Would you honestly support a nuclear first strike on Iran?

Would you honestly support a nuclear first strike on Iran?

Attached: nukes.webm (1280x720, 895K)

No.

No my brain works properly

No.

Only if it was the first of a barrage that turned the entire middle East into a big sheet of glass that you could see from space, then yes.

No, because that would not only hit the people who are responsible for the shitty situation e.g. politics, soldiers and marines but also those people who don't even support the conflict between these two countries. I really don't care if generals or politics die because of war but civillians should never be targeted by any state actor.

No

Why the fuck would anybody?

you'd be surprised.

Hell no.

How about Israel?

Israel has nukes.

I bet Iran has them aswell, the question is if you'd support a nuclear first strike

Maxbe people who do not understand what MAD stands for.

Iran doesn't have nuke it's impossible for them to obtain , and if they had , you'd see them waving that nuke every where they go

You from Israel or somethin?

why use a nuke?

1 nuke = $1 billion
1 iran capitol city = $100 million

Yeah "war games" seems to be to old for the young generation on here. It's a fil about an General Artifical Intelligence that learns that in nuclear war nobody wins ever, there are just losers.

The ironic thing is Iran signed the Non-Proliferation of Nukes Treaty. There are only a handful of nations that did not sign it and Israel is among them.

Im pretty sure they do. If India and Pakistan and North Korea has them, I dont see why Israel wouldnt have them. Even France has the bomb.

Iran GDP = 439.5 billion USD

Hellyeah id support a nuke on anything even myself go for it nigger

GDP does not equal 1 city.
What's USA's GDP?

MAD was the insane logic of "Mutually Assured Destruction" and was a common thing we talked about during the Reagan years, it wasn't just confined to a shitty Broderick movie.

19.39 trillion USD (2017)

It would just be a strike since they can’t strike back since they don’t have nuclear weapons

Still, the cost of 1 nuke is 10 times more than 1 iranian city.

Well, if you consider past wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, even Vietnam. One could make a point that a boots on the ground war would be disastrous and cause unwanted proxy wars like ISIS. A nuclear attack would be a quick and effective resolution to neutralize a threat. Police officers use hollow point rounds to maximize stopping power. A nuke is maximal stopping power.

Nukes have an expiry date, theyre degrading over time. Besides, they're already paid for.

So use the nuke or lose it right? What kind of WW3 logic is that? We might as well arm everyone with toe missles and shoot birds with them because they expire.

Im not advocating a nuclear strike at all, but to play devils advocate, a nuclear strike is better than putting forces on the ground and having a long drawn out war lasting 10+ years.

You do know the consequences of nuclear war, right? Anyone that has even a basic understanding of nuclear war would never support it.

War...war never changes

Nuclear bomb. Resolution...
This isn't the 40s anymore. Everyone has them now.

Attached: dickbutt.jpg (1000x563, 52K)

nope, but I'd support a first strike nuke on D.C.

hope it's not gonna be us
the election is coming up and war tends to happen right after so ... yea

Attached: 1553045333367.png (447x356, 73K)

Yeah, actually it does. There was no threat of killing ever person on the planet in Vietnam. A small nuclear exchange will end humans on this planet.

Attached: Read.jpg (1600x1200, 282K)

I'm playing the numbers game. The costs to loss ratio.
Sure you could use a single nuke and end the game, but where's the profit? You lose $900 billion on a war versus profiting on selling weapons and developing new ones to be sold on a long term strategy.

Want to make money, have a 10 year war. Want to lose money? Build a bunch of nukes you know that will expire, and launch one ending a country in just 1 hour.

Its not about who can kill eachother first, its about who can kill eachother the longest.

I wish I worked for the NSA so I get paid $100k a year to surf Yea Forums all day every day.

Drop a single bomb on a nuclear armed country and expect them to not retaliate? You're delusional.

they're watching recording, monitoring and analysing everything all the time

They have real-time artificial intelligent super computers that tie in to a mega mainframe at an NSA data center that can do that instead. Its far more efficient given the sheer massive amounts of data it has to process at any given time.

My point is the use of the term first strike nuclear implies that they could launch a nuclear weapon back at us

Iran isn’t nuclear armed

Imagine being this stupid.

I get paid that working for a nonprofit to do the same thing. Twinsies

No.
But on Israel 100%

Not exactly. The most inhumane and capitalistic weapon is considered to be the neutron bomb which kills people without destroying things that are worth money