Congressman Hunter Says U.S. Should Attack Iran with Tactical Nukes

Duncan hunterCalifornia Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter told C-SPAN’s Washington Journal that a military conflict with Iran regarding their nuclear program may be inevitable and that the U.S. should hit them with tactical nuclear weapons.

“I think people like to toss around the fact that we have to stop them in some way from giving them this nuclear capability. I think it’s inevitable. If you hit Iran, you do it with tactical nuclear devices and set them back a decade or two or three. That is what you do with a massive aerial bombardment campaign,” Hunter said.

Hunter made the remarks to C-SPAN in the context of a broader discussion about a recent U.N.-brokered deal involving the U.S., Iran and other members of the international community.  The agreement, worked on by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, is identified as a “Joint Plan of Action,” Geneva, Nov. 24.

The Joint Plan of Action will loosen the economic sanctions on Iran in exchange for an Iranian pledge to halt nuclear weapons development. The deal does allow Iran to develop nuclear power – just not nuclear weapons.

“The goal for these negotiations is to reach a mutually-agreed long-term comprehensive solution that would ensure Iran’s nuclear program will be exclusively peaceful. Iran reaffirms that under no circumstances will Iran ever seek or develop any nuclear weapons,” the agreement reads.

When asked by the C-SPAN reporter, Hunter said that Congress should vote on sanctions against Iran as soon as possible without waiting for Kerry to testify on the Hill on the issue.

Kerry is slated to testify next week.

The recent U.S.-Iran agreement has inspired controversy as some have praised the move as substantive progress toward greater peace and stability — and others have sharply criticized the deal on the grounds that Iran cannot be trusted to abandon its nuclear weapons program.

Hunter’s reference to tactical nuclear weapons came on the heels of a comment about lessons learned from recent U.S. ground wars.

“I think a ground war with Iran with American boots on the ground would be a horrible thing. After Iraq and Afghanistan, America knows its limitations in that area,” he said.

Hunter’s office did not respond  by press time to questions about why the Congressman made these remarks.

About the Author

Kris Osborn
Kris Osborn is the managing editor of Scout Warrior.
  • jdub

    so by threatening this response we validate Iran’s desire to develop nuclear weapons. Way to think that one through.

    • orly?

      True, same as MacArthur’s idea of nuking China.

      • westwood

        MacArthur was a nutcase, like McCarthy.

    • Navy Seal 9009

      I see your point, but by using a tatical nuke, you delay their tatical nuke usage by 10 to 20 years plus you save thousands of American military lives and lives of our military allies. I think their nuke weapons program is too buried and secured to get at with spec ops mission.

      • SJE

        Yes, and in 10-20 years you have EVERY country in the region developing nukes. You also get the rest of the world P.O.’d, and swarms of jihadis trying to attack the US with conventional terrorism. Mall shootings, and the like.

        • Ed C

          Like they’re not going to do that anyway? It’s foolish to assume that when you attack your enemy you make the “more angry” at you. You just have to attack them wiht more vengence and firepower into submission. It’s the only real way to win a war. These half-assed responses we’ve had since Korea has shown that to be true.

          • SJE

            “Half-assed” in Korea? We took back the South, but went kept going. Chinese freaked out, the Soviets threatening nuclear war if we nuked China…..detente was the best of a bad hand. NK continues to be a problem, but lets look at where we are now.

            Strong Korea, Japan and Taiwan as our allies. China as frenemy. NK, a basket case.

          • Richard Christiansen

            The Chinese did not “FREAK OUT”. They were put in charge of the Far East by Stalin. He was not going to back North Korea because Mao in China was the force for the area (Mao was Asian and as such understood the mentality. Stalin was the driving force for Europe and the Western World.).
            China did not want the U.S. as their next door neighbor, they wanted a buffer – North Korea – and they believed that Kim Il Sung would one day reunite the peninsula under Communist control.
            China still backs North Korea on a lot of topics, but they are not very happy with the actions the North Koreans are displaying as they effect Chinese plans for the region.

          • SJE

            IIRC, the Chinese were seriously concerned about a US invasion/attack, and for good reason.

          • Richard Christiansen

            I was referring to your use of the term “Freak Out”.
            Yes they were very concerned about U.S. forces crossing the border, but they do not freak out.

          • SJE

            We got out of the “vengeance” business coz we found it didnt work

            At the end of WWI we extracted vengeance on the Germans. This allowed the Nazi’s back into power, and 21 years they were invading the rest of Europe. After WWII, we punished the worst Nazi’s, and quickly rehabilitated the rest. More than 60 years later the Germans are peaceful allies, and home to one of the US’s most important bases.

            Armies that overplay their hand, or are cruel, end up creating losing the peace, as the occupied population rises up against them. The Russians welcomed the Germans freeing them from Stalin, but the cruelty of the Germans galvanized the Russians behind Stalin. By comparison, the British empire lasted so long because they explicitly tried to have a lighter hand.

          • Richard Christiansen

            If my memory serves me right Stalin had a pact with Russia back at the beginning of the war. Germany reneged on that by INVADING Russia. Stalin invoked the “Fatherland” mentality and the Russians beat back the Germans and ended up dictating over half of Germany and Berlin.
            Yes Stalin was the original “Crazy Ivan” and was brutal to the Russians, BUT Hitler invaded Russia against the pact. The Russians were under armed, and you know that quickly changed with the invasion. They out gunned the Germans in the end.

          • Richard Christiansen

            CORRECTION: Stalin had a pact with Germany NOT RUSSIA.

          • SJE

            Stalin had a pact with Hitler to divide up Poland, but there is good evidence that neither side really trusted each other: it was a relationship of convenience.

            None of this changes the point, that many Russians gave little or no resistance to the initial German advances. Part of that was hatred of Stalin, part was that Stalin had previously purged the officer ranks and so there was a failure of leadership.

    • Smith28

      Yeah Hell will we’re at it let’s go ahead and declare War on China.

    • Musson

      Using Nukes is a bad idea. Unfortunately, we just gave them carte blanch to continue spinning their 17,000 centrifuges. So, Iran is going to get nuclear weapons. It is only a matter of when.

      Iran is the only country on earth who seriously talks about using nuclear weapons as an offensive strategy. Everyone else wants them as a deterrent.

      • Richard Christiansen

        North Korea does too!
        North Korea actually uses the deterrent angle AND the offensive angle

      • Nagger
      • Nagger
        • blight_

          It’s part of Russian and American offensive strategy. Both nations pledge not to be the first to strike, but it is very much on the table, and both countries actively invest in their strategic deterrent and have not renounced their role and usage.

          I think the PRC has made a similar pledge, but pledges are just words. That’s why nukes will never go away.

      • BGriffin

        ‘…Iran is the only country on earth who seriously talks about using nuclear weapons as an offensive strategy….’
        .
        You do realize that the article beneath which you are commenting is about a top government official talking about ‘using nuclear weapons as an offensive strategy’….an the comments aren’t from within Iran.
        .
        Whether intentional or not, your comment is a joke.

    • Sev

      Our response is validated by IRAN’s Threats to wipes Israel and the US off the map! We wouldn’t strike if they weren’t making the threats,,. We’re the good guys and we don’t want to strike but Iran makes threats and also kills our troops and civilians by equipping and funding terrorist networks

      • Richard Christiansen

        Iran has only threatened Israel with extinction. They have threatened to strike the U.S. mainland, BUT they lack the missile technology to do it from Iran.
        They have experimented with a converted container ship and it proved to be a successful launch.

    • Bill

      What an idiot. If we start flinging nukes just because we are afraid, the world will get rid of us.

    • Constitutionalist

      While the encouragement to release the embargoes is positive if it offers us (US) an advantage it doesn’t out way the fact that they have bred a society to hate Americans. Why try and forge any kind of relationship with them at all… Let sleeping dogs lie. They are buddies with Russia so let Russia feed them.

      As far as the use of a nuke anywhere for any reason is a game ender for global harmony. Any fool that believes you can knock a country down with nuke power and not accept the same retaliation on our homeland soil is a savant… I am exhausted by contemplating that possibility. The horror of such an attack would end our world… our retaliation to such an attack would be excessive and I would support it along with most every American.

      Iran’s most opulent society has set up camp in Ecuador and there soon after the president was removed from power. China bought most of the property around the Panama Canal….

      I think we should increase trade and stimulus to unite a cohesive partnership with States North and South of our boarders before we put any more energy into Iran. That is a unprofitable venture and we should be putting our capitol where we will get a payoff for our effort…

      The truth is, the good congressman is just throwing a wrench into these discussions because power and industry is being left out of the deal and that equals no revenue for our coffers.

      • Sal

        The majority of Iranians actually have an ambivalent to slightly positive view of the US. They certainly don’t want their government to get into a shooting war with the US.

    • tommy

      i served in viet nam and saw that there are times in wars that no matter what you print on paper about promises and signed by the aggressor has never worked , look at North Korea , they have nukes and selling them abroad not to mention the betrayal of the afgans and other middle eastern countries we have tried to help and only had many of our troops killed by the people who we were there to help them take control of their own destiny ..I say Nuke Iran , leave no Buildings or ways that will allow them to continue their quest from making weapons of mass destruction ..

  • commonsense

    This is what happens when we let politicians stick their hands in the pots of the military. Civilians have been screwing with the DoD since the Vietnam War. Leave the war fighting up to the war fighters and worry about fixing your broken state.

    • tmb2

      Duncan Hunter is a reserve Marine major and was on active duty from 2001 to 2007. That being said, this seems out of character for him.

      • Smith28

        Maybe I’m out place for saying this but the current condition of the world back in 2001 to 2007 was different, the battles he fought are slightly different and less sensitive.

        I don’t feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

      • commonsense

        Even worse. Hopefully this diatribe will inhibit his promotion potential. It’s scary that someone with such a radical view on how to engage our opponents still has Marines at his command.

      • blight_

        Duncan D. Hunter, you mean. “Duncan Hunter” could refer to Duncan Lee Hunter, his father (who held the seat before him). The elder Hunter was an Army Ranger who served in RVN.

        DD Hunter served as an artillery officer in Iraq, but I couldn’t figure out if he did the same in Afghanistan. That said, artillery officers probably see things differently versus people who have to kill their enemies directly.

        (As an aside, DL Hunter’s brother worked on superguns, starting with SHARP and is now at Quicklaunch.)

        • tmb2

          Daddy Hunter is retired and that’s Hunter The Younger in the photo on the right. Even as an artillery officer, odds are he spent quite a bit of time walking the streets since we didn’t use much arty in Iraq.

          • blight_

            That wouldn’t surprise me in the slighest either. I know the Army turned its artillerymen back into ersatz-infantry, but I wasn’t sure if the Marines did so as well.

    • The DoD works under The President, and under Congress, all of which are civilians. The military is not above, or even equal to those civilians. Let’s keep it that way.

      • You sound like just another clueless civillian.. Let’s send YOU to the front lines next time we need someone …

      • Richard Christiansen

        If you look at the Vietnam War you will see that it was “those civilians” that tried to and failed at running the war.
        Dwayne has it perfectly stated – LET THE GUYS ON THE GROUND CALL THE PUNCHES” – civilian leadership – give them CLEAR CUT GOALS and let the commanders on site figure out how to attain them and give them the manpower and instruments to do it.

      • Richard Christiansen

        Those civilians you are referring to are no more than “armchair quarterbacks”. Look at Sec.Def. Hagel, he was in Vietnam – how much has changed since 1974 in terms of combat?

    • tankjas

      The military is the extension of political will. Last time I heard, we were still not a military dictatorship.

    • Dwayne

      Yes, the “Civilian control of the military” IS a correct concept but the present day interpretation of just what that means ISN’T. Once the decision is made to use the country’s military force, and clear-cut goals have been set….let the military do it’s job in meeting said goals.

      • shipfixr

        ff

      • Dan

        I agree with what you said Dwayne. Let the military do what it does best ie. kill the enemy with great violence and force of arms. This means with no collateral damage restrictions being imposed on our troops. We have not fought a war to win it since World War II. We fought WW II with great violence and tenacity to defeat the Axis powers unconditionally. Since that time we have fought wars not to win them. The wars today are fought with “political correctness” and our military with “one hand tied behind their backs”. If we as a Nation enter a war we need to win it at all costs or stay out of it!!! War is pure hell but wasting American lives fighting a war not to win it is traitorous and defeatist.

        • Richard Christiansen

          THANK YOU DAN!!

    • I agree 100%. Politicians think they have the best military strategies, more so than all the war college grads put together. Tell the military what the objective is, then get out of their friggen way. Has everyone forgotten what the politicians did in Vietnam already?

    • tommy

      ditto , another thing there should be a law that in order to become president one has had to have served in the Military with the rank of at least a four star General , if that had been law , we wouldn’t have obama there now screwing things up taking the path to surrender…

  • otch

    Why do we elect these people.

    • orly?

      He’s Republican, apparently they can do no wrong.

      • Tony

        No, he represents the “great” republic of California…

        • blight_

          He’s a House Rep in San Diego, which is pretty Military for California, due to Pendleton in Oceanside and Coronado.

        • this guy comes from the same basic area as derryl issa and mitt romney

          • blight_

            Issa’s district is to the north of Hunter, but definitely the same area.

            Romney has a home in La Jolla, but it’s not necessarily his primary area. Romney was born in Michigan during the boom years.

    • tmb2

      He’s a Marine in a Navy-Marine district for starters.

    • SJE

      At least I can say I didn’t

    • The one armed man

      Still not as bad as Ron Howard’s Guam comments.

    • JB, USMC

      I voted for him for a number of reasons, not the least his service in Iraq and Afghanistan, but this was too far.

    • tommy

      they vote for anyone who will promise them to get grants and free food and rent under section eight.. look who they mostly are made of, you guessed it blacks and Hispanics and white folks living in poor trailer parks or run down apartments ….

      Remember the poor out number the rich !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • andy

    I know why?

  • Nullscience

    well they sure as hell will be making nuclear weapons now

    • moronoxy??what?

      Ya think??? :-)

  • Chris

    Forget the tactical nukes, don’t think they will have the needed penetrating force…. Go for the big dogs, really lite up their world…

    • Guido

      Amen brother! Turn the whole freakin’ Middle East into a freakin’ glow in the dark molten sea of glass.

  • orly?

    But Iran has a two million man militia with AKs!

    • moronoxy??what?

      And I read they just built a STEALTH FIGHTER! hahahahaha looks like a RC model of the F22 and a couple other planes all in one.

    • Richard Christiansen

      North Korea has more, so what?!

    • tommy

      no problem , two million soldiers can be wiped out in a series of napalm bombs raining down on them, they worked in Viet Nam they will work in Iran. i fought in viet nam I know what them napalm bombs can do…………………………….

    • jeremy

      but a per scion strike on their factory plant would stop their production, but we could use an EMP on the country in general, and or we just do round the clock bombing

  • Vpanoptes

    “If you hit Iran, you do it with tactical nuclear devices and set them back a decade or two or three”. Gee, only two or three decades? Why stop there, why not back to the Stone Age, Rep. LeMay, errr. Hunter?

    • Bruce

      This is just a misunderstanding. In the metric-system the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon is measured in terms of TNT-equivelent or terajoules. But under this imperial-system it is measured in Decades of Setback. When he buys a car he checks the mileage rating to see how many rods to the hogshead he is going to get.

    • shipfixr

      You know, Curtis LeMay never really said that…….

      • Vpanoptes

        “Evidence of LeMay’s thinking is that, in his 1965 autobiography (co-written with MacKinlay Kantor) LeMay is quoted as saying his response to North Vietnam would be to demand that “they’ve got to draw in their horns and stop their aggression, or we’re going to bomb them back into the Stone Age. And we would shove them back into the Stone Age with Air power or Naval power—not with ground forces.””

        • GUEST

          AND NOT WITH NUKES!

  • Guest

    Congressman Hunter’s State (Calif), is going Bankrupt, Paying for the illegal alien invasion and he wants more senseless Middle East Wars.
    In 25 years Southern Calif will be Northern Mexico and Congressman Hunter will be a small footnote to California History.

  • blight_

    And this is supposed to discourage Iran from developing nukes?

    • The one armed man

      No I think it was more a comment about how to keep them from getting nukes. He should know those guys in Iran are twelvers, and think they need to start WW3 to have their twelfth imam return. So nothing is going to discourage them. If he was trying to discourage them he’s dumber than I thought.

  • eddi

    Don’t you just love him? One of the people in charge of America’s destiny and he’s still fighting the Cold War. “But we’ll show them Rooskies we don’t back down from nobody. Even if they do want to talk peace we’ll give ’em a war they’ll never forget.” Next time I’m voting for whoever wants to impose Sharia Law on this country. Gotta be an improvement.

    • Richard Christiansen

      The COLD WAR never ended! It just changed its format!!!

  • Marc

    1) Any reasonable person would understand that, if the have 20% E.U. they were prolly on their way to 85%+.
    2) They have a breeder reactor and are manufacturing PU.
    3) It’s not that hard to create a moderate yield weapon out of PU and create an assembly that goes big boom. They probably got the specs from Pakistan and NorKor.

    Using tactical nukes is just another method of project large amounts of power without expending massive amounts of blood or treasure. Obama sucks at diplomacy and sucks worse at brinksmanship.

    • SigDeFlyinMonky

      Their heavy water reactor that could produce Pu is not completed or functioning and the agreement prohibits them from putting it online. The agreement also stipulates that their 20% E.U. be diluted to 5%. If they produced Pu from the reactor that will not be functioning, they have no means of separating the Pu from the spent fuel. Lets stick to the facts of the matter, please.

    • Bob

      You are a prime example of a know-nothing…just repeat what you were told… by ANOTHER know-nothing…then get up and go fight….chicken hawk ….so long as its someone else’s sons/daughters…..Pres Obama had diplomacy right; YOU are the one that sucks, chicken hawk…

      • FreeFall

        Before Sharia Law is imposed on this country there will be a great gun battle every where. This eddi person must believe in Islam or does not understand Shari law; it is nothing to joke about. For the peace makers who feel wants to trust Iran, imagine a tactical nuclear device going off in New York, Seattle, or LA. Too may Americans seem to have forgotten 9/11. Remember how the churches were overflowing? There are just too many middle easterners and the Iranian Guard that are serious about killing Americans, and they only see offers of peaceful Americas as weak and deserving of death. So what are you willing to do, convert to Islam just to have peace?

        • RustedHalo

          What Sharia Law in the US? Hyper Right Wing Paranoid schizophrenics are always on about Sharia Law taking over the US, just as they were about Reds, but where are the gazillions of examples of Sharia Law in the US? Nowhere but in your sick, paranoid head. Go and get some IV lithium. It would also be advantageous if you went back to school and learnt some basic English.

    • Warfighter

      So in order to prevent a country from possibly putting into action its long tradition of sabre rattling about destroying another country with nukes, the plan would be for us to pre-emptively destroy that country with nukes, thereby becoming the only country in history to not only have used nukes against humans, but three times against two different countries. Tell me who the rest of the world will think the real bogeyman is?

      Yes, that totally sounds proportional, and necessary… The good congressman needs to reread the LOAC a few times before he opens his mouth again. War is about more than winning single battles. Embarking on something like this leads to strategic defeat.

    • mrlee

      In WWII, Japan did not have a tactical nuclear device, but they did have a dirty bomb that they were ready to launch within days against the USA. Then the tactical would have been ready very soon after. And you don’t think that Iran can’t launch dirty bombs?

  • hibeam

    Obama has drawn a red line. I doubt we will have to give Iran more than 7 states. 10 tops.

  • mpower6428

    Can’t we just have a war…?!?! jeeeesh.

  • Corey

    Iran can never be trusted on their word. The past has shown that. Nothing has changed with Iran. I doubt US and Iran will come to an agreement. They need a better plan other than tactical nuclear weapons. As far as I’m concerned this is a military matter not a political advisory meeting with John Kerry. Lots of talking not enough planning. Let the military leaders come together to develop a plan on their behave.

    • nautic3727

      The U.S. should join Israel and jointly these two countries should wipe out Iran’s burgeoning nuclear capabilities. It’s know that Iran lies, so diplomacy is ludicrous. Using tactical nuclear weapons will cause too much collateral damage. Peter Guild, Quincy, MA.

      • oblatt2

        We’ve already lost 3 proxy wars with Iran beats me why we want to lose another one. Maybe you have nothing to lose ?

    • wulf145

      “Iran can never be trusted on their word. The past has shown that.”

      Read more: http://live-defensetech.sites.thewpvalet.com/2013/12/04/congressman-hun
      Defense.org

      Could you give a couple of examples please? Thank you.

    • SJE

      Absolute trust: certainly NOT. Who is talking about that?

      So far, we have a “trust but verify” regime. The key feature from our end is inspections and ramping back the enrichment.

      Also, what is the alternative? The real-world consequences of military action are far worse than the current agreement. If, in the end, we come to a treaty that sticks, the real losers are the Saudis and gulf Arab Sunnis who are culturally further from the US than the Iranians.

    • SJE

      Prior to Obama, we trusted the Saudis, Egyptians and Gulf states, and not the Iranians. But who attacked us on 9-11? USS Cole? Who masterminded most terrorism in the last 15 years? Hint: it wasnt the Iranians.

      • Gueat

        WHO BACKED ALL OF THOSE EVENTS?

        • SJE

          It wasn’t the Iranians. In fact, the Iranians were very helpful with our invasion of Afghanistan. Not so much in Iraq.

  • jess

    Whatever Israel wants we must do. Not sure why though….

    • IQAF1985

      because it has the US politicians in its back pocket!

      • FreeFall

        Israel does not have US politicians in its back pocket. Sounds like you lack much understanding regarding the relationships between Christians and Israel. Therefore, if that is true, then you lack a Spiritual understanding of the Bible. DO the research for yourself. God has made it clear that those who bless Israel will be blessed. And those who curse Israel will be cursed. Our country and all countries blessings are based in Israel. Father Abraham is the father of Christians and followers of Islam. The relationship stops there. Biblical prophesy is unfolding right before our eyes. For those who are still blinded, the Bible has always made it clear that the universe was created out of nothing. Until the twenties scientist did not believe it and hung onto the silly Steady State Theory. Today, you would be hard pressed to find any credible scientist who does not believe the universe was created from nothing. I mention this in hope of urging unbelievers to research the truth about the middle east. God has made it clear that there will never be a real peace to that region until He returns. Check it out.

        • Guest

          The Israel of today is not the same as biblical Israel. Israelis are well aware of Christian superstitions and are using them to their advantage.

    • Saudi Arabia wants too.

    • Guest

      Did you ever hear of AIPAC? AIPAC is the powerful Israeli Lobby that controls most of “Our” US Congress. They spend huge sums of $$$$ to get Pro Israeli Congressmen & Congresswomen Elected.

  • FormerDirtDart

    In his public statements, Congressman Hunter refuses to apply the commonsense adage from “Tropic Thunder”:

    Never go full retard.

    • tiger

      I was thinking more Dr. Strangelove. The Congressman wants to go Col. Jack Ripper start & talking about fluoride in the water while sending the Wing Attack Plan R code.

    • Talmach

      Best reply on this page.

    • D Brooks

      He didn’t get the memo. Please resubmit to his office. Retard doesn’t begin to describe his complete lack of responsibility. Even the dimmest of wits has some inkling of the hell that employment of nukes would unleash, particularly a first strike.

  • tim

    If I was Iran and our enemy Israel had nukes I would do everything I could to get them too. Just like Russia, China and North Korea have. Maybe Israel should have thought about that when they were stealing the technology and plutonium from America for their nukes.

    • But doing so you must bear the risk of a preemptive strike.

    • davec

      Israel didn’t have to steal much technology. The U.S. and the French clandestinely gave them much of the know-how back in the ’60’s

    • Riceball

      Like you can blame Israel when they’re surrounded by countries that would like nothing better than see them wiped off the map. Then add to that how many wars has its fought with its neighbors since their inception and still to this day they’re being attacked by Hezbollah who launches rockets into civilian areas and they’ve suffered any number of terrorist attacks in the past as well. If you had to deal with all that wouldn’t you feel a bit better if you had nukes in your arsenal, I certainly would, make people think twice about invading my country again.

      • no
        • Mike

          You Sir are a muppet

        • nics

          Can’t disagree. It’s better than going into Afghanistan, bomb civilians, and call the victims “terrorists”

          The pro-Israeli lobby has repeatedly dragged America into fighting wars against Muslim countries on behalf of Israel ever since the founding of the Jewish state. Not only have Americans been dying for free, they have killed countless innocent civilians and ruined the lives of countless children.

          • Dan

            We did it on a much larger scale during World War II and we won! We have not fought a war to win it since WW II. War is hell and when we get involved in a conflict (war) when need to do it right. That means with great violence and force of arms on the enemy. Just like we fought and defeated Germany and Japan. We fight our wars today with political correctness which sets us up for failure over and over. By the way we don’t fight wars on the behalf of Israel. They have shown over and over that they can take care of themselves. The day after they became a sovereign nation in 1948 they were surrounded and ruthlessly attacked by just about every Arab country in the region. And the Israelis with a hodge-bodge of WW II weapons soundly defeated the modern Arab armies that attacked them. By the way they did this without the help of the U.S. . The “peace loving Muslims” have repeatedly been the aggressors in that region.

        • Gusest

          So rockets hitting Haifa and Tel Aviv is not civilian cities.
          NOHISTORY IN THE REGION??? What history books have you been reading??
          Oh yeah, you probably believe that Christopher Columbus was a Russian too.

    • Art

      Israel is well ahead of the U.S. in it’s military technology. Anything they take from us they make better. We have used Israel to test and perfect military equipment for us for many years.

      • Guest

        They were given some of our tech and they stole the rest.. The fact that they improved upon it is irrelevant. Anyone can do that. Look at the Chinese are doing with our tech. If someone has sank millions or billions into R and D and I come along and tweak it and make it slightly better, do I deserve praise?

  • JH

    Billionare casino mogul Sheldon Adleson, the GOP’s #1 donor, said back in October that the U.S should nuke Iran is ‘desert environments’.

    • Guest

      You hit the nail on the head. America has the BEST CONGRESS that MONEY can BUY.

  • hibeam

    Maybe we can keep Haiti from getting nukes. At least the oceans have stopped rising.

    • Dr. Horrible

      Huh?

    • moronoxy??what?

      Heck, if anything, we should just NUKE that place just to clean it up and save money. They start from a new, albeit burnt up, but with a new slate. Not much to clean up, just clean up any extra radiation, and start with medium income housing with a ocean view. Then apartments, condo’s then single family homes…ohhhh….and some housing for the locals still left alive.

  • BlackOwl18E

    I majored in History and focused on the Cold War during my studies. Both the United States and the Soviet Union had war crazy mongers throughout the era that wanted to annihilate the other side. Both sides also had sensible people in power that knew the ramifications of nuclear war were of the most permanent and severe kind the world would ever see. These few sensible people somehow managed to get all of the stronger offices of power and regularly negotiated with their own counterparts from the other side. They had a mutual and unspoken agreement that each side would keep their own crazies in check.

    I’m starting to miss the Cold War and the Soviet Union. Sure the Soviets were the evil empire, but having such an enemy kept us on our toes and reminded us of what we stood for as Americans. We don’t have that anymore, but I’m pretty sure we still have some of the sensible people around to keep the crazies in check. At least we know who one of those crazies is now…

    • oblatt2

      Ironically we will probably be the Soviet Union in the future. The Chinese empire will lead and be much less ideological and we will be the second or third power pushing a discredited ideology.

      • nics

        Indeed we are headed that way at 200 miles an hour. Once we see the sign “Petrodollar ends”, it’s game over for the good old USA.

    • The United States would have won a total nuclear war.

      • Warfighter

        You play too many videogames. Whatever the outcome, whoever came out on top in that exchange could hardly call it a victory in the horror and ashes that remained.

        • It would be the best war in history. Much better than the Second World War. And the United States would have won.

          • dr. agreeable

            Troll.

          • So you think the Soviet Union would have won.

          • nics

            You really think there can be a winner in mutual annihilation? People on both sides would die of incineration, radiation poisoning, genetic mutation or starvation eventually.

          • No. I really think there would be no mutual annihilation but catastrophic damage.

          • Kevin

            Says a guy who has never seen war.

          • Someone who has seen war would say that the Soviet Union would win?

          • BlackOwl18E

            No, but I’m betting a person who has seen war would say that both sides would lose because there would be nothing left.

          • That’s what I dispute.

          • UAVGeek

            Since you like video games so much you should see the movie “Wargames” the parable ends with a good line for everyone.

          • Oh yes, a classic from my childhood.

        • orly?

          The “Kill ’em all and let God sort ’em out” crowd don’t care.

          Guess who they are.

    • tiger

      Come on Owl, just once let us send that Wing Attack Plan “R” code.

  • extreme_one

    I guess it will be US vs the rest of the world then. Imagine if Iran has said something with just 10% of that. Nukes would actually be raining down on Iran already.
    One thing is sure: US has never and will never go down in history books as a nice civilized country.
    How can actually a human being grow up to become and say something like this. Not even the north korean leader as this crazy.

    • bobbymike

      He is talking about Iran so it is interesting you don’t mention the dozens of times Iranian mullahs or politicians have said we will wipe Israel off the face of the earth

      • oblatt2

        You mean hysterical Israeli propaganda about how everyone is always out to get them and they are so blameless.

        Many people have noted that the Jewish state isn’t any more viable than a white run South Africa. When Nelson Mandela noted that the Israelis claimed he wanted to wipe Israel off the map too.

      • extreme_one

        They haven’t actually said that. Its been covered 100 of times but since it doesnt serve Israels goal no one cares. Makes you wonder why Israel would want the situation be worse then they actually are. Read more money for “security” from US

    • bobbymike

      There are also Chinese generals who have said ‘Hey we’ll trade 150 million for 150 million people with the US, still leave us over 1 billion people’

    • pphaneuf

      you obviously dont watch the news or read much. Iran has said much worse about u.s. and israel. Staements like israel is a one bomb country. Death to america. etc.
      Is that the 10% you where talking about.

      • extreme_one

        Correct, I don’t watch Fox news a lot. Prefer comedy central if I want to watch comedy.

      • Ari

        If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.

        That’s the reality of the alleged statements against Israel, by Iran.

  • oblatt2

    Its obvious that the only way for a lasting peace to be reached in the middle east is for Iran to get the bomb. Until then the US and Israel will always be looking for an opportunity to attack.

    • Nadnerbus

      So, when Iran gets the bomb, Shiia Islam becomes more powerful. Sunni Islam will be threatened. I think Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states will want their own program, or assurances of the US nuclear umbrella. Iran is already a destabilizing factor in the larger middle east. Nuclear capability will only make that worse.

      Not advocating dropping tactical nukes on them, mind you. Just don’t think Iran getting the bomb is going to help much of anything either.

      • oblatt2

        Saudi Arabia already has a nuclear program – they funded the Pakistani one for a quick delivery if needed.

        Containment never works.

    • Dan

      You want a country like Iran to get Nukes? Where have you been the last 10-30 years? They hate us, they chant “death to America” almost daily. They are a terrorist nation ie. Took over the U.S Embassy, holding/torturing those Americans for almost a year. Blew up the Marine Barracks in Beirut Lebanon killing 247 Marines and Navy personnel. By the way they were there for a “Peace Keeping Mission” directed by the United Nations. And they have killed hundreds of our military members in Iraq both directly and indirectly. I say “death to Iran” and the sooner the better!

  • Restore Palestine

    See? I told you US Congress was filled with brainless, useless lowlifes.

  • william dhalgren

    Yes the Senator is right, of course, The sub-human Iranians need to be taught a lesson, This subterfuge is designed to fool America into a false sense of security. WE WILL NOT BE AFRAID!!!. The might of the USA is not be denied and the consequences of failing to obey our will is on their own heads. Our forces will prevail against this threat with terrible vengeance.
    Seig Heil !

    best rgds,
    Martin Bormann
    Argentina (somewhere in…)

    • dr. agreeable

      Poe’s Law?

    • tiger

      He at least would be better than the current White house advisors.

  • IQAF1985

    politicians are the lowest form of life.

    • tiger

      But “We the people”, create them & reelect them.

  • Yes. If Iran fails to comply with the last agreement, a limited nuclear attack should be put on the table. Patience has a limit.

  • Misanthrophe2

    Duncan is an AIPAC stooge and a traitor to the United States. According to AIPAC, he only received $6.000 in bribe money from Israel. I suspect he got a lot more under the table since he made these atrocious remarks. Are we Americans so blind that we cannot identify the real enemy? Iran poses no threat to the US. Iran has NO nukes and has signed on to the NPT. Israel, on the other hand, has numerous nukes and refuses to sign on to the NPT. Iranians are not the crazies. The Zionists are the crazies who are hell bent on either taking over the world,or taking down the world.

    • Snooks

      Iran hasn’t attacked anyone in over 200 years.

  • PolicyWonk

    And the Golden Dunce Cap Award for 2013 is awarded to California Republican Congressman Duncan Hunter!

  • hibeam

    Big bomb meets deeply buried bad lab. solution? Don’t build bad labs.

  • I’m usually not much in favor of conspiracy theories, but is this suggestion from Duncan Hunter a secret attempt (on behalf of The Democrats) to make people think Republicans are batshit crazy? I mean, forcing Sarah Palin as a VP candidate on poor McCain no doubt scared a lot of swing voters into voting for Obama, and next time the tea partiers did their part to ensure he kept the job (Michelle Blachman, remember?). Seeing that Duncan Hunter is smart enough to simultaneously walk and breathe, he has already proven that suggesting that Iran be nuked can’t have been said in earnest.

    • blight_

      Good grief, not every opinion a person disagrees with is a paid-hack for “the other side”. Can’t a man be entitled to his own opinions?

      I disagree with Hunter, but it is what it is.

      (Disclosure: I don’t buy into the idea that “Nader gave the election to Bush”; which is a similar argument raised by others that suggests sinister motives without cause, and only serves to quash third parties and independent opinions. In Nader’s case, if we implemented instant-runoff voting then we wouldn’t have this discussion about stolen elections).

  • FAce

    Congressman Hunter is wrong. Israel should initiate the first strike and the United States should follow in the second wave. However, we know obamas feelings towards Israel and Israel cannot put much faith in the United States backing them.

  • DGrip

    The only possible reason for use of nukes of any type is if the very existence of the nation is threatened… Iran is an alligator (all mouth and no ears). They do not threaten us directly. If we wish to demonstrate that Iran shouldn’t continue to develop nuclear weapons, we have excellent means to do it conventionally. Use of nukes in this case is absurd and I feel very sorry for the Congressman who said such an insanely stupid thing. He need a few year’s rest in a well padded facility.

  • Robert Green

    Many in America wants to turn a blind eye to Iran, but what Congressman Hunter is speaking of is essential. There were those who believed it was just fine to attack Syria, yet a surgical strike against a real and present danger is out of the question. Iran will continue to proceed with making nuclear weapons and they will be a threat to our international interests.

    • tmb2

      Nuclear weapons are anything but surgical.

      • JohnnyRanger

        Absolutely untrue. A B-61 can be dropped with the accuracy of a PGM, can penetrate well below the earth’s surface before detonation to minimize blast radius and fallout, and can be set to yield at less than half a kiloton – sufficient to destroy or severely damage localized underground facilities, ventilation shafts, sensitive equipment like centrifuges, etc, without causing widespread destruction and radiation hazards. Methinks Mr. Hunter is more than aware of all of this, which is why he specified “tactical” nuclear weapons, which a dialed-down B-61 certainly qualifies as. As effective and far less risky in terms of platforms (and pilots)deployed than the equivalent application of Massive Ordnance Penetrators…

        • A.g.

          Yeah sure… And what about underground water springs, radiological particules in the air, the part not minimized of the fallout ??
          To destroy factory who could potentialy build material for weapons that their are not unable to produce and even not able to launch ?
          Should we blast pakistani nuclear stockpile ? They host Benladen for a long time and use terrorism against an allies, India ?
          We should possess nuke, but first use for any reasons is a madness.
          If Israel want to nuke Iran, do it themselves.

          • JohnnyRanger

            Again, deep ground penetration before detonation would minimize blast and fallout radius.

            Water table contamination could certainly be a risk, but forgive me if I don’t shed crocodile tears at the thought.

            As for Pakistan…no. The government of Pakistan, to my knowledge, has never called for the extermination of Israel, Jews in general, denied the Holocaust, called for jihad against Americans, or done anything else that the lunatics running Iran do as a matter of routine.

          • A.g.

            So… if you’re not a crocodile, why limit to a restricted plan ?
            Why to not use Mégatone warhead on the capital. The innocent civilians in the city will be the same than near the nuclear sites and… no-problem anymore.
            We don’t care about Israël problems ! I’dont care Israelian people more than Iranian people.
            Or Jewish problems, détails of past history turning in his own religion, a good way to blackmail any non-jewish people too, and bombing palestinian by the way with the hand on the heart.
            Why stay fixed on the holocaust more than, let me thinking… Holodomor, Khmer’s murders, Hutu’s génocide in africa, Soviet’s goulag etc ?
            Why don’t use nuke on North-koréa ?
            The pakistan don’t call the extermination of Israel, so, nice; let them regularly kills India’s people. At least non jewish india people, of course.

            Enough war for other than ourself. Are we really threatened from Iran ?
            Not more than another scarecrow like North-korea, Venezuéla or even Russia.
            It’s a retarded mentality from child who don’t accept political exchange, and frustration of echec. From someone who want’s candidely to win every times. It’s allow to make money, to buy on crédit more exactelly, for many.

            Nuclear weapons is an assurance. Not a political’s tool.

  • DGrip

    Surely we all know that if the US wished to ‘knock Iran back 20 or 30 years’ we could do it without nukes. Even at the castrated level our armed forces are now, we could turn that country into a parking lot, without nuke #1. I think Iran knows it, I also think they think we won’t. I never meant to imply that a surgical strike might not be in the best interests of this country and a lot of others, I just mean to do it with nukes is absurd.

  • davy cross

    CLUELESS

  • davy cross

    HUNTER, Is clueless about nuclear weaspons. Yhe damage it would cause would be worst than any man/ woman image. Remember it is people we are talking about. I know Russia doesn’care neither does North Korea or Pakistan, India, I am not sure. Most economic countries have nuclear warheads, its about power. Look at the US we have been dismantling nuclear warheads for a long time, but one must remember …Nukes kill everything living and the aftermath of the radiation will lasat another life time. Hunter needs to be briefed on our nuclear philosophy from our Strategic forces and get a grip. We thought about using a nuclear warhead during Vietnam, North Haiphone harbor…but we were afraid of what the Russians and Chinese would do, so it was cancelled…it was a winless war. Now Hunter I am sure he doesn’t have the right security clearances do know what our weapons are to be used for and how. Remember Haig at one time Secretary of State 4 star general he mentioned the use of nuclear warheads and was fired. Scare tactics don’t work. Obama is also clueless on this program, he might not even have the right security clearances. Isreal will attack but not with nuclear warheads!!! FACTS

  • Ted Taylor

    The day we draft all our kids into the Army or Marines and make them the front line fighters and every congressman’s kids are in the front, then we might think about an
    other war.

    • tmb2

      Hunter was a Congressman’s kid on the frontline. That’s the odd thing about this statement he’s made.

      • blight_

        He was an artillery officer. He was in the armed forces unlike a large proportion of its population (which includes me), so I’ll leave the semantic hair-splitting to others. Bear in mind that in a few decades, a UAV operator from the Air Force will put on his congressional campaign that he “killed American enemies in Afghanistan and Pakistan”…and he’d be right.

  • Tad

    Ha ha ha, this is a perfect setup for “good cop, bad cop”. Hunter and his ilk play the bad cop, and then the president or someone else in authority comes in and plays the good cop. The good cop can say to the Iranians, “See, look at what the scary bad cop wants to do to you. You should really play ball with me.”

  • blight_

    Starting to think Hunter is a little too “activist” and “adventure-friendly”.

    Of course, it’ll likely be sailors and Marines who will pay the price for pre-emptive attack on Iran. Sure, history will be written by the victors, and the Marines can add Tehran to the Marine Corps Hymn…

  • hibeam

    We should wait for the Iranians to hide bombs in all or our major cities. Then we can deal with them. Now is not the time.

  • Lance

    Forget it on Iran Obama is Nevel Chamberlain And he wont stop appeasing the bad guys.

    • Pharsalus

      *Nevel*? Hmmm….

    • SJE

      Why is it that every attempt at “other than war” is Neville Chamberlain? It looks so easy being tough. Its different when you are still recovering from a terrible war and are faced with a peer opponent. Recall that the Nazi’s pretty much rolled through all of Western AND near Eastern Europe without much difficulty.

      Chamberlain bought time to rearm and ready for the war.

      Chamberlain also got diplomatic good will. The US was not eager for war and thought that the French had pushed the Germans too hard. There was a lot of sympathy for the Germans. If Chamberlain had declared war, the Germans would caste themselves as victims again.

  • thanks for deleting my comment defensetech

  • fhjjjjj
  • fhjjjjj
  • Peter

    So, what have we here. Apparently the posession of nuclear weapons is BAD, in fact so BAD that the USA should use these EVIL, INDEFENSIBLE weapons to stop anyone else getting hold of them. Anyone see the irony here?

    Just out of interest, North Korea has nuclear weapons, as do India, Pakistan and Israel (amongst others of course) but they seem to be off limits.

    If you want my own opinion (which you may well not) NK scares me WAY more than Iran. But we accept that. Maybe because they already have these awful weapons?

    What sort of message does that send out? Try and get nukes and we’ll kill you. Get nukes and you’re home and safe.

  • Stan

    Maybe he is jonesing to ride the first one in Dr. Strangelove-style.

    But seriously, this is electioneering. Does he really think the rank and file military in his district will be impressed? I sure hope not.

  • hibeam

    Congressman Hunter Says U.S. Should Attack Iran with Nukes. President Obama says the U.S. should accept Iran with Nukes.

    • nics

      Hunter is a typical right-wing lunatic who should be kept in mental asylum. Obama is a typical lawyer who should be working at a typical American thief-filled law firm.

    • Hunter76

      Stop lying.

  • Bernard
  • STemplar

    This military option notion in regards to Iran for dealing with the nuclear issue is focusing far too much on the nukes and not enough on the results. If we chose to use a military option it makes eminently more sense to just undermine the jihadi government and cause its collapse than to try and put bombs down air shafts in mountains.

    Exterminate the Revolutionary Guard and Quds force facilities.

    Sink the navy.

    Annihilate the air force and IADS.

    Take out a couple oil terminals and some refineries and the nation of Iran would collapse financially and politically. No money, no nukes.

    Keep ours in the bunkers for alien invasions….

  • hibeam

    Hunter for President. We should have nuked Afghanistan. And Iraq.

    • dr. horrible

      Sorry, hibeam! It just hit me that you’re a troll too. I had it all wrong.

      Carry on!

    • nics

      @hibeam, it’s typos isn’t it? You mean we should have nuked [A]merica and [I]srael, don’t you. Not [A]fghanistan and [I]rag.

  • Robert Cerveny, Jr.

    So people on here would rather see boots on the ground and our men and women killed. You people are so brilliant your head shines out your butt. You saw what they did to the Iraqis in their war in the 1980’s. They took the pow’s and took all their blood out for their own troops. Now I don’t totally agree with the nuke as it should be used only in dire circumstances. But shooting missiles at Israel, Qatar, our fleet, other countries when they finally get to doing it, you pop 7 or 8 missiles and not tactical either. Normal nukes will take out a certain distance where tactical nukes can spread radiation and sickness to other countries.

  • Marc Winger

    If that what it takes to take out the underground installations of our enemies in Iran, then so be it. We already use dirty uranium in conventional conflicts. Tactical nukes aren’t be planet busters, they are smaller & precise.
    It’s time to teach Iran a lesson that will never forget.

    • blight_

      Depleted uranium is one thing; nuclear weapons are something else entirely.

      In terms of radiation, DU isn’t that radioactive. But as a heavy metal, it’s not good for you. You’d get similar health outcomes from inhaling unprocessed yellowcake, and suffering heavy metal poisoning.

      For military applications, if not DU tungsten is the penetrator material of choice. I’ve not seen safety studies suggesting that tungsten is safer…

      From the cdc:

      “Combustible in the form of finely divided powder; may ignite spontaneously.
      Incompatibilities & Reactivities Bromine trifluoride, chlorine trifluoride, fluorine, iodine pentafluoride
      Exposure Routes inhalation, ingestion, skin and/or eye contact
      Symptoms irritation eyes, skin, respiratory system; diffuse pulmonary fibrosis; loss of appetite, nausea, cough; blood changes”
      http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/npg/npgd0645.html

      Update:
      http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/

      They do some epidemiological stuff, some in vivo assays, but the in vitro is interesting (though usual caveats with cell culture do apply):

      “Tungsten ore administered to human leukemia cells in cell culture increased growth of pre-existing leukemia cells by 170% compared to control leukemia cells over a 72-h exposure period”

      For in-vivo

      ” Kalinich and co-workers used military-grade heavy metal tungsten alloys (>90% tungsten) pellets that were implanted intramuscularly into hind legs of male Fischer 344 rats [11]. The high-dose (20 pellets) implanted tungsten alloy rats (N = 46) developed extremely aggressive tumors surrounding the pellets within 4–5 months after implantation. The low-dose (4 pellets) tungsten alloy rats (N = 46) and nickel-implanted rats (N = 36) also developed tumors, characterized as high-grade pleomorphic rhabdomyosarcomas by histopathology and immunohistochemical examination, which rapidly metastasized to the lungs and necessitated euthanasia of the animals. In general, metal implants can potentially have carcinogenic effects [12], but these results of Kalinich et al. with tungsten pellets are more severe than a generic effect from implanting metal.”

      Yeah, keep whining about uranium; as if the alternative was necessarily any better.

    • blight_

      I don’t think the Russians would trust our no-first-strike anymore if we nuked Iran. They might even switch to launch-on-warning. I imagine that the real reason Petrov flinched instead of kicking off World War Three was because he didn’t expect the United States to initiate the strike: once world opinion of America changes, the next Petrov will assume that the other launches weren’t picked up because of defective Russian surveillance satellites…and will act accordingly.

      Short of infiltrating a battalion of Rangers into Iran, then sneaking up to Fordo and seizing it, I’m not sure what the options are. There’s always letting the IAEA monitor Fordo, and joint US/Russian inspections of Iranian facilities if required.

      Depending on how well protected Fordo is, an airburst with a tacnuke might not defeat the facility. Still would have to go in and destroy the place the old fashioned way.

      Though I suspect the insidious way to do it would be to smuggle some colbalt-60 into the facility in a shielded container, then destroy the container and irradiate the place. Of course, getting cobalt-60 would require a research reactor and limit the number of countries who could be behind such a scheme.

  • Granted it was a dumb thing to say but have does this have to do with Defense Tech?

    Did Defensetech run a story when Rep. Hank Johnson voiced his concern over Guam capsizing if we put too many Marines on it? http://www.cbsnews.com/news/hank-johnson-worries-

    Here’s the video

    Oh never mind. He’s a Democrat. That doesn’t count…

    • Pharsalus

      WHAT? WHAT THE F…?

      Oh. I was sure this was a joke. It isn’t?

      If in a discussion, you use the argument ‘people aren’t that stupid’, there you go. You’ve lost the discussion. They -are- that stupid.

    • blight_

      DefTech is sliding.

  • Scott

    if we attack Iran then a lot of middle east countries will attack Israel so either way we end on the losing end of the spectrum of the conflict.

    • blight_

      Just kick off the Saudi IRBM program. Let the Salafis and Shia fight it out.

    • Really? Mention just one Middle East country that has the internal stability and a realistic military capability to succesfully attack Israel.

    • SJE

      No they won’t. The leadership of the vast majority of middle eastern countries are Sunni and they want the US to attack Iran, because they are the Shiite “other.”

  • inside man

    dam white people and jews want to bomb Iran up the….

  • Billy Edwards

    Remember the USS Liberty, Israel deliberately attacked our ship and killed our military personnel to try to draw us into 6 day war.let Israel take care of itself don’t spend U S lives for them

  • martin

    I got a better idea lets take away the cic post from the president and give it to the military chief of staff its not the politicians that have to fight the wars

    • LonesomeG2

      Apparently you hate democracy and our Constitution!

    • Guest

      That is great, but sooner or later a general will decide that he wants to be president too. Then all hell breaks loose.

  • Jay

    Yep, lets just keep nukin our planet…Screw it. Iran already has the damn bomb anyways, Pakistan hand delivered the damn thing years ago… It seems the more our government screws us over here at home the more trouble they create overseas to try and make themselves look like “heros” to gain public backing thus taking our mind off of the catastrophes they have created here…No wonder China is testing our resolve, our Gov probably said to China that you better do something to protect your investment in our debts cause the natives are getting restless and want their country back.

    • nics

      Very good and funny. +1

  • FatCircles0311

    Iran has been at war with the United States for 30 years. Sooner or later Americans will have to understand this. Some of us would rather it not be after another catastrophic attack on our soil, but with the way Americas continue to be reserved and not wanting to confront evil that has said it’s coming is worry some. Hunter basically stated that we won’t waste our military to participate in half-assed war like we’ve done for decades any longer. If we weren’t the incredibly reserved and ignorant United States and instead any other nation, Iran would have been dealt with decades ago.

    It doesn’t matter if you don’t want war, the enemy has waged it. It’s time to put your adult pants on and quit pretending that they are just bluffing with their intentions. It’s such a shame how Americans refuse to acknowledge evil when it’s smiling in their face touting their intentions.

    • dr. agreeable

      Just for clarity: which catastrophic attack has Iran waged on the United States? I want to make sure that I’ve gotten the details correct.

      • Ari

        Excellent point, dr. agreeable. The answer is none but, the warmonger here wouldn’t know that from the corporate, mainstream media they are fed, like Fox “news”.

    • tiger

      While a good point, those are words you do not speak out loud. Ask Barry Goldwater.

    • blight_

      We have successfully parried Iran’s attempts to get out from under our thumb. Their military is still a joke but the price of a free society is one willing to trust its neighbors. If Iran attacks us, we will hurt them. But until they hit us, we should be willing to watch and intervene in proportion to their actions. If Iran goes nuclear, then we put an SSBN on tap, or openly position nuclear weapons in the Persian Gulf, then ship TMD/ABMs to the Saudis.

    • SJE

      There is evil in plenty of places. The question is what to do about it. This is the real world, not a morality play. Failure to recognize the difference led us into Iraq.

      Making an ethical issue into a military crusade is dangerous. The West went through centuries of religious wars that devastated the entire region, and now the middle East is fighting over the morality of whose vision of God is correct. Keep out.

  • blight_

    Suffice to say, once the British government starts disagreeing with us, we’ll probably start thinking of putting nukes on their heads.

    • joe

      Hey, as long as you’re precise enough to hit *just* the politicians, we say go right ahead…

  • I wouldn’t trust Iran any more then I would trust a pedophile in a grade school playground.

    They are deceitful, they have done nothing in the past thirty years to prove that they have changed their feelings about America and will do anything they can to do us harm.

    • tiger

      They have changed leadership & do seem to wish to work to Olive branch for a change. We can not keep a 30 year defacto war going forever either. Lets see if this deal has any legs. Trust? No, me nether.

      • The one armed man

        You’re living in a dream world if you think they’ve changed leadership. The ayatollahs are the real power in Iran. They pick all the presidential candidates. They haven’t changed their ideology at all.

  • Talmach

    Seriously?? Look, no one is calling Iran the Boy Scouts here. But evil would be dropping nuclear bombs on a country with a large population skewed towards youth and children, with NO provocation. Nukes are only justified when your country is attacked by nukes, or MAYBE when your country is under mass bombardment and is at risk of being destroyed. Destroyed as in your civilian population nearly eliminated, not merely a military defeat. Even then it is morally bankrupt, if the nuclear exchange ratchets up to mutually assured destruction. (Two genocides is worse than one, regardless of who’s at fault.)

    Iran poses nothing like that risk to us. Not in a hundred years. They haven’t even made a nuke yet, if ever they did they wouldn’t have the means to deliver it to our soil, and even if they got to that point, they’d still have to move launch on us before dropping a nuke on them would be justified. What are “tactical” nuclear devices anyway? How would they not simply encourage Iran to very quickly complete or acquire a nuke and then actually deploy it on the nearest target which would be, I dunno, Israel, since they have been attacked by a nuclear device already? How would it not galvanize the entire population to support mass attacks against Western interests? This could potentially even get Saudi Arabia on Iran’s side (Allah forbid as they say.) Do you think for an instant Russia would sit by and let us launch any nuke on their half of the planet? They might not respond in kind, but they could very quickly head up an effort to make life economically difficult. Try Great Recession Part II, with the addition of a 1970s style fuel blockade.

    Good grief. Whoever has this guy as a representative needs to vote him out next possible opportunity. And make sure he doesn’t get a “think tank” or lobbyist position either.

  • Talmach

    I mean we are already the only country on Earth that has ever actually dropped nuclear bombs on someone. Of course then it was total war. Nukes were new and Mutually Assured Destruction hadn’t been formulated yet. In the thought process of the time the nuke was just a really big bomb, and given the (relatively) weak power of those bombs, we got a pass. If we did it again in the fashion this Congressman describes, I’m sorry. We’d officially move into the Axis of Evil category. Yes, right there with Pol Pot and Stalin. You really want to be in that category?

    • joe

      Actually, when we first developed the bombs, the level of power was something of an unknown; it was a very new branch of physics. There was a real, non-trivial concern by some of the project team that it might result in a chain reaction and set off all the fissionable material on the planet.

      But we knew the Nazis were working on atomic weapons as well, and given the choice between us blowing the planet up and the ENEMY blowing the planet up, there was no choice at all.

      …Wow. That’s really not a happy sentance, is it?

  • Auyong Ah Meng

    Errhhh…

    Excuse me, does this congressman know which planet he is living on when he made this comment…

    Or he got marbles in his head when he made this comment…O.o….

    zzz

  • str8leg

    POGES they got nothing to worry about their kids WON”T go to combat!!!

  • What dam* IDIOT voted for this moron? He says stupider stuff than Biden. Didn’t really think that was possible.

  • Richard M

    Hey Hunter!, wait for the pop before opening your piehole!

  • Sulayman

    The senator should be neutered so he can’t contaminate the rest of the free world

  • George Morgan
  • Zspoiler

    Why are the Politicians so anxious to get into another war. The idiot probably has never served. And there is a little thing called nuclear fallout. Nuclear weapons used as the only resort.

  • Kienhoa68

    This is why you don’t want radical, reactionary persons in charge of the military. The idea is NOT to have a war. War is not a normal condition. This state-of-war mindset has much to do with the weapon issues our country faces. Maybe we could try a little peace. The lesson here might be that societies need to evolve at their own pace. Our interventions, whatever the intent, do not help that evolution.
    Afghanistan has rich mining potential and is likely the only real excuse to have influence there.

  • A male spouse

    As a male spouse of a twenty +year vet and a twenty year vet myself, I’m wondering if the good rep ever served himself????? Folks are so brave when they may not have served….

  • marks

    Anyone out there that has been looking at this backwards little country called Iran knows that one way or another we will someday be fighting a war with them. They cannot be trusted to keep their word, they still stone woman to death and rape and sell little girls to men for marriage. Does the world really need them. NO! Would the world be a better place without them..YES! Hit them with a couple of big nukes and get it over with. If any of those other towel heads say anything, hit them too! History shows that these people never believe in peace and have been fighting for 2000 years. Do you see any changes now? Better to wipe them out now than make our children pay later. I am sick of losing American Kids because of these people. All they understand is War…Give it to them once and for all. America needs to stop being such a P—-Y and show the rest of the countries out there that we will not take their crap anymore! Semper Fi

    • Ari

      “towel heads”! That’s the level of debate and intellect from people supporting Duncan Hunter. They actually call others “backwards”! The astonishing hypocrisy involved.

    • Thomas L. Nielsen

      Internet tough guys. Providing entertainment since 1969.

      Regards & all,

      Thomas L. Nielsen
      Luxembourg

  • DBrooks

    And we elect (and continue to re-elect) fools like this? No matter how he tries to walk this back (if he does), there is no context under which this is responsible commentary from a member of our governing body.

  • Yeah……go ahead and trust a Muslim ! FOOLS !!!

  • Mark, E8Ret

    what a loon. First, contrary to popular believe, we are now the world police. Second, nukes have only been used twice before – both times by us. I’m not saying we get rid of them, but I am saying we don’t use them.

    He just told Iran spread their computer files around, so they aren’t in one “hit” spot.

  • Diplomacy with bullets is alright, but with nukes? Well combatants should have the entire arsenal of weapons in his tool kit, to include the nukes, nonetheless, usage of weapons of mass destruction should be restricted to well selected combat leaders, nukes causes lots of collateral damage to the entire planet.

  • Leo OBrien

    Has anyone noticed the politicians who clamor for war, are not the same ones who must do the actual fighting and dieing. Let Congressman Hunter be the first one off the plane with the troops, or have a son or daughter involved with the conflict and see how he feels then. Besides I hear no one saying anything regarding Israel’s 200-400 undeclared nuclear weapons. Such hypocrisy.

  • tommy

    iam a senior man who if asked to go to war id go in a heart beat , I served in Viet Nam I can do it again, I can still run and take cover and shoot them sob’s that come my way..

    nosense having young men die, i have lived long enough, i can take the place of a youngster from getting killed..

  • RustyHalo

    Yeah, let off nukes in Iran and the US would go from laughing stock of the world to International Pariah.

    • Guest

      The US is no laughing stock. Other countries have merely gotten strong enough to assert their rights. As they should. For example, since the collapse of the USSR, the US Navy has sailed the world’s oceans unchallenged for the past 20 years. During this time, the geopolitical landscape has changed. The fact that Southeast Asian countries want to control their areas is reasonable and totally expected. That is not disrespectful. It is just that we have been arrogant enough to presume that we would be allowed to go anywhere and do anything we chose to forever. We still can, but it will prove to be a costly and counterproductive choice in the long run.

      Regarding Iran
      I do not believe that Iran is the imminent threat to the rest of the world as the media would have us believe. Despite our media’s propaganda, there are several important countries that stand ready to assist Iran if we struck without provocation. In this case, a pre-emptive nuclear strike is not going to happen.

  • Guest

    Actually Israeli Jews have a healthy contempt of American Christians. We should not let religious superstitions dictate foreign policy. This goes for all parties involved.

    The Jewish holocaust was bad, but more people died under Stalin’s regime than anywhere else. Where is your sympathy for their suffering? Frankly, Jews will not be able to milk their holocaust forever because global sympathy about it is drying up. It has been done and they were compensated. That should have been the end of it.

  • Chris

    So having nuclear weapons and NSA invading every world communication would meen that the US is legitimate target for nuclear strike. Who has not sinned cast the first stone.

  • gt350

    We don’t need a nuke, We need resolve , They really like to talk– there better prepared so we didn’t think of that, We really are saving so many Iranians from there idiot leaders they just don’t get it, and I hope we don’t have to make it clear.

  • soheil

    After 35 years Iranian government tried to negotiate with US government and come to an agreement on nuclear issue, why US congress and Israel try to pass more sanctions and
    talking about war ??Maybe Mr. Nataniahu wants this way?
    Soviet Union broke down with war ? ?
    In a real heavy war only civilians suffer and undemocratic regimes gain strength and find
    more reason to focus more on nuclear weapons instead of peace.

    Soheil
    IRAN

  • john

    that is the most stupidest idea a congressman can make.we don.t want those people to have atomic energy to be used for the wrong reasons and here we have a us congressman saying lets destroy them before its to late.and most of all with atomic bombs. real stupid congressman.

  • Dave Hylton

    How can it be possible for people that we elect to office to be so stupid as to suggest such a thing! We get the government we deserve!

  • Zspoiler

    Why are those idiots in congress so anxious to get us into another war .With nukes especially. with all the fallout. These people probably were never in military.We should only fight if there is absolutely no choice in the matter.

  • J M Brown

    The congressman Hunter should get rid of his cowboy outfit and retire his sidearm
    as it must be affecting his logical thinking. He should realize that in order to regain
    an appreciation by the rest of the world of American values, he should not exercise
    an “Ugly American Role” but one of wanting to work and accept others thoughts.