I have heard a few discussions on what a nuclear bomb might accomplish if dropped in the middle east, but I have yet to see it in print … until today.
It is surely obvious now to anybody with even a basic understanding of history, politics and the nature of fascism that something revolutionary has to be done within months — if not weeks — if we are to preserve world peace.
Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.
Not, of course, the unleashing of full-scale thermo-nuclear war on the Persian people, but a limited and tactical use of nuclear weapons to destroy Iran’s military facilities and its potential nuclear arsenal. It is, sadly, the only response that this repugnant and acutely dangerous political entity will understand.
The tragedy is that innocent people will die. But not many. Iran’s missiles and rockets of mass destruction are guarded and maintained by men with the highest of security clearance and thus supportive of the Tehran regime. They are dedicated to war and, thus, will die in war.
Frankly, it would be churlish of the civilized world to deny martyrdom to those who seem so intent on its pursuance. Most important, a limited nuclear attack on Iran will save thousands if not millions of lives.
(emphasis mine)
I have often wondered if the terrorist cells would just all activate if a nuclear bomb hit Tehran or some military installation outside of the capital. Or if the bases in Iran and Afghanistan would just dry up and in a quiet way admit they can’t compete when it comes to warfare. i.e. utter surrender the way Japan did.
What do you think would happen globally?
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
“Put boldly and simply, we have to drop a nuclear bomb on Iran.”
We? We? Canada does not have a nuclear bomb. There is no “we” at play here; far more Iranians have immigrated to Canada over the past decade than Americans. History will judge Coren’s words harshly; inciting nuclear holocaust is not a Canadian value and never will be.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
a,
I think by “we” he means “the west”.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
I’m shocked he would suggest such a thing.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
The concept of west = “we” is becoming increasingly more absurd by the day. Canada takes in a new immigrant every 128 seconds, almost all of whom are from non-European, non-NATO countries. Countries that smart guys like you consider our enemies.
In downtown Toronto, Vancouver, or Montreal there is no “we” as western civilization. Western civilization is the minority there.
This article is so wrong for so many reasons I simply don’t have time to explain it to you, just please consider the possibility nuclear genocide is somewhat bad, there is no nuclear armed “we” to speak of in Canada, and that Coren is a bubble-inhabiting irrelevancy fanning the flames of genocide for a paycheque. Oh, and to answer your question:
“What do you think would happen globally?”
The blogsphere is not an appropriate venue for such a mature topic. That is my honest answer. Now, I have a question for you: Do you support or oppose the nuclear holocaust of the Persian people?
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
I agree with Coren, the message needs to be simple, straightforward, and resolute. Disarm or die. There is nothing else to talk about unless they disarm.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
Holy Mackinaw “a”. Your reply has more assumptions that are wrong than the items you don’t point out in the article but claim are wrong.
One, no where does Coren advocate genocide (or holocaust as your first post indicates) which leads me to believe you read the title and not the whole article.
You make the assumption that I think nations where our immigrants come from are our enemies. I never stated that, nor have I ever stated that.
You also make the assumption that I am a smart guy (albeit tongue in cheek). Wrong again. I’m just an average joe. (Or Steve to be more accurate)
And to give you more justice than you gave my question. Of course I oppose nuclear holocaust of any people, and not just Persians. But again, if you had read Coren’s article or my comments you would know that this subject was never brought up. I’d appreciate you leaving your strawman arguments on your own website or blog.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
What would happen if the United States (let’s not beat around the Bush, that’s who would be doing the nuking) nuked Iran?
It would confirm a suspicion which has been slowly gaining momentum around the world: The United States is the most dangerous and volatile country on the planet.
That nuke might destroy Iran’s nuclear capability, but with it would go the last vestiges of the America’s soft power. I’m not sure if you appreciate how difficult it is to get things done in the world when other countries only listen to you at gunpoint. Look at how the US utterly failed to bring a ceasefire between Lebanon and Israel.
The US would become the large, unstable guy in the bar who nobody dares make eye contact with. Avoid having anything to do with him and you might not get hurt.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
Soft power? Who gives a damn about soft power?
“A limited tactical use of nuclear weapons” would kill a hell of a lot of people. Does no one remember Hiroshima? Limited tactical use? What kind of stupidity is that? What about the environmental fallout? And the precedent it would set?
Whatever the imperatives here, the use of nuclear weapons is almost certainly not justified. Suggesting their use is irresponsible.
Notice: Only variables should be assigned by reference in /var/www/wp-content/plugins/subscribe-to-comments/subscribe-to-comments.php on line 590
I think Coren confuses two things – what to do and how to do it. I think one could make reasonable arguments both for and against the use of military force to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
However, for those in favour of the use of military force against Iran, it does not immediately follow that the force must be nuclear. I think that argument is a whole lot harder to make for many of the reasons cited by the other commenters (scale of destruction, environmental fallout, international precedent it sets, impact on global relations, etc, etc).
Its one thing to advocate a tactical strike to disable Iran’s nuclear facilities. Its quite another to advocate the use of large-scale nuclear weaponry in a pre-emptive fashion.