Do you think the US should use their nuclear bombs in order to show its enemies that the United States is the greatest power on the planet?

To our AseanNow War Fans: Really, why monkey around? Enough is enough, 'eh. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Iran, Russia, China, and the DPRK will take over the world with their aggressive behavior unless the US stops them in their tracks with a few well placed nukes to show the world that America means business.

Don't you agree? America can retain it's rightful world supremacy with the use of nukes?

Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
-J. Robert Oppenheimer quoting from the Bhagavad Gita

To me it is actually a proof of weakness, not strength.

You missed a potential answer.

• Yes, but limited only to targets within the United States, beginning with1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC.

Just if we want another World war , which would be the last one ,it's rather

frightening having a megalomaniac ,narcissist ,80 year old dementia person,

would could have his finger on the trigger , I think he would love to destroy

Iran , as they are making him look silly ,with all this we made a deal, we won

in week one....just hope there is someone there to control him ,NOT BiBi...

regards worgeordie

The weapons they have now are more than enough. Nuclear will waste infrastructure and more civilians and those civilians aren't the ones to go after in any country. Most of them are against their leaders thinking and are afraid to speak up anyway. Wasting their military will have them helpless eventually, seeing some countries care little for their people , especially iran and North Korea.

I do not think one nuclear strike would automatically start global hellfire, but it could be the beginning of the end for that nation’s place in the world order. Much would depend on how the weapon was delivered and who was targeted. If it came by long range ballistic missile, the other side would have only minutes to decide whether it was a single strike or the start of something much larger. If they chose to launch what they had in response, God knows where it would end.

The most important question is, where do you want to be if that ever happens?

None of America's current wars are over existential threats. Using a nuke in such a scenario would be beyond insane.

Anyway, these kinds of conflicts are hard to contain, with oa very good chance of escalation. First a regional war, then a world war. And anyone who knows anything about nuclear strategy must surely know that the concept of a "limited" nuclear war is more of a fairly tale than anything else. It doesn't work that way. You use them, or you lose them. It would all be over in an hour or so.

Nukes in today's world are more for a deterrent for other countries not to try anything crazy or total devastation may occur.

1 hour ago, Hummin said:

The most important question is, where do you want to be if that ever happens?

Apparently, southern Argentina is a front runner. I think Australia and NZ are also up there. It's about geography, prevailing winds, being far south of the likely combatants (though China is a bit uncomfortably close to the latter two), and self-suffiency (Food, water, ability to maintain electricity). A nuclear winter however would reach everywhere at some point.

A mini nuke on Mar-A-Lago and every one of Trump's golf courses would be a great place to start, and would be an incredible form of practice for the Air Force.

No they should not be used and the only two times they have been used were very extreme scenarios. It's very possible that the Japanese would have prolonged World War II significantly had the first bomb not been dropped. The second nuke was probably unnecessary and highly debatable.

OMG....someone voted to nuke Iran!!!!

1 minute ago, MIke B Bad said:

OMG....someone voted to nuke Iran!!!!

One of the board's Israeli cheerleaders no doubt.

2 hours ago, ronnie50 said:

You missed a potential answer.

• Yes, but limited only to targets within the United States, beginning with1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC.

Mar a lardo, nobody will bother to retaliate.

15 minutes ago, cjinchiangrai said:

Mar a lardo, nobody will bother to retaliate.

True but a nuke is messy and causes a lot of unnecessary harm…….just force him to walk in a crowd of Americans without protection so he will know how we feel about him.the only request I’d make is to make sure he’s has a fresh diaper on.

1 hour ago, MIke B Bad said:

OMG....someone voted to nuke Iran!!!!

I didn't know Donald Trump was an AN member? 🤔

4 hours ago, connda said:

Do you think the US should use their nuclear bombs in order to show its enemies that the United States is the greatest power on the planet?

To our AseanNow War Fans: Really, why monkey around? Enough is enough, 'eh. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Iran, Russia, China, and the DPRK will take over the world with their aggressive behavior unless the US stops them in their tracks with a few well placed nukes to show the world that America means business.

Don't you agree? America can retain it's rightful world supremacy with the use of nukes?

Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
-J. Robert Oppenheimer quoting from the Bhagavad Gita

This remarkable site offers a valuable gift to humanity by providing a platform where thought-provoking posters inspire engaging discussions. Each poster invites viewers to reflect deeply and consider diverse viewpoints, fostering a rich exchange of ideas.

7 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

To me it is actually a proof of weakness, not strength.

That doesn't bode well then.

7 hours ago, connda said:

Do you think the US should use their nuclear bombs in order to show its enemies that the United States is the greatest power on the planet?

To our AseanNow War Fans: Really, why monkey around? Enough is enough, 'eh. No more Mr. Nice Guy. Iran, Russia, China, and the DPRK will take over the world with their aggressive behavior unless the US stops them in their tracks with a few well placed nukes to show the world that America means business.

Don't you agree? America can retain it's rightful world supremacy with the use of nukes?

Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.
-J. Robert Oppenheimer quoting from the Bhagavad Gita

You seem to forget the people who America would nuke have nukes of their own, which they would undoubtedly retaliate with, causing a nuclear winter.

Time you got back on the Valopram, before your ideas are completely unhinged.

5 hours ago, ronnie50 said:

Apparently, southern Argentina is a front runner. I think Australia and NZ are also up there. It's about geography, prevailing winds, being far south of the likely combatants (though China is a bit uncomfortably close to the latter two), and self-suffiency (Food, water, ability to maintain electricity). A nuclear winter however would reach everywhere at some point.

Nevil Shute's "On the Beach"

no harm in trying

show em whose boss

6 hours ago, Tug said:

True but a nuke is messy and causes a lot of unnecessary harm…….just force him to walk in a crowd of Americans without protection so he will know how we feel about him.the only request I’d make is to make sure he’s has a fresh diaper on.

We don't need any dirty bombs.

Stupid question. Stupid options. Neither dropping "the bomb" (or bombs) will deter Iran from pursuing nuclear armament not deter Russia from attacking Ukraine.

Attacking Iran with nuclear weapons creates a security paradox. For the attacker, the message is pursue nuclear weapons and you will suffer catastrophic consequences. For the defender (Iran), the message is completely different; We were attacked catastrophically precisely because we did not yet possess a credible nuclear deterrent. Unless the purpose was to commit genocide (completely break Iran as a viable society), at best, such an attack will delay a programme, resulting in another nuclear attack later on. And on. And on. Until eventually a 4th party freighter sales up the Hudson..... It will likely create a 100 new Islamic Republic of Irans; possession of nuclear weapons is not a deterrant against war, and the maintenance of peace, but to prevent attack. A nuclear armed Emirate of Afghanistan effectively buys immunity.

Attacking Russia with nuclear weapons would merely validate Putin's paranoia, and change the war in Ukraine into one of national survival. Russia might decide it can withstand a nuclear attack better than the United States, now that the US has revealed its hand (which presumably would be a tactical nuke or nukes, against massed Russian Army formations). It would simply result in the annihilation of the United States. Russia probably would survive such an exchange rather better; its population is more dispersed, and thanks to the US action, likely better prepared to take to well maintained public shelters of a sort that simply don't exist in the United States.

Nuclear weapons are primarily instruments of deterrence, but deterrence is itself a form of power. By extending its deterrent to allies and using it to shape the strategic environment in which conventional forces operate, the United States can project power partly because it possesses nuclear weapons, even if it never uses one.

But using such a weapon offensively completely destroys that deterrence. It would completely destroy whatever was left of the Western Alliance, an alliance that includes two other nuclear powers, and at least one near-nuclear power. The Eastern Alliance would be no more; Japan is a near-nuclear power, perhaps South Korea is as well. In fact, South Korea may quickly pursue reunification with North Korea, as a convenient way to acquire nuclear protection against an unpredictable United States who has decided nuclear attack is part of trade talks, or a way to manipulate the markets, given the US President's Freudian slip; when asked by a Fox reporter at Joint Base Andrews "The yields (of bonds) have come back up since then. Have you talked to Bessent about another type of intervention?", the response was "The ultimate intervention is our military. If we have to use that, we will".

Nuclear weapons are an absolute evil. Russia is ready to help the United States rid itself of this evil. I am confident that Vlad and his friend Medvedev are ready to accept American nuclear weapons for reprocessing.

13 hours ago, Tug said:

True but a nuke is messy and causes a lot of unnecessary harm…….just force him to walk in a crowd of Americans without protection so he will know how we feel about him.the only request I’d make is to make sure he’s has a fresh diaper on.

the trump poop obsession slips out again.

ps, what would you do if he walked past you tough guy lol

Use?

Use in who?

Why?

Obviously Canada should be the first choice. That will make them sign the ridiculous trade deal. And the next hurricane should be stopped wil one.

Edited 23 hours ago23 hr by gargamon

7 hours ago, cjinchiangrai said:

We don't need any dirty bombs.

1 hour ago, Yagoda said:

the trump poop obsession slips out again.

ps, what would you do if he walked past you tough guy lol

I’m just a regular person you are the one that try’s to be the tough guy lol 😂 anyway if I was unfortunate enough to be close enough to see him walk/waddle by I’d most likely vomit on account of the stench and revulsion…….cjinchiangrai true we don’t need any dirty bombs we have his diapers.

2 hours ago, Yagoda said:

the trump poop obsession slips out again.

ps, what would you do if he walked past you tough guy lol

Trump is surrounded by Secret Service agents, your hypothetical question is ridiculous.

Nuclear weapons, and only as a deterrent are justifiable, although there must be (and I have) very strong reservations about the inherent principle of mutually assured destruction .

Their use to demonstrate the USA's superiority or power most certainly not!

That said they may serve to unblock the khazis on their larger warships...

19 hours ago, ronnie50 said:

You missed a potential answer.

• Yes, but limited only to targets within the United States, beginning with1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC.

Easy guy, remember seashells can be viewed as a death threat.