Republican Representative Makes Shocking Statement about Using Nukes Against Iran

duncan-hunterI’m telling you, Republicans won’t rest until we’re at war with Iran.

Which is an opinion that seems supported by comments made by Republican California Representative Duncan Hunter when he said:

“I think if you have to hit Iran, you don’t put boots on the ground.  You do it with tactical nuclear devices, and you set them back a decade or two or three. I think that’s the way to do it, with a massive aerial bombardment campaign.”

In other words, if we end up going to war with Iran, skip the basics and go straight for the nukes.  Sound military strategy — if you’re insane.

Oh, but he claims he hopes war with Iran isn’t inevitable.  Sure he does.  It’s pretty clear that following the war in Iraq, Iran has been the next target for war they’ve been working toward.

He then went on to basically say that any form of traditional war and nation building is pointless, and essentially called both the war in Iraq and Afghanistan pointless:

“I think America now knows its limitations in that area and what we can do.  Do we want to spend 20 years there after we tear it down to build it back up again so that it isn’t run by a crazy tyrannical leader like has happened in, let’s say Iraq and Afghanistan again.  You’ve got some crazy guys running the governments there.”

Yup, he basically said everything Bush tried to accomplish as president in Iraq and Afghanistan was utterly pointless.  Which is something I happen to actually agree with, though the context of what he said is entirely different from what I believe.

I believe both wars were pointless because they had goals which simply weren’t obtainable.  Or, as it relates to the war in Iraq, “goals” that were completely based on lies.

Rep. Hunter clearly feels that the Middle East is hopeless so why even bother, just nuke ’em all!

He’s right about one other thing — war with Iran would be incredibly difficult.  Mostly surrounded by mountains, if we were ever to go to war with Iran, it would probably be one of the bloodiest wars our nation would ever face.  Not to mention the third-party ramifications that could possibly lead us perilously close to war with China or Russia.

This is why when I see diplomacy being attempted,  I fully support it.  Iran is not Iraq, it’s a much more complicated situation.  One that requires far more intelligence than Representative Hunter displayed with his moronic comments about using nuclear weapons against the country.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.

Comments

Facebook comments

  • Hightops!

    “…tactical nuclear devices…”, “…a massive aerial bombardment campaign.”

    Just how many modern 1.2 mt bombs dose this jackweed think it would take?
    One for each of their 6 largest cities would kill about 1/5th of their entire population.

    His intention seems to be to kill every body in the country.
    Thing is that that goal could not be reached without “boots on the ground”.

    Bet you he thinks of himself as a good christian…

  • Shane Patrick

    maybe we just need to start minding our own business and stop trying to run the world?

    • Michael Slattery

      Support the troops, bring ’em home and keep ’em home.

  • surfjac

    Hey, don’t criticize him for this suggestion…after all, consider how brief a nuclear attack would be vs. putting boots on the ground for a decade with guns, bullets and equipment purchased from our patriotic military industrial complex. He’s just trying to save America some money, after all!
    /snark

    • strayaway

      Sounds too much like Truman.

      • hermanprovi

        You seem to know NOTHING about Truman! True, Truman was no Bush/Cheney!

      • strayaway

        Truman chose to drop two atomic bombs on Japanese civilians to save US soldiers’ lives who would otherwise have died occupying Japan. I’m not making a judgement. Truman didn’t just suggest bombing like this Republican did, Truman bombed. That fact is relevant to surfjac’s comment. What’s your problem?

      • hermanprovi

        Wjerde do you see a problem?

      • Beth

        Actually, Truman wanted to see what his new toys could do. It was later acknowledged that neither Hiroshima or Nagasaki had manufacturing, they were suburbs. (Oh and let’s not forget that the Japanese were trying to surrender when the bombs were dropped.)

    • Adam of Portland

      I had no idea nukes were so inexpensive.

      • surfjac

        Compared to the frequency of use of other forms of ordinance in long occupation, not to mention support of troops and missions as well as the medical care for the wounded?
        50 million dollars for a bomb vs.

        “Iraq, Afghan wars will cost to $4 trillion to $6 trillion, Harvard study says”
        Relatively speaking…a nuclear strike can be less expensive than a protracted occupation. I don’t want either.

  • Gary Menten

    Yeah….use American nukes to destroy Iran’s nonexistent nukes. Apparently this great military genius (he’s a major in the USMC reserve, BTW) doesn’t think the US has enough people hating it the Muslim world already.

  • patuxant

    What an imbecile! What people voted him into office? Set Iran back decades? It is already in the dark ages to begin with. So let’s kill innocent people that live there? What is this world coming to??????????????????

  • hermanprovi

    Another republican willing to have many killed except one, himself. If this guy were to join the Armed services, and be deployed in any of the ‘war zones’ we are currently involved in, then he could not be considered a coward, wanting OTHERS to do the killing for him! Of course, history has TAUGHT us the ‘war’ is a solution and makes the world a safe place. Show us your war record Mr. Hunter! Your purple heart would be nice to see!!!!!!!!!!

  • Jeane Cameron

    Sounds like the usual CHICKENHAWK argument But he should know better with his background. We need to put HIS boots on the ground… Lead on Rep Hunter, see if any or your fellow travelers wants to join you in person. I bet he just wants to play with the BIG GUN… compensating?????
    .

  • Michael Slattery

    Israel will settle this very soon. They blew up a nuke in Iraq, another in Syria and they will find a way to take out Iran’s nuclear capability.

  • Adam of Portland

    How come, when our kids talk about other kids being mean to them, we say not to play with them, but as adults, when other countries are “mean,” we still do business with them?

  • Mr Smith

    He doesn’t even care about rebuilding… You nuke a city and you can’t rebuild for a very very long time. He is only interested in killing Iranians for what ever reason. If he were interested in occupation he would learn about a thing called a neutron bomb. No fallout, no residual radiation, no collateral damage and no living creatures. Iran is a sovereign nation and a democracy, not a very honest or well developed one but they still deserve diplomacy like any other nation.

  • raggedcompany

    It legitimately frightens me that there are elected officials who think this way.

  • Matthew Reece

    I am sometimes asked why I do not believe that libertarians can be Republicans. Duncan Hunter demonstrates why. The non-aggression principle, one of the foundations of libertarian philosophy, certainly forbids mass murder in an unprovoked attack with nuclear weapons.