‘Psychic’ Bus Driver Fired After ‘Premonitions’ »« Cuccinelli Loves Him Some Gun Owners of America

Adelson Wants to Nuke Iran Now

Sheldon Adelson, the multi-billionaire casino magnate who spent more than $100 million in 2012 supporting Republican candidates, took part in a panel discussion at Yeshiva University about Iran’s nuclear program and said that he thinks we should nuke Iran immediately.

According to video obtained by Mondoweiss, Adelson scorned the current talks going on between the international community and Iran as not going nearly far enough to convince Iran not to acquire a nuclear weapon. “What are we gonna negotiate about?” Adelson scoffed, instead offering a much more direct method of convincing Iran to halt its enrichment activities.

“What I would say is, you see that desert out there? I wanna show you something,” Adelson can be heard saying on the video. “And so there’s an atomic weapon, goes over a ballistic missile, in the middle of the desert.” Adelson claimed that this wouldn’t affect anyone, except “maybe a couple of rattlesnakes and scorpions or whatever.” Despite that statement, a mapping of the fallout from the largest nuclear weapon the U.S. currently deploys, using the app NukeMap, shows that even a detonation in the middle of the desert would bring radiation to within 100 km of major Iranian cities.

This massive show of force, according to Adelson, would allow Americans to show resolve enough to make their next threat convincing. “Then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran,’” Adelson said, advising that the Iranian capital with a population of 7 million people be placed under threat. “So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development.”

I think advocating the use of nuclear weapons against a country on the hypothetical possibility that they might someday have the capability to do something bad should pretty much eliminate one’s credibility and right to be taken seriously as anything other than a madman.

Comments

  1. says

    I think advocating the use of nuclear weapons against a country on the hypothetical possibility that they might someday have the capability to do something bad should pretty much eliminate one’s credibility and right to be taken seriously as anything other than a madman.

    It fits into one perspective I’ve had on a lot of wingnut politics, though mostly in relation to the war on terror: Everything they advocate is based in fear. Mix it with the common false notion that being cowardly and being aggressive are mutually exclusive, and you get a chicken hawk who thinks going berserk makes him look courageous and strong, rather than weak-willed and panicky.

  2. schmeer says

    Shouldn’t we test this plan before we try it in Iran? Let’s use all that federally owned land in Nevada; it’s only desert. What’s it going to hurt but a casino or two if we miss. How is that plan Sheldon?

  3. Vicki, duly vaccinated tool of the feminist conspiracy says

    We are, already, the only nation to use nuclear weapons in battle. I suppose this person thinks the Iranians have never heard of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and that there are no images of the damage.

    And, of course, that nobody who matters would be downwind of the fallout. Even assuming he has no ethical or emotional concerns for anyone not a white American (and I think that’s likely), some of the likely downwind countries are nuclear powers themselves. When did the right wing become so sure of the self-restraint of the Russian government?

  4. dingojack says

    Paging SLC – SLC to the courtesy phone – Mr Sheldon Adelson wants to speak with you, will SLC please make his way to the white courtesy phone…
    @@i
    Dngo

  5. colnago80 says

    Hey, Adelson is my kind of guy. It’s about time that Iran be shown the mailed fist. The mad mullahs don’t understand the namby pamby come let us reason together approach. The only language they understand is a knee to the groin.

  6. Mr Ed says

    Diplomacy is not unlike going to prison. First day at prison you walk up to the biggest, meanest, nastiest guy and beat him within an inch of his life. If you don’t you will be seen as being weak and take advantage of. The only difference is that in diplomacy you have to repeat the beating every few years

  7. says

    Not to dip too deeply into the working of Adelson’s brain; I just want to say that TZA is no respecter of educational attainment or social station.

    FWIW, I suspect that once a piece-of-shit like Adelson was able to rid the mid-east of the scourge of Islam he’d start giving the christians a hard look. Racist bigoted assholes never change their tactics, just the targets.

    * Terminal Zealot Assholery

  8. naturalcynic says

    Vicki:

    Even assuming he has no ethical or emotional concerns for anyone not a white AmericanI Israeli (and I think that’s likely)

    FIFY
    He wouldn’t give a shit about the Pakistanis, Afghanis or Indians. But there might be trouble with his new buds in China if the wind is strong enough in that direction.

  9. pocketnerd says

    So we can use the threat of nuclear terrorism to end the threat of nuclear terrorism? Brilliant!

  10. Larry says

    There is nothing like a Jew who forgets his 20th century history and supports the genocide of a people.

  11. colnago80 says

    Re Larry @ #10

    Au contraire Larry, Adelson is trying to prevent a repeat of Frankenberger in the 21th Century.

  12. zenlike says

    I think advocating the use of nuclear weapons against a country on the hypothetical possibility that they might someday have the capability to do something bad should pretty much eliminate one’s credibility and right to be taken seriously as anything other than a madman.

    I completely agree, so what does this say about regular SLC/colnago80

    Au contraire Larry, Adelson is trying to prevent a repeat of Frankenberger in the 21th Century.

    By doing the exact same thing but against another racial group.

    Tell me, do you get off on imagining millions of innocents being vaporised by a nuclear blast SLC? Or are they brown enough so they don’t exactly qualify as people to you?

  13. bushrat says

    I wholeheartedly agree with Ole Shelly, we should nuke some desert wasteland as a warning to Iran. My vote is for the desert wasteland at 36.1217° N, 115.1658° W.

    I wonder what Shelly thinks of this target?

  14. lorn says

    I’m always bemused when conservatives think they are the special ones and, obviously, the only ones operating from higher principles. I’m pretty sure that if faced with a similar threat Adelson would, in the end, declare their love of freedom, in this case freedom to have nuclear weapons, was stronger than their love of life. As it appears the Iranians are doing, in the face of a much less profound, and much more nebulous, threat they are inching up to the line of being ready to commit to manufacturing them and then, when the time is right, jumping the line and showing up with them … knocking on the nuclear clubhouse door.

    Threats, particularly threats you are unwilling to follow through on, as the GOP learned recently, are crude tools for negotiations. If you get compliance it is likely to be limited, provisional, and temporary. As many have pointed out, when faced with a viscous dog you make nice (Nice doggy, nice doggy) and give ground, slowly back away, but you do so while feeling around for a suitable stick to protect yourself with.

    For Iran, previous victim of US machinations, the stick is nuclear weapons. Under threat most humans, nations, will seek to neutralize the threat and reestablish their freedom. There is also the matter of fallout dropping on China or Saudi Arabia, depending on the exact location and/or winds at the time. Not mentioning that the rest of the world might be concerned. Granted, it would be possible to minimize fallout with an air burst but you lose a lot of the visual effect.

    Then there is the sexual side. Ground bursts with their forcefully erect mushroom clouds, in effect shaking our penis at Iran, and the impressively receptive and feminine crater, is most likely what Mister Adelson is thinking of. As with most military issues a lot of the complication and tension goes away if everyone goes out and gets laid before the debate. Adelson is likely feeling a little rattled in the personal/national potency department, and his stock in defense contractors has been a little limp, what with the US out of Iraq and puling out of Afghanistan. His reflexive tendency is to leave them in there (get the job done) , work it until she smiles. Or at least until he can extract an orgasmic profit from his defense stock.

    There is also the matter of precedent. If the Iranians give in, and the rest of the world doesn’t massively object it establishes the precedent that any nuclear power can get whatever it wants simply by threatening any non-nuclear power. which means virtually every nation out there will be wanting nuclear weapons. It boggles the mind to think what effect a nuclear armed Somalia might have on the world. Every warlord will need a couple just to stay warm. A world where the Sharks and Jets both have nuclear weapons takes a rumble to a whole other level.

    Of course, none of this has made it to the frontal lobes of Mister Adelson. It is a sure thing that he thinks that he US is a very special, exceptional, case and what we do will have no bearing at all upon the behavior of other nations. For him it is simply a matter of the more powerful nation barking orders and the lesser one complying or dying. Authoritarians never get the concept of blowback, or unintended consequences.

  15. vmanis1 says

    Just to clarify, `Frankenberger’ is colnago’s pet name for Adolf Hitler. This is based on the supposed claim that Hitler’s grandfather was a Jewish man named Leopold Frankenberger, whose very existence is disputed. It’s interesting that the major proponent of this theory was Hans Frank, Hitler’s lawyer, who remained anti-Semitic after the war, and wanted to discredit Hitler as an inauthentic Nazi (`No True Scotsman Austrian…’) Even Frank was kind of vague about this, saying only that possibly Alois Hitler’s father could have been this possibly non-existent individual.

    Colnago’s obsession with this Frankenberger theory, on the dubious and ambiguous word of a Nazi with an axe to grind, betrays a certain lack of judgement.

    In actuality, of course, Hitler’s grandfather was named Helmuth (`Schmutzi’) Frankenberry, and this appears on his father Alois’s long-form birth certificate. This unfortunate naming coincidence is credited by some historians (Orly Taitz, for example) with Adolf Frankenberry’s later enthusiasm for the Tripartite Pact, which was signed at the Brenner Pass, with Italy (represented by Count Chocula) and Japan (represented by Admiral Yamamoto’s personal representative, Cap’n Crunch).

    Now that’s history!

  16. vmanis1 says

    Just a slight clarification to the fact-based part of my previous comment. I said that Hans Frank `remained anti-Semitic after the war’. To avoid any misinterpretation, I should be clear, Frank did so remain after the war, but he didn’t remain for long. He was found guilty of war crimes at Nuremberg, and executed in 1946.

  17. daved says

    Making an omelet requires breaking a few egg shells.

    Your willingness to kill people who aren’t you (or your loved ones, if you have any), is a true inspiration to us all.

    OK, I’ll accept your devotion to principle if you’re willing to go stand at ground zero when this warning shot is fired. Otherwise, you’re just another thug.

  18. says

    Au contraire Larry, Adelson is trying to prevent a repeat of Frankenberger in the 21th Century.

    HIS. NAME. WAS. HITLER.

    Seriously, this “Frankenberger” business does not make you look intelligent. It makes you look STUPID.

    Of course, so does your willingness to endorse the use of weapons of mass destruction as a tactic for diplomacy.

  19. colnago80 says

    Re Flewellyn @ #20

    In fairness, Adelson’s statement made it clear that the nuclear weapon he proposed be set off in the desert as a shot across the bow as it were. Presumably, it would be a low yield weapon ~1 Kt or less. If we don’t have such weapons, we could always procure one from Israel which has a fair sized armory of such weapons, designed to be used against the Palestinians, if necessary. Only if it failed to get the attention of the mad mullahs in Tehran would something more authoritative be used on that shithole.

  20. colnago80 says

    Re daved @ #19

    We showed no reluctance to use incendiaries against civilian populations in Germany and Japan during WW2, that caused as many or more causalities as a 20 Kt nuclear weapon would have. As Roosevelt said in a speech delivered shortly after Pearl Harbor, Frankenberger has been asking for it for a long time and now he’s going to get it.

  21. says

    colnago80 @ 21:

    In fairness, Adelson’s statement made it clear that the nuclear weapon he proposed be set off in the desert as a shot across the bow as it were.

    WHICH IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY BAD IDEA.

    Seriously, the geopolitical truth since 1948 has been that anyone who fires off a nuclear weapon in anger WILL face retaliation from other nuclear-armed nations. Nukes, even small ones, are not the sort of thing you sling around willy-nilly. There is a reason the “Davy Crockett” nuclear artillery round was cancelled, and it’s not because the thing didn’t work; it worked great. It’s because the use of any nuclear device in warfare is politically radioactive (as well as literally).

    Only if it failed to get the attention of the mad mullahs in Tehran would something more authoritative be used on that shithole.

    You keep referring to Iran as a “shithole”, but how would you know? Have you been there?

    Granted, I don’t think much of their government…but the people there are generally decent, something I can say having known a number of Iranians. And the country is beautiful, in a rugged, mountainous sort of way.

    So you want to ruin a large part of it just because you don’t like the government? Radioactive fallout being what it is, the “desert blast” idea is a terrible one. It would expose people and the biosphere in general to toxic levels of radiation for no good purpose, and would likely instigate the very sort of warfare you’re so eager to avoid.

    colnago80 @ 22:

    Frankenberger

    HITLER. HIS NAME WAS HITLER. SAYING FRANKENBERGER JUST MAKES YOU LOOK MORE STUPID.

  22. colnago80 says

    Re Flewellyn @ #23

    The fallout from a low yield device would be minimal. The yield of 1 Kt is smaller by a factor of 20 or more then nuclear weapons that were tested in in the 1950s and 1960s. That’s why Israel developed such weapons to use against the Palestinians if necessary. By the way, the, shithole referred to was Tehran.

  23. says

    Using a nuclear weapon against another nation in any capacity is a serious escalation and only increases the odds of further nuclear strikes. It is nothing more than brinkmanship at its worst.

  24. Michael Heath says

    Ed writes:

    I think advocating the use of nuclear weapons against a country on the hypothetical possibility that they might someday have the capability to do something bad should pretty much eliminate one’s credibility and right to be taken seriously as anything other than a madman.

    An alternative explanation is that such a person has the emotional maturity of a fifteen year-old boy who is also suffering from penis envy.

  25. thomasmorris says

    colango @ 28 – Oh, that’s adorable. The piece of shit openly advocating for genocide is worried about other people seeming “disagreeable.”

    You deserve no respect and no consideration, you vile-minded and evil fuck I’ve met many Iranians – each and every one of them is a far better and more moral human being than you could ever hope to be.

    Have you no shame at all?

  26. John Pieret says

    I think advocating the use of nuclear weapons against a country on the hypothetical possibility that they might someday have the capability to do something bad should pretty much eliminate one’s credibility and right to be taken seriously as anything other than a madman.

    I think you are being exceedingly, exceedingly generous.

  27. dan4 says

    There is something very, very “off” about a person who has no problems with the prospect of the nuclear annihilation of an entire country, but who DOES have problems (for some weird, inexplicable reason) with referring to Hitler as, well, Hitler.

  28. dingojack says

    SLC (#20) – actually, there are several ways to make an omelette that don’t involve ‘breaking eggshells’ (see if you can think of some ways of doing this*).

    As discussed (several times) before, even small nuclear strikes could have disastrous consequences for us all. Political fallout (so to speak) is just one of them.

    Dingo
    ——–
    * That’ll keep you from surfing the net for mushroom cloud pictures for a while (it’ll save you from sticky keyboards too).

  29. colnago80 says

    Re Flewellyn @ #23

    Seriously, the geopolitical truth since 1948 has been that anyone who fires off a nuclear weapon in anger WILL face retaliation from other nuclear-armed nations.

    Oh really, who does Flewellyn think is going to retaliate? Russia? China? Great Britain? France? Israel? That would be the least of our concerns.

    I’ve met many Iranians – each and every one of them is a far better and more moral human being than you could ever hope to be.

    I have also met a number of Iranians, all of whom are refugees from the mad mullahs who currently misrule Iran and I would agree that they are nice people. Unfortunately, the mad mullahs are not nice people; in fact, they are a lot less nice then the Shah was.

  30. matty1 says

    I have two questions for colnago80.

    1. Are there any circumstances under which you would not support bombing Iran? Overthrow of the supreme leader, mass public suicide of all Shia clerics, ceding the entire land area to Israel?

    2. Have you ever considered doing a duet with John McCain on your shared favourite song?

  31. colnago80 says

    Re matty1

    If Iran gives up it’s nuclear weapons program and agrees to unlimited inspection of all its known and suspected sites, I would agree that a bombing campaign would not be warranted. In fact, I would be in favor of assisting Iran in the peaceful use of nuclear energy for electricity production.

  32. matty1 says

    Given talks aimed at achieving that are ongoing, you don’t think we should maybe give them a chance rather than bombing first and scuppering the chances of such a deal?

    Also pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease do the song!

  33. dingojack says

    US,(& Israel) first.
    Nah didn’t think so. Rules are for thee not for me. Amiright?
    Dingo

  34. zenlike says

    SLC:

    Making an omelet requires breaking a few egg shells.

    Probably the same was said by officers of the SS and the Einsatzgruppen in WW2.

    Only if it failed to get the attention of the mad mullahs in Tehran would something more authoritative be used on that shithole.

    By the way, the, shithole referred to was Tehran.

    That shithole also houses some 7-8 million people. Quite a few eggshells.

    I have also met a number of Iranians, all of whom are refugees from the mad mullahs who currently misrule Iran and I would agree that they are nice people. Unfortunately, the mad mullahs are not nice people;

    And to teach those mullahs a lesson that they are not nice we have to murder a couple of million Iranians who weren’t so lucky to escape.

    Hey, the mad mullahs are a bunch of sweethearts. Not.

    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/10/24/iran-gives-christians-80-lashes-for-communion-wine-as-un-blasts-human-rights/

    The irony of calling the mullahs ‘not nice’ when they ‘only’ gave lashes to some people (*) when your plan would mean the nuclear holocaust of the same people.

    (*) no I’m not condoning the lashings, but murdering someone is several orders of magnitude worse.

  35. pocketnerd says

    Thus Spake Zaradan4:

    There is something very, very “off” about a person who has no problems with the prospect of the nuclear annihilation of an entire country, but who DOES have problems (for some weird, inexplicable reason) with referring to Hitler as, well, Hitler.

    I’ve seen the “Frankenberger” meme before. It seems to be associated with anti-semites who want to reframe World War II as a struggle between two factions of Those Evil Jews European Bankers.

    Something you want to tell us, SLC?

  36. colnago80 says

    Re Zenlike @ #41


    And to teach those mullahs a lesson that they are not nice we have to murder a couple of million Iranians who weren’t so lucky to escape.

    Well, Frankenberger and Tojo were even less nice then the mullahs who misrule Iran and several million Japanese and Germans had their chips cashed in to teach them a lesson.

  37. Michael Hoaglin says

    “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

    Invariably referring to Hitler by another name and still expecting to influence people. The stupid runs deep in this one.

  38. says

    Yeah, we gotta attack Iran to keep them from getting nuclear weapons…just like we had to attack the USSR and China for the same reason. Remember how we all understood how much danger humanity would be in if those countries weren’t preemptively nuked…oh wait…

    As for all this asinine talk about “preventing another Hitler,” I’d just like to point out that Hitler (yes, that was always his real name) and the entire fanatical nationalist revanchist movement he led arose from a concerted campaign to do pretty much the same thing to Germany as Adelson and SLC! want to do to Iran: keep Germany weak so they’d give up their heathen savage ways. Historical experience clearly shows that trying to keep a country weak doesn’t prevent aggressive nationalist tyrants — it creates them!

    Seriously, folks, who in his right mind really thinks that an unprovoked attack on Iran would make them — or any other country or ethnic group — LESS aggressive or angry?

  39. says

    If Iran gives up it’s nuclear weapons program and agrees to unlimited inspection of all its known and suspected sites, I would agree that a bombing campaign would not be warranted.

    Yeah, right…the Iranians should have no problem trusting people like Adelson and SLC1 to judge their compliance fairly, right?

    That’s the everlasting rub: this whole campaign to beat whole countries into compliance is based on a level of hate and fear that will simply not respond to facts and actions. Does anyone really think people like SLC1 will EVER accept that the heathen savages don’t really need to be beaten down after all? The wingnuts’ emotional investment in their policy of war is so great that once they started to get their way, they would never be able to let go of the fear that makes them relevant. Remember, these are the same dirtballs, and the same attitude of “we can never trust them until they’re 100% COMPLETELY subdued,” that got us to invade Iraq even though there was never aly real proof that they had a WMD capability.

  40. colnago80 says

    Re Raging Bee @ #46

    As usual, the Fairfax flatulent phoney displays his monumental ignorance of history. The fact is that the allies in WW1 were content with a negotiated settlement with Germany, albeit with some pretty crippling economic sanctions. That mistake was not repeated in WW2 where Germany and Japan had the shit kicked out of them and surrendered unconditionally. Notice how peaceful Germany and Japan have been ever since. IMHO, a good precedent for Iran and the mad mullahs that run the place.

Leave a Reply