What if Grenada, Panama, Iraq, or Afghanistan had nuclear weapons?

On MSNBC just now the talking heads were discussing an Israeli military strike against Iran because of the looming Iranian nuclear threat.

A third fucking war.

US controled Air Space. Turkey, who let them attack Syria, would no likley do it either. Should Isarel attempt to force theri way through US Controled Airspace, the aricraft should be shot down and the pilots tried in the international courts for waging agressive warfare.

to use our airspace.

They'll bomb Iran two, but the results will be very different. It will give Iran cover for an invasion of Iraq, and all hell will break out.

Are you going to argue that since I was wrong about NK, they didn't bomb the other two? Or just ignore it altogether.

Israel will bomb Iran, and disaster will result.

I do remember them bombing the Syrians.

Iraq in 1981

but they did bomb Syria and Iraq.

through airspace controled by the US?

Iran stated that an attack by Israel could only be done with the aid of the US. They said they would attack US interests, specifically those in Iraq. That would also close down the Persian Gulf to oil trafic. That is not something any US President would allow. We are not obliged to go to war with Iran at Israel's behest, though we would probably defend them if they were attack with overwhelming force.

Netanyahu is just crazy enough to attack Iran. But he still must have a viable military plan.

Whe they attacked Iraq's nuclear facility at Osirak they flew over Jordan and Saudi Arabia, neither country capable of challanging Israeli incursions into their airspace. To get to Iran, they must fly a long way (probably down the read sea and across the Indian Ocean) and refuel in the air. Then refuel on the way back. Also, reports state that Iran has split their reserach over 8 or nine different locations that have been hardened to withstand an attack, so just bombing one location would not solve Israel's problem.

Too many loyal Bushies are still running government, and Obama is influenced by them.

to take the US into a war that is not in our interest.

I must ask, do you feel Obama has such as week mind that he does not understand the repercussions of aiding Israel to attack Iran?

If Bush could say no to his secret "Bushies"
British Newspaper Says Bush Refused To Give Israel Green Light To Attack Iran
US president told Israeli prime minister he would not back attack on Iran, senior European diplomatic sources tell Guardian

That policy continues to be in force under Obama
Obama: No green light for Israel to attack Iran

If you can show me a statement by Obama (Other that the Biden's statement, which Obama clearly stated was wrong), then I will reconsider my opinion.

I feel Obama is a man with a strong and forceful personality who will not be swayed by secret Bushies whispering mind control thoughts in his ear. And should he change his mind,and American Policy, the death, destruction, and damage to the economy will be placed directly on Obama's shoulders. We only have one President at a time.

The hold overs are well known, and start at the top.

Well, they ALMOST had an airport! Man was that a clusterfuck operation.

I remember Father Guido Sarducci on SNL talking about it (best I can remember what he said):

"You know, I heard a Ronald Reagan say, 'Grenada is a closer to Texas than a Texas is a to Maine.' I don' know 'bout you, but I'm a shakin' in a mah boots!"

Our own President is clear on this.

'cause they're good for the economy.

to stop him.

10
100
1000
10,000
100,000
1,000,000

How many.

Put a price tag in the lives of our sons and daughters.

Which of hose numbers above, are you willing to be?

Flesh out your reasoning.

...you have a million reasons as to why that was the right thing to do.

Because they didn't know about radiation poisoning. They still didn't know anything about it when they dropped the bomb on Japan.

You have a bomb that lets one bomber do the exact same job as a thousand bombers. Nothing more and nothing less. Would you have sent a thousand bombers instead? If so, why in the world would you have done that?

I'm sure you'll have a ball.

Had the Taliban had nukes, I dunno. Depends on how far Russia was willing to go to defend the central Asian 'stans. The anti-war crowd were apparently not following events in central Asia when the Taliban had begun encroaching on Afghanistan's northern neighbors while Russia was trying to get the US to form an alliance with them to prevent Afghan expansion against those neighbors prior to 9-11).

So far, only the US has ever used Nuclear weapons in war. We have threatened to do so in defense, or as a last ditch act of defiance in MAD.

Except for us hyper agressive Aemricans, nulcear weapons make cautious neighbors.

But I do believe that Saddam would have "used" nuclear weapons to bully Iran into surrendering territory. And possibly other Arab countries as well. As long as he didn't take too much, or just limited his actions to Iran, we would have probably given him a wink and a nod. He had cause to believe we would let him take Kuwait after all.

I very firmly believe the Taliban would have used them to conquer Central Asia. The people of Afghanistan have been ruled by outsiders for all but a handful of decades over the past 2300 years (which makes "where empires go to die" an absurd rewrite of history). I get the impression the Taliban have decided it is their turn, particularly since those outsiders imposed the current boundary lines on Afghanistan.

I am not as strong in my belief that either Iran or Iraq would have supplied terrorists with a weapon to use against Israel if they had the other to blame. We know that Saddam never trusted the terrorists in his midst (see Islamic terrorist attacks or coercive actions against the governments of Egypt, Jordan, Syria and especially Lebanon to explain why). And Israel has been a really, really, really useful tool for Middle Eastern leaders to control their people. Losing the boogeyman of Israel would seriously undermine their positions.

(1) The Iranians were not inclined to be bullied by a country with superior technology. They borrowed the human wave Idea from the Soviets (who used it Stalingrad) and fought the longest war of the 20th century with Iraq. They willingly suffered in Saddam's chemical weapons attacks without wavering. Just threatening to drop the bomb on them would not have changed their minds.

The Taliban never had a nuclear reactor, never had a nuclear program. They didn't have an economy that allowed them the luxury of creating an army that wears regular uniforms, or carries modern weapons, how the hell are they going to conquer Central Asia. (Some of them are still using rifles made by the British when they tried to conquer Afghanistan). Even the attempt to conquer the world if they did have an industrial base to do so would bring down the power of China and Russia who have their own ambitions in that area.

Only a state with enormous resources, a large pool of highly educated scientists and engineers can build and maintain a nuclear arsenal. Even then, few have done it alone. Korea is known to have purchased knowledge and aid form Pakistan. Israel had British and French aid in building their bomb. India and Pakistan pursued the dream for over a decade before making the bomb, and there is evidence that Russian scientists aided them. The Taliban's Afghanistan was never a real threat except as a place where terrorists could train in isolation.

You are right about Israel's use as a bogey man and about countries handing a bomb to a terrorist. You should also remember that there are only a few places where a bomb could be acquired by a terrorist and any state that gave one to a terrorist would be annihilated if anyone found out. And once the terrorist had the weapon the country no longer controls who they use it against. It could as easily be turned against them.

But the actual use of a couple bombs stopped them. I believe it is certainly possible that Saddam would have employed small, tactical nukes in that war with Iran if he'd had them. He was willing to use chems after all.

As to the Taliban not having nuclear capabilities ... the entire premise of this thread is "what would have happened if they *had*".

I am sure the OP's meaning was that the US would never have invaded any of those four countries had those four had atomic bombs. I decided to take the OP literally and run with it.

:shrug: Just saying.

That doesn't scare me in the least bit...He's the only sane person to have run Grenada.