Well, I have no doubt at all Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Is it acceptable? I will use the term acceptable as implying : 'acceptable to me'. The answer is, surprising enough, yes.
What will happen the moment a country like Iran has offensive nuclear capabilities, is that a new world balance will be created. I sincerely doubt whether Iran will deploy nuclear missiles. After all, during the entire cold war the west remained positive that the Russians would deploy their nukes the moment they could from a strategic point of view. But they never did.
I doubt Iran will either, since the consequences of those actions would be dire. It would be the start of yet another world wide war, with all countries eager to wage war, just to let all other nuclear ' wannabe's ' see what could happen if they tried to fire those weapons.
Besides, someone mentioned everyone or noone, right? So a viable policy could be to do just that.
Provide nuclear weapons to countries openly threatened by Iran.
I will refrain from stating my less savory opinions...
Naj
najmelliw wrote:Well, I have no doubt at all Iran is developing nuclear weapons.
Is it acceptable? I will use the term acceptable as implying : 'acceptable to me'. The answer is, surprising enough, yes.
What will happen the moment a country like Iran has offensive nuclear capabilities, is that a new world balance will be created. I sincerely doubt whether Iran will deploy nuclear missiles. After all, during the entire cold war the west remained positive that the Russians would deploy their nukes the moment they could from a strategic point of view. But they never did.
I doubt Iran will either, since the consequences of those actions would be dire. It would be the start of yet another world wide war, with all countries eager to wage war, just to let all other nuclear ' wannabe's ' see what could happen if they tried to fire those weapons.
And if Iran gave the weapon to terrorists who smuggled it into the US in pieces and detonated it, and Iran then denied responsibility and offered us aid, what then?
najmelliw wrote:Besides, someone mentioned everyone or noone, right? So a viable policy could be to do just that....
Naj
So, every country should be free to arm to the teeth with doomsday weapons, including dictatorships, allies of terrorists, countries with a track record of trying to annex their neighbors, etc? No account should be taken whatever of the nature of the government?
Quote:And if Iran gave the weapon to terrorists who smuggled it into the US in pieces and detonated it, and Iran then denied responsibility..
I suspect that the US has quietly informed both Iran and North Korea that if we get hit with any WMD that can be traced back to them then we will consider it an attack by them on the US.
Which would result in a full retaliatory response.
Hmm.. What if Iran gave a weapon to terrorists who smuggled it in the USA? Interesting statement.
So basically, your view is that the USA has the right to carefully monitor what countries can or cannot develop nuclear arms on the premises that said countries are not likely to take covert action against the USA?
If such a country is considering, nay, starting to develop nuclear weapons, what may the USA do? Hmm? Attack them? Dispose of the governemnt and get rid of their 'nuclear facilities'?
How do you suppose citizens of THOSE countries feel about such behavior?
As far as I know, there is only one country in the world so far which has deployed nuclear bombs against cities.
Najmelliw
Frankly, I don't give a damn about hurting the feelings of a nation that alligns itself with enemies of the United States. Choosing to be our enemy is put's canceled to our need for political correctness in dealing with mortal threats.
And your solution for dealing with this so-called horribly dangerous mortal enemy?
Just click on my name and read the relevant posts I've made to the subject in the past two weeks.
BTW. I have no solution, nor to I deceive myself into thinking that my opinion will matter in the least when the President makes his decision. If the President were to call me up and beg for my advice, it would be to pursue a vigorous diplomatic effort coupled with covert operations I would advise against military intervention, especially use of even a limited nuclear strike on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities. I think that the cost(s) would likely outweigh the benefit, and that the probability of mission failure is in my opinion too high. Whatever the President decides, I'll support the decision.
Asherman wrote:Frankly, I don't give a damn about hurting the feelings of a nation that alligns itself with enemies of the United States. Choosing to be our enemy is put's canceled to our need for political correctness in dealing with mortal threats.
One thing we can do is make enemies! We have a special talent for it!
Anon
I'm sure your blind allegiance (and that of the other 33% of the country that still have faith in the schmuck) means a lot to him.
Unfortunately, based on his administration's track record, I can only believe that he'll muck it up somehow and leave us worse off than we were before. He seems well on his way there now.
Ah, and ye shall know a man by his enemies. That religious extremists, dictators and tyrannts hate the United States is a fine recommendation of how well our system works to give every citizen the liberty to pursue their own interests and idea of happiness. If Kim Jong-Il hates us, we must continue to be effective in thwarting his dreams of conquering the ROK. That our borders are crowdeed with people wanting to live here isn't because the United States is oppressive, but because we are still the brightest hope for the downtrodden of the world.
A big part of the world owes their own success and security to the generosity and strength of the United States. One would think that would incline them to friendship, unfortunately most tend to forget their debts.
Is it a fine recommendation of how well our system works to give every citizen the liberty to pursue their own interests and idea of happiness when religious extremists, dictators and tyrants like the United States, e.g. Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kyrgyzstan, etc.? In the first three instances reforms were promised, but have largely turned out to be lip service. In the fourth there was a bloodless coup with the hopes of pro-West leanings, but these hopes have turned out to be less than democratic what with the new president, Kurmanbek Bakiev, and his cronies taking control of the most profitable businesses and industries there, and his association with organized crime.
One thing is the freedoms the US provides for its own citizens, another thing is the countries the US supports and aligns itself with in pursuit of its own ends, many times resulting in the direct support of regimes and governments that severely oppress their own people.
The US owes a big part of the world restitution for these immoral alliances with governments and leaders of countries pursued for little more than self-interest that have led to the great suffering of the peoples therein.
Couldn't have said it better myself, Mr. Blue.
May I add that I think it extremely dangerous for a country, nay, any country, to believe other countries are indebted to it? It gives them a high sense of hope when negotiating with a country. But only few democratic countries, if any, will make any deal they feel the population will not support. Even if there is a so called 'debt' between countries.
Naj
