespective of risks to your economy or own casualties. That was WW2, where I don't think there were any dissenting voices to the conduct of the war, that the Pacific war was costing too many lives, or that Operation Overlord was costing too much. The other Will, which is where Hegseth I think is, is a willingness to breach certain behaviours that the US, in general, has not made policy. The US doesn't have a policy of genocide, or a policy to deliberately inflict pain and suffering on civilians as a war aim. Hegseth I think is close to that.

But Iran thinks Time can defeat the US. Time defeated the United States in Vietnam. In May 1972, Nixon effectively signed the conditional surrender of the United States in the Vietnam; the condition being a ceasefire to allow the United States to exit the battlefield. The Americans will like to call it Peace Talks, but then, Germany went through Peace Talks with the Allies in 1945.

Some have suggested the deadline to ending the was is 14th May, when the President travels to China. Its already been delayed once. With a war still raging, the President has much less leverage on Xi.

3 years of bombing of Germany rendered 45% of housing in cities unusable. 2.7 million tonnes of bombs were dropped. Germany was wrecked but it was not in the stoneage. About 3 tonnes per square km. Israel dropped 85,000 to 120,000 tonnes of bombs on Gaza. Thats about 300 tonnes per square km. To date, in 2026, the US and Israel have dropped 25,000 tonnes of explosive on Iran. Iran is 1.6 million square kms, of which 16,000kms is "urban". To achieve levels of Gaza-like destruction (which would be most people's idea of "being bombed back to the stoneage") would take 4.8 million tonnes of explosive. Probably 6 million tonnes, given that not all the bombs will be on target. Thats 6mT, or 30 average US nuclear bombs.

The rhetorical "bomb back to the stone age" is stupid. If Trump uses a single nuclear weapon, even if lackey Generals acede to that, he's finished politically, and I think, ICJ or no ICJ, he's on a fast track to a criminal trial, possibly for his life. There is no threat to the United States that would justify such an act.

2016 Trump would have acted differently. He would be just the sort of person, because he sat down with the Taliban, to thrash out a non-agression pact with Iran, maybe even becoming pals with them, and he'd think it a great idea for Iran and the United States to jointly collect tolls in the Straits of Hormuz. Allies might bleat about it, and international law, but not for long, if it effectively adds $1 to a barrel of oil, while given the US a material advantage (they are not paying that $1 on Gulf oil, they're getting cash back).

Gee that was a long read.

In a nutshell?

11 hours ago, Taboo2 said:

Why? This question is kind of silly.

Iran cannot even defeat a small Jewish country, so why would any Western power need Nukes for them. They are cowards. Took them 5 weeks to shoot down our fighter jets. Hell, the Somalis are laughing at them. They took out two BlackHawk helicopters in one day. Lybia shot down our jets in the 80's in one day. But, big, bad, tough guys in Iran ran like rats and finally got lucky after 5 WEEKS.

Exactly. Some one got lucky with a manpad and they call it a victory. This is the most one sided war in history.

The only reason we would need to use Nukes is to test them out to make sure they work. Rotation so to speak. Like when you go target shooting, you grab the oldest lot first.

So the Times of Israel reckons that Iran has at least 1000 missiles left with grid fragility and because 50% of Israel's power comes from just five sites, a lucky strike on Orot Rabin or Rutenberg would cause a national "cascading failure" that could take weeks to repair.Gon on TACO Trump do it.

hmm what to hit from the big boys who egged this on.

The "Big Five" are listed below, ranked by their approximate contribution to the national grid:

1. Orot Rabin (Hadera)

• Contribution: ~25%–30%

• Capacity: 2,590 MW

• Fuel: Coal (Transitioning to Natural Gas)

• Context: Historically the backbone of Israel's grid, this plant is currently being converted. While its total "installed" capacity is high, its actual output has fluctuated as units are shifted away from coal to reduce pollution.

2. Rutenberg (Ashkelon)

• Contribution: ~15%

• Capacity: 2,250 MW

• Fel: Coal

• Context: Similar to Orot Rabin, Rutenberg is the second-largest facility and utilizes seawater for cooling. It remains a critical strategic asset despite environmental pressure to move toward gas.

3. Eshkol (Ashdod)

• Contribution: ~7%–10%

• Capacity: 1,693 MW

• Fuel: Natural Gas

• Context: This was recently sold by the state-owned Israel Electric Corporation (IEC) to private investors (Dalia Energy) for roughly $2.3 billion. It is currently the largest gas-fired plant in the country.

4. Dalia (Tzafit)

• Contribution: ~7%–8%

• Capacity: 912 MW (Current) / Up to 1,700+ MW (Planned)

• Fuel: Natural Gas

• Context: Located near Kiryat Malachi, Dalia was the first major private power station in Israel. With the recent purchase of the Eshkol plant and planned expansions (Dalia 2), the company behind this site has become a massive player in the energy market.

5. Dorad (Ashkelon)

• Contribution: ~7%

• Capacity: 860 MW

• Fuel: Natural Gas

• Context: One of the largest private plants, Dorad is situated in the southern industrial zone of Ashkelon. It recently received permits to expand its capacity by another 650 MW to meet the growing demand for electricity.

8 hours ago, JAG said:

Many live in the hope that the saner heads at the top of the military would not countenance the use of nuclear weapons.

However, Trump and Whisky Pete do seem to be removing an awful lot of what may be described as experienced "sane heads".

BINGO!almost seems like they keep getting rid of people until they find someone pliable.scary times indeed.if the felon did do it the jihadists will have a recruiting bonanza that will be getting Americans killed for many decades.

20 hours ago, Tug said:

Is he unhinged enough to do that?I certainly hope not but I think he’s perfectly capable of it.

Trump? You mean Israel. God's chosen people need this war with the Persians before they can build their third temple and the Messiah returns. They are following a script. If things do not go the Israel's way, they will probably nuke the entire planet. Just look at the Epstein files. Epstein went down and he brought down many people with him. I feel sorry for the morons that trust the God's chosen people.

14 minutes ago, GoodieAfterDark said:

Trump? You mean Israel. God's chosen people need this war with the Persians before they can build their third temple and the Messiah returns. They are following a script. If things do not go the Israel's way, they will probably nuke the entire planet. Just look at the Epstein files. Epstein went down and he brought down many people with him. I feel sorry for the morons that trust the God's chosen people.

ultimately you and your woke , commy , nazi, islamist friends are the biggest enemy facing the world

10 hours ago, emptypockets said:

Gee that was a long read.

In a nutshell?

Yes a long read but then it is a very big topic.

There is rather more to it than onanistic cries of "bouncing rubble", "back to the stoneage" and "glass surfaced car parks."

We are, after all, discussing, the declared intent ( if anything about this war can be described as "declared") to utterly destroy a nation (albeit one currently suffering under an extremely unpleasant regime), leading to tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of deaths.

All "in a nutshell" to deflect from the fact that Trump is on the verge of being exposed as a child rapist.

Well if Trump doesn't , the israeli may do it.

They are openly talking of nukes and even neutron bombs

on israeli tv.

On 4/5/2026 at 11:26 PM, GoodieAfterDark said:

Trump? You mean Israel. God's chosen people need this war with the Persians before they can build their third temple and the Messiah returns. They are following a script. If things do not go the Israel's way, they will probably nuke the entire planet. Just look at the Epstein files. Epstein went down and he brought down many people with him. I feel sorry for the morons that trust the God's chosen people.

I remember the classic qoute from a Jewish victim of Bernie Madoff of whom he had robbed their life savings of millions of dollars and she reputedly said "You're only supposed to to it to the goyim" .

On 4/5/2026 at 11:42 PM, liddelljohn said:

ultimately you and your woke , commy , nazi, islamist friends are the biggest enemy facing the world

you missed out radical left lunatic and fascist out of your insults !

19 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I remember the classic qoute from a Jewish victim of Bernie Madoff of whom he had robbed their life savings of millions of dollars and she reputedly said "You're only supposed to to it to the goyim" .

A.I says :

Based on a review of accounts regarding Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, there is no credible evidence, direct quote, or reputable source confirming that a victim, or anyone else, said to him: "You're only supposed to do it to the goyim."

• The Origin of the Phrase: The phrase "The Goyim Know/Shut It Down" originated around 2013 on internet forums like 4chan and is recognized by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as a staple of online antisemitism. It is often falsely attached to various events to promote a conspiratorial, antisemitic narrative, rather than being a quote from a known Madoff victim.

2 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

A.I says :

Based on a review of accounts regarding Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme, there is no credible evidence, direct quote, or reputable source confirming that a victim, or anyone else, said to him: "You're only supposed to do it to the goyim."

• The Origin of the Phrase: The phrase "The Goyim Know/Shut It Down" originated around 2013 on internet forums like 4chan and is recognized by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) as a staple of online antisemitism. It is often falsely attached to various events to promote a conspiratorial, antisemitic narrative, rather than being a quote from a known Madoff victim.

I used the word "reputedly" so I'm covered !

2 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I used the word "reputedly" so I'm covered !

Do you believe what you posted to be true ?

1 minute ago, Nick Carter icp said:

Do you believe what you posted to be true ?

I believed it was true hence I used the word "reputedly" in my post to cover that off. I now accept your clarification.Thanks.