IraN, not IraQ!

[noel]

Maybe it's because Iran hates us, sponsors terrorism, is unstable, and ruled by religious fanatics? Just a thought...

Israel NEEDS nukes. Just about every country around them wants them wiped off the map...them having nukes is a deterrent, plain and simple. Israel doesn't have them to blackmail or threaten anyone or for any aggressive purposes- that can hardly be said for Iran or N. Korea.

I agree that Iran has been for a long time, a sponsor of terrorism, and unstable. We have no one but ourselves to thank for that. If you don't believe me, please pick up a history book. I'm not saying that for my health or because I'm some kind of liberal parrot.

I don't agree that Israel 'needs nukes'. There is no country on this planet that 'NEEDS' nukes. The only country on this planet to ever use a nuclear weapon in anger is the United States of America. Once again, check a history book if you don't believe me, but they've proven themselves quite capable of winning conventional wars. Additionally, I don't believe it's ever been admitted that Israel actually has nukes. The deterrent they have is their conventional military, and their US backing and equipment.

[Hoarmurath]

Well the US did give Israel their nukes.

Not quite true. Israel got their nukes on their own, although France helped them out quite a bit. We still don't know the full extent of their nuclear arsenal, other than what the U.S. intelligence community has figured out/assumed/guessed. (insert joke about bumbling U.S. intelligence community here)

Additionally, I don't believe it's ever been admitted that Israel actually has nukes.

All you need to know, and more, about Israel's nuclear weapons can be found at the Federation of American Scientists website. Specifically, <a href="http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/israel/nu ... html">this page</a> talks about Israel's nukes.

[Sirton]

Its about a gov't that has nukes that may use them as a first strike offensive weapon. They do not have the safe gaps the US and others have. If the Leadership feels lets blow em up for God they will do it.

Yes the people of Iran if given time would be able to get it in order. There are many good people in Iran, but that doesn't say the same for there government, which time is running out to remove that fanatical crap-hole of a gov't.


Example:
How safe would you guys feel if the Christian right took over the the United States completely in a basic dictatorship. The other side had no power in the government, and then the right believed that what they were doing was in the act of God and all his glory to destroy Europe even if it meant by using Nuclear weapons as a first strike device not in defense or prolonged conventional war to lower the body count.

The US isnt all of the sudden one day gonna nuke so and so, and no other country is that has them will, unless Pakistan is takin over by fanatics. We do not have any guarantee that the Iran gov't won't be like the others with this capability, and its not worth the risk or the roll of the dice with there record.

I agree that Iran has been for a long time, a sponsor of terrorism, and unstable. We have no one but ourselves to thank for that. If you don't believe me, please pick up a history book. I'm not saying that for my health or because I'm some kind of liberal parrot.

I don't agree that Israel 'needs nukes'. There is no country on this planet that 'NEEDS' nukes. The only country on this planet to ever use a nuclear weapon in anger is the United States of America. Once again, check a history book if you don't believe me, but they've proven themselves quite capable of winning conventional wars. Additionally, I don't believe it's ever been admitted that Israel actually has nukes. The deterrent they have is their conventional military, and their US backing and equipment.

Agree, wish there were no nukes or WMD's but there are, and I think its urgent that the Un the US the World does all it can to stop the proliferation of these weapons. No One 'NEEDS' nukes, but as long as governments have desire to get them there will always be Nukes, and if a governmen't gets them while others have them? they sure in hell are not gonna get rid of theres. Exp if a government may use them as a first strike weapon.

[Rekaar.]

I agree that Iran has been for a long time, a sponsor of terrorism, and unstable. We have no one but ourselves to thank for that. If you don't believe me, please pick up a history book. I'm not saying that for my health or because I'm some kind of liberal parrot.

I don't agree that Israel 'needs nukes'. There is no country on this planet that 'NEEDS' nukes. The only country on this planet to ever use a nuclear weapon in anger is the United States of America. Once again, check a history book if you don't believe me, but they've proven themselves quite capable of winning conventional wars. Additionally, I don't believe it's ever been admitted that Israel actually has nukes. The deterrent they have is their conventional military, and their US backing and equipment.

I don't think it matters why Iran it what it is or why everyone but the US seems to hate Israel. I think what matters here is offensive threat vs defensive intent. But more than that it's non-proliferation. Why add another nation for terrorists to steal nukes from? What reasonable purpose does Iran have for getting a nuke? Why in the world would ANYONE support them or anyone else that doesn't have them yet developing nukes? Socialism sucks =p

Two wrongs don't make a right either. It's not about "fairness" when we're talking about making WMDs more widely available.

I think Iran needs nuclear power in a big way. Unless they are provided an alternative to that it will just be a matter of time before they play with it enough to make a bomb though =/ Doesn't meant we should encourage it.

[noel]

I don't think it matters why Iran it what it is or why everyone but the US seems to hate Israel.

I was making a point as a response to the previous thread. I'd definitely prefer that no more countries have nuclear weapons.

I think what matters here is offensive threat vs defensive intent. But more than that it's non-proliferation. Why add another nation for terrorists to steal nukes from?

What you mean like Pakistan? Don't be fooled by the fact that we call them our allies. Popular sentiment amongst the Pakistani populace is decidedly anti-American. Part of this is due to our actions/foreign policy with regards to Iraq/Afganistan/Al Quaeda/Israel, and yet another part is more focused on our relationship with India. The possibility of Pakistan's military dictatorship being overthrown by radicals is VERY real.

What reasonable purpose does Iran have for getting a nuke? Why in the world would ANYONE support them or anyone else that doesn't have them yet developing nukes? Socialism sucks =p

Two wrongs don't make a right either. It's not about "fairness" when we're talking about making WMDs more widely available.

I think Iran needs nuclear power in a big way. Unless they are provided an alternative to that it will just be a matter of time before they play with it enough to make a bomb though =/ Doesn't meant we should encourage it.

The point I'm making is that if our attitude is, don't make a nuke or we'll invade you and kick your ass, we need to stop being selective in how we apply that. That said, it's hypocrisy at its finest to tell others not to develop nukes (no matter how noble that sentiment is) when we ourselves have probably the largest cache of nuclear weapons in the world.

Please don't read my post and think, he's supporting Iran having nukes. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying we need to examine our foreign policy, and apply it in a more realistic and balanced manner.

[MooZilla]

Wait...when have we heard this before...

WMD's suspected....No solid proof.....We want to go to war....

Oh, yeah, now i remember. Welcome to Spring Break Tehran!

[Rekaar.]

How is it hypocritical to realize the destructive potential of something and do everything you can to keep it from spreading? You could almost compare it to a disease in that respect. If a virus springs up in Europe is it hypocritical to prevent it from spreading? =p

My view is based on nukes not being something that makes your country win the "cool" contest. If you need nukes to feel cooler than your competition and it was just a status symbol then I could see where you're coming from. If it was really all just for show there'd be nothing to worry about!

[noel]

How is it hypocritical to realize the destructive potential of something and do everything you can to keep it from spreading? You could almost compare it to a disease in that respect. If a virus springs up in Europe is it hypocritical to prevent it from spreading? =p

My view is based on nukes not being something that makes your country win the "cool" contest. If you need nukes to feel cooler than your competition and it was just a status symbol then I could see where you're coming from. If it was really all just for show there'd be nothing to worry about!

Do you even read my posts? The US allows Israel, Pakistan, India, and other countries to have nukes, but they throw a fucking temper tantrum when Iran starts to develop them. The hypocrisy is... you can't say, nukes are bad, no one should have them if A) you have them and B) you don't say that evenly to everyone that has them.

[Brotha]

The US isn't saying "nukes are bad," the US is saying "nukes in the wrong hands are bad."

It'd be like you saying "how come the government will let people in the military have automatic weapons, but prosecutes civilians who have them?! That's so hypocritical!!

And I don't need you to tell me that the US has had a disasterous policy regarding the middle east for quite sometime, thanks for the history lesson though.

So what if the US is the only country that has ever used nukes? What are you trying to say?

[Lohrno]

"nukes are bad," the US is saying "nukes in the wrong hands are bad."

And obviously Israel is the right hands...

-=Lohrno

[Brotha]

"nukes are bad," the US is saying "nukes in the wrong hands are bad."

And obviously Israel is the right hands...

-=Lohrno

Yes, because Israel is likely to give nukes to terrorists, blackmail nations, or use them for aggressive purposes . I realize you expected this to go unchallenged, because everyone knows Israel is the devil, even worse than the US!! But I think we both know the only time Israel would ever use a nuke is when their country was being invaded and their people being slaughtered.

[Lohrno]

Yes, because Israel is likely to give nukes to terrorists, blackmail nations, or use them for aggressive purposes . I realize you expected this to go unchallenged, because everyone knows Israel is the devil, even worse than the US!! But I think we both know the only time Israel would ever use a nuke is when their country was being invaded and their people being slaughtered.

I think it was even you who posted the article. They were like "We must stop Iran from getting nukes at all costs."

So if Iran sends the army in, and the US does not back them (yeah right) what do you think they're going to do? If Israel attacks Iran for having nukes, that's aggressive enough for me to merit saying they shouldn't have them.

For what it's worth the PLA is just as bad. I'd feel the same way about them having nukes.

-=Lohrno

[noel]

The US isn't saying "nukes are bad," the US is saying "nukes in the wrong hands are bad."

It'd be like you saying "how come the government will let people in the military have automatic weapons, but prosecutes civilians who have them?! That's so hypocritical!!

And I don't need you to tell me that the US has had a disasterous policy regarding the middle east for quite sometime, thanks for the history lesson though.

So what if the US is the only country that has ever used nukes? What are you trying to say?

WTF, you're right! The US is infallible and utterly consistent in the manner in which we allow foreign nations to proliferate nuclear weapons. Not only that, our foreign policy is consistent all across the board. That's why we're on our way to African to stop the genocide that's going on there...

[Forthe]

I fully support Iran developing nuclear weapons. With a very real national security threat from the US I believe they have a basic right to have a means to defend themselves. With all this pre-emptive bullshit going on everyone will need a nuclear deterent.

Odds of Iran using nukes offensively vs the odds of the US invading if Iran does not have nukes.....not even close. As much as you make the Iranian government to be a bunch of crazy religious fanatics they have not acted offensively against any of their neighbors. Religious nutcases they may be but they seem to be isolationist nutcases. Wish the US was more like them.

[Nick]

Well said Noel, that hit's it on the head.

Exactly.

Brotha, you clearly fell asleep in history.

[Aabidano]

The US allows Israel, Pakistan, India, and other countries to have nukes

Other than the UK, I'm not aware that the US govt was involved in or happy about anyone getting nuclear weapons. I don't know the extent of our involvement with Israel getting them, I'd thought the technology and materials had initially come from France.

We essentially severed relations with Pakistan and pulled all our people stationed there out over this issue 15-20 years ago. Just recently we've become involved with them again, because we needed them. We weren't too happy about India either, theirs came from\originated in the USSR IIRC, because we wouldn't help them in that repect. That's when we initially became involved with Pakistan to counter the USSR's influence in India.

*Edit - I'd wager the most likely "first strike suspect" in the region is Israel reacting to a percieved or real threat. At a guess, Iran already has Soviet era nukes that are becoming unreliable\unmaintainable.

[Lalanae]

http://news.scotsman.com/international. ... 1327562004

KREMLIN watchers could be forgiven for thinking they had woken up back in the USSR during a particularly tense moment of the Cold War.

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, yesterday announced, out of the blue, that Moscow has developed a new, secret and terrible nuclear weapon unequalled elsewhere in the world.

In language laced with Cold War rhetoric, he told Russians that the country was on the threshold of a mighty new security doctrine with, as its centrepiece, new nuclear weapons which "will be put into service in the next few years and, what is more, they will be developments of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have".

His announcement was all the more bizarre because the speech was aimed primarily against terrorists - the one group of enemies who are, by their nature, not best dealt with by nuclear weapons.

"We are conducting research and are testing the most up-to-date nuclear missile systems, which, I’m sure, will be supplied to the armed forces in the near future," Mr Putin was quoted as telling news agencies.

It left defence experts outside Russia scratching their heads.

Duncan Bullivant, director of the London-based defence consultancy Henderson Risk, said: "Nukes are only useful against area targets, there’s nothing tactical about a nuclear weapon.

"From a military point of view it’s illogical to be looking to deploy new nuclear weapons when the threat comes from terrorists."

The announcement is also puzzling because it is hard to see how much more effective nuclear weapons can become. The good old fashioned H-bomb already seems to be a weapon at the top of its evolutionary tree: a single bomb can devastate an entire city, so increasing the yield would make little difference to its effectiveness.

True, a new mobile launcher for Russia’s Topol-M ballistic missile was announced earlier this month, making the weapon much easier to hide. But the basic nuclear equation remains the same: if one side uses them, the other side can launch devastating retaliation.

If Mr Putin’s unexpected statement had the ring of a Soviet era pronouncement it fits into a pattern of recent Kremlin communiqués.

(edit)

But abroad, yesterday’s announcement is likely to ring alarm bells among fellow nuclear powers who, until now, had assumed they were partners, not rivals to Moscow.

(edit)

But Mr Putin gives every indication that he is on a mission to restore Russian strength and pride, and his message to the rest of the world is likely to be - watch out.

[Animalor]

http://news.scotsman.com/international. ... 1327562004

KREMLIN watchers could be forgiven for thinking they had woken up back in the USSR during a particularly tense moment of the Cold War.

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, yesterday announced, out of the blue, that Moscow has developed a new, secret and terrible nuclear weapon unequalled elsewhere in the world.

In language laced with Cold War rhetoric, he told Russians that the country was on the threshold of a mighty new security doctrine with, as its centrepiece, new nuclear weapons which "will be put into service in the next few years and, what is more, they will be developments of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have".

His announcement was all the more bizarre because the speech was aimed primarily against terrorists - the one group of enemies who are, by their nature, not best dealt with by nuclear weapons.

"We are conducting research and are testing the most up-to-date nuclear missile systems, which, I’m sure, will be supplied to the armed forces in the near future," Mr Putin was quoted as telling news agencies.

It left defence experts outside Russia scratching their heads.

Duncan Bullivant, director of the London-based defence consultancy Henderson Risk, said: "Nukes are only useful against area targets, there’s nothing tactical about a nuclear weapon.

"From a military point of view it’s illogical to be looking to deploy new nuclear weapons when the threat comes from terrorists."

The announcement is also puzzling because it is hard to see how much more effective nuclear weapons can become. The good old fashioned H-bomb already seems to be a weapon at the top of its evolutionary tree: a single bomb can devastate an entire city, so increasing the yield would make little difference to its effectiveness.

True, a new mobile launcher for Russia’s Topol-M ballistic missile was announced earlier this month, making the weapon much easier to hide. But the basic nuclear equation remains the same: if one side uses them, the other side can launch devastating retaliation.

If Mr Putin’s unexpected statement had the ring of a Soviet era pronouncement it fits into a pattern of recent Kremlin communiqués.

(edit)

But abroad, yesterday’s announcement is likely to ring alarm bells among fellow nuclear powers who, until now, had assumed they were partners, not rivals to Moscow.

(edit)

But Mr Putin gives every indication that he is on a mission to restore Russian strength and pride, and his message to the rest of the world is likely to be - watch out.

Sounds to me like Russa wants to turn both Pakistan and Afghanistan into a sea of glass.

[Akaran_D]

And a few other countires I can think of off the top of my head but can't spell.

[Atokal]

http://news.scotsman.com/international. ... 1327562004

KREMLIN watchers could be forgiven for thinking they had woken up back in the USSR during a particularly tense moment of the Cold War.

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, yesterday announced, out of the blue, that Moscow has developed a new, secret and terrible nuclear weapon unequalled elsewhere in the world.

In language laced with Cold War rhetoric, he told Russians that the country was on the threshold of a mighty new security doctrine with, as its centrepiece, new nuclear weapons which "will be put into service in the next few years and, what is more, they will be developments of the kind that other nuclear powers do not and will not have".

His announcement was all the more bizarre because the speech was aimed primarily against terrorists - the one group of enemies who are, by their nature, not best dealt with by nuclear weapons.

"We are conducting research and are testing the most up-to-date nuclear missile systems, which, I’m sure, will be supplied to the armed forces in the near future," Mr Putin was quoted as telling news agencies.

It left defence experts outside Russia scratching their heads.

Duncan Bullivant, director of the London-based defence consultancy Henderson Risk, said: "Nukes are only useful against area targets, there’s nothing tactical about a nuclear weapon.

"From a military point of view it’s illogical to be looking to deploy new nuclear weapons when the threat comes from terrorists."

The announcement is also puzzling because it is hard to see how much more effective nuclear weapons can become. The good old fashioned H-bomb already seems to be a weapon at the top of its evolutionary tree: a single bomb can devastate an entire city, so increasing the yield would make little difference to its effectiveness.

True, a new mobile launcher for Russia’s Topol-M ballistic missile was announced earlier this month, making the weapon much easier to hide. But the basic nuclear equation remains the same: if one side uses them, the other side can launch devastating retaliation.

If Mr Putin’s unexpected statement had the ring of a Soviet era pronouncement it fits into a pattern of recent Kremlin communiqués.

(edit)

But abroad, yesterday’s announcement is likely to ring alarm bells among fellow nuclear powers who, until now, had assumed they were partners, not rivals to Moscow.

(edit)

But Mr Putin gives every indication that he is on a mission to restore Russian strength and pride, and his message to the rest of the world is likely to be - watch out.

Sounds to me like Russa wants to turn both Pakistan and Afghanistan into a sea of glass.

Nope this is a direct response to the USA's missile defense initiative, and a play to put Russia back on the map as a world Super Power.

Of all the stupid policies that the Bush administration has put into play I have to say the Ballistic Missile Defense Strategy is the dumbest. All this does in theory is cause other nuclear capable nations to rethink their weapons systems and come up with new and improved ways to deploy their nukes. Escalation at its finest. Grrrrrr

[Voronwë]

i wonder if Russia will invade some country in the next 10 years in an "anti-terror" effort, and i wonder if we'll do anythign to stop them.

[Aabidano]

Nope this is a direct response to the USA's missile defense initiative, and a play to put Russia back on the map as a world Super Power.

Bingo

[Voronwë]

maybe we are even subsidizing Russia to make these missiles, so we can sink billions into missile defense systems, thus being a massive boon to the Defense Contracting Industry.

So maybe they paid off our government to pay off Russia to pay off Industry!

Brilliant!

[Seebs]

As long as the USA has Randy Quaid and a bi-plane we'll be alright.

you guys don;t know your history very well.

[masteen]

They could also have developed tactical nukes small enough to be used by tanks, infantry, ect. Those kind of weapons would be ideal for dealing with terrorist camps, insurgents, ect., assuming that they don't leave the ground irradiated for 50 years.

[Winnow]

i wonder if Russia will invade some country in the next 10 years in an "anti-terror" effort, and i wonder if we'll do anythign to stop them.

I doubt we'd do anything if they invaded Iran or something like that. The problem is that Russia isn't the U.S. and their equipment and skill doesn't allow them to steamroll like the U.S. can. It'd be a bloodly mess and no where near the kill ratios we achieve.

If the Middle East wasn't such a shithole, the western nations would have carved it up long ago and taken their piece of the pie. A barren wasteland with oil being the only attraction isn't enough to attract full conquest.

Our goals in the middle east should be simplified to the following:

1. Reduce our need for middle east oil to zero
2. Prevent the crazed middle eastern countries from going ballistic after their artificial importance in the world fades and they are left with nothing but rusting equipment in massive oil field wastelands.

[Voronwë]

Yeah but Russia has state controlled media, and no direct elections of local governors anymore, so they are poised to take many orders of magnitude more casualties than American politicians are willing to stomach.

The Western countries did "carve up" the Middle East, several times. All of the present countries are the result of Europe dissolving the Ottoman Empire.

The US and UK installed the Shahs in Iran specifically so they would have a pro-Western business relationship with British Petroleum and others. THat is probably part of the reason the CIA installed Saddam Hussein in the 1970s as well. The above is also part of the reason, the Islamic government in Iran is anti-Western, because they know first hand how the West has manipulated their country's natural resources for decades and not given their people an equitable piece of the profits.

[Winnow]

Yeah but Russia has state controlled media, and no direct elections of local governors anymore, so they are poised to take many orders of magnitude more casualties than American politicians are willing to stomach.

The Western countries did "carve up" the Middle East, several times. All of the present countries are the result of Europe dissolving the Ottoman Empire.

The US and UK installed the Shahs in Iran specifically so they would have a pro-Western business relationship with British Petroleum and others. THat is probably part of the reason the CIA installed Saddam Hussein in the 1970s as well. The above is also part of the reason, the Islamic government in Iran is anti-Western, because they know first hand how the West has manipulated their country's natural resources for decades and not given their people an equitable piece of the profits.

I meant the western nations didn't carve up the Middle East and wipe out 90 percent of the population and establish a whitopia there like happened in the United States, Canada, etc. It's just not a desireable place to live. Historically speaking, that would have happened in the 19th century if the Middle East a nice place to live.

As for Russia, war is a great way to focus a nation and boost the moral, and kick start a crappy economy with a concerted war effort. Since Russia is sucking on the space exploration front, olympics, and everything else except for the surge in crime, I'd say there's a high probablilty for some small country to all of the sudden become a matter of national security for Russia. It's just going to be an uglier war than U.S and it's allies (Poland!) vs Team Terror.

[noel]

It'd be like you saying "how come the government will let people in the military have automatic weapons, but prosecutes civilians who have them?! That's so hypocritical!!

I want to point out what an incredibly horrible analogy this is. Brotha, do you understand the concept of a sovereign nation? Do you understand that outside of the United States exist other countries that have their own set of laws? Do you understand that your example is one of the stupidest responses ever because... wait for it... The US government doesn't make or enforce the laws of other sovereign nations! I know it's fucking CRAZY to think that, but IT'S TRUE!

A better analogy would be: Someone lived next door to you (or two neigborhoods over), and they painted their house neon purple. You see the house and decide it would be cool to have a neon purple house too. A bunch of other people get the same idea, and they go out and paint their houses neon purple, and it's all good. So you go out and buy the gear to make it happen, but the people in the first neon purple house roll up in front of your house and tell you that if you even think about painting your house neon purple, they'll kill your family, and your dog, and other innocent people on your property, and they'll bomb you repeatedly.

Your posts are so stupid that it's impossible for me to respond to them without sounding condescending. You really need to stop thinking about politics and/or foreign policy. You're so obviously incapable of comprehending the basic ideas that you just make yourself look like a fool with every post. Alternatively, you post someone elses bullshit that is so skewed and foolish that your quoting it, comes off as an endorsement and also... makes you look like a fool.

[Brotha]

Yes because having a neon purple house is a threat to your neighbor...if my analogy was "horrible" I'm not really sure if there's a word that would adequately describe yours.

And personal attacks from you don't really bother me. There're some people on this board who I really respect and their posts are interesting to read (even when they own me or are posts I completely disagree with)- but I have to say you have never been one of those people. Whether attempting to prove how much of a "badass who doesn't take shit from anyone" you are by writing innane, boring flames on an internet messageboard, or trying to sound intelligent while making no coherent arguments, you just don't do it for me =/

[noel]

Call it a neon purple missile if you want, my analogy addresses the concerns of the other countries the US is attempting to impose their will on. That's the point.

I don't care what you think of me either Brotha. It's clear by your posts that you lack the mental ability to look at more than one side of an issue.

[Brotha]

So if you own a neon purple missle, and you look over and see that your irrational, unstable neighbor who openly hates you is attempting to aquire a neon purple missle, you shouldn't do anything about it simply because of the fact that he's your neighbor and you don't have control over what he does on his own property? I'd argue that you have more than just a right to, you have an obligation to do something about it to protect your family.

[noel]

But remember, you've already let 4-5 other neighbors have them, and you haven't said anything, and out of all the neigbors that have them, you're the only one who's ever even used it.

[Akaran_D]

What if you don't feel those neighbors are stable enough to use them only if they are attacked first, and, what if in the one time you did it, it was actually done to save more lives than using it would have cost?

[Nick]

The one time?

[Brotha]

And that fact should stop you from doing what's right to protect your family?

It'd be like saying "why is there a criminal background check for someone to own a gun, why can't anyone get one?" You don't want the wrong kinds of people to have guns.

I'm still wondering what the whole point of us being the only ones who have used nukes is. Are you saying no other country or group of people would be willing to use nukes?

[Akaran_D]

Twice on the same enemy in (I want to say the same week, but I could be mistaken) can be considered 'once' in the grand scheme of things. It is the only war in which such weaponry was used is how I meant it.

[Rekaar.]

So basically squirrel boy(!), your disapproval stems not from the failure of the world to successfully inhibit nuclear proliferation, but from our failure to not let everyone have a nuke that wants one?

You've been on the attack with that and I think your stance is pretty clear. Tell me why you think it's a good idea to socialize nuclear weaponry.

[noel]

Having nuclear technology or weapons is not a threat to anyone. Using them, or selling them to people who would use them is. I'm not FOR anyone having them, but the US cannot on the one hand allow other countries to have them and say nothing, then say things when specific countries have them without looking hypocritical. The point I'm making, and I'll say it again is that our foreign policy needs to be consistent. I don't care if we tell Iran and N Korea, 'no nukes' but we should be saying the same thing to Israel, Pakistan, India, China, and the countries in the former USSR that have them.

[Nick]

No that fact just directly contradicts what Akaran is stating is the case.

As for defending your family.......I understand that point, really I do, but frankly if the US or the UK or whoever goes anywhere with an attitude of "them and us" before it is actually really considered due to a paranoia and fear of anything outside the US then you are not protecting your kids.

You are protecting maybe yourself, temporarily.... (although in reality if many innocents died, those people never put you in danger and if that number gets into the thousands, well....I suppose you need a conscience for that one) whilst making the world more unstable (division, hatred).

Creating a hatred for whichever allied side(s) (chiefly the US) that will run for generations (ref - it's evident here (Northern Ireland, shithole that it is) that although there is peace, there is in fact a whole lot of animosity on both "sides" still. Both sides are however assholes). The generations of your children will suffer, assuming it takes that long before the terrorists attack again, and that the stupid stance of defiant head in the sand politic does not change.

I just reckon you should be careful to go invade another country that has not actually done anything to you yet, we know what happens when you do that now .....

Obviously it's not good to be making nuclear weapons, but the same ham fisted approach will only inflame the situation as opposed to making it calmer. Duh.....

[Rekaar.]

Again though, I feel like you're making an argument for letting anyone with a pilot's license to fly commercial aircraft for Delta, or letting anyone with a driver's license to drive a tank.

Just because you're a sovereign nation doesn't mean you should have nuclear weapons. It IS an added threat to everyone in the world for each new nuke. Let alone each new nuke in the hands of an underdeveloped and less-secure government. I'm reasonably sure the UK isn't going to feel like they need to sell nukes to terrorists to be able to feed its people.

And there's a difference between nuclear technology and nuclear weapons.

[Rekaar.]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20041119/D86F4PC80.html

Iran is spending the last few days before it must stop all work related to uranium enrichment converting tons of ore into a dual-use gas that could then be processed to make nuclear weapons, diplomats said Friday.

[noel]

Again though, I feel like you're making an argument for letting anyone with a pilot's license to fly commercial aircraft for Delta, or letting anyone with a driver's license to drive a tank.

Just because you're a sovereign nation doesn't mean you should have nuclear weapons. It IS an added threat to everyone in the world for each new nuke. Let alone each new nuke in the hands of an underdeveloped and less-secure government. I'm reasonably sure the UK isn't going to feel like they need to sell nukes to terrorists to be able to feed its people.

And there's a difference between nuclear technology and nuclear weapons.

I'm not exactly saying that. I'm actually saying that no one with a pilots license (sovereign government) has any business flying a commercial aircraft (possessing nukes).

I think we all agree that the world would be a better place if NO ONE (including the US) had nuclear weapons. Feel free to post if you disagree with this...

Teeny really drove home the follow-up point. If you'd been born in Iran Rekaar, and you were... lets say a nuclear scientist for Iran, you wouldn't think that your country shouldn't be able to become a nuclear power because a richer more powerful country that was 10k miles away said so.

If the US keeps attacking countries that don't do what they're told, all the US is doing is further polarizing the world against the US, and further projecting an anti-American sentiment for the future. That's NOT what we want. We as a country need to work toward a world where nuclear weapons not only don't exist, but aren't needed or wanted.

If I was Iran right now, I know I'd feel a lot safer with a few tactical nukes as a deterrent to the US invading my country. There's a hell of a lot of saber rattling going on at the moment, and it's not just because of Iran's nuclear program.

[Rekaar.]

If teeny had a good point, next time please quote it so I can read it. Same for the other broken records =p

using this: "I'm not exactly saying that. I'm actually saying that no one with a pilots license (sovereign government) has any business flying a commercial aircraft (possessing nukes). "

So step back in time in this analogy. No one is doing something they shouldn't be doing (no 18 year olds flying my family around). Today we hear that France has started to allow this practice. Youths all over the world get jealous. Is it a good idea to follow suit out of fairness, or resist?

[Nick]

Ouch Rek that hurt, it isn't because of the self abortion thing is it?

[Fash]

If I was Iran right now, I know I'd feel a lot safer with a few tactical nukes as a deterrent to the US invading my country. There's a hell of a lot of saber rattling going on at the moment, and it's not just because of Iran's nuclear program.

Wait.... you'd feel safer having tactical nukes, even knowing that if you used one, the retaliation would remove your country from the globe?

If I were Iran, I'd befriend the US and become dependant upon it. No country in the world can have a better friend than Us.

[Lynks]

Thats why a lot of people hate the US, its that arrogance.

[Brotha]

Are we back to claiming Iran and N. Korea were peaceful little nations that had no designs on nuclear weapons until the US invaded Iraq?

[Nick]

Well the innocent people in those country are in fact you know.....just that.

However, you as a US citizen (i assume) are pot calling teh kettle black.

Of course you will blindly blather on regardless.

[noel]

If I was Iran right now, I know I'd feel a lot safer with a few tactical nukes as a deterrent to the US invading my country. There's a hell of a lot of saber rattling going on at the moment, and it's not just because of Iran's nuclear program.

Wait.... you'd feel safer having tactical nukes, even knowing that if you used one, the retaliation would remove your country from the globe?

If I were Iran, I'd befriend the US and become dependant upon it. No country in the world can have a better friend than Us.

Notice that I didn't say use it. I said have it as a deterrent.