You know, those nuclear weapons that everyone on Earth seems to know about, but that somehow remain off the US radar screen decade after decade.

Say, where's you get the 500-pound gorilla in your living room..? I never noticed it before.

You know, those nuclear weapons that everyone on Earth seems to know about, but that somehow remain off the US radar screen decade after decade.

Say, where'd you get the 500-pound gorilla in your living room..? I never noticed it before.

What have Israel's supposed stockpile of nuclear material have to do with Iran's? Are we playing a game of moral, ethical, and political equivalence?

If Israel has nuclear weapons, so be it. A strong military prevents Israel's lovely neighbors from squashing them. If the Arabs and Persians are ticked off about a double standard, then they shouldn't broadcast that their first and foremost military intentions are to kill and obliterate other nations they don't like. Put simply, if they didn't act like animals, there wouldn't be double standards.

I don't agree with the article's assertion that our nuclear policy is one of shifting alliances. The governments who get a free pass fall into two categories: Western-style democracies and enormously powerful belligerent regimes. The Chinese and the Russians aren't going to give up their weapons so there isn't much point in trying. That doesn't mean that Iran, Iraq, Syria, North Korea, Sudan, Egypt, Pakistan, and every other evil regime shouldn't get their teeth ripped out for the benefit of humanity.

I also don't agree with the assertion that Iran wouldn't blow up Israel. Muslim hatred of Jews in general and the power that Israel enjoys in particular stoke irrational hatred. The current leader of Iran is a nut-case, and I don't think he'd shirk at the opportunity to kill as many Jews as he possibly could if he thought he could do it with some modicum of personal impunity.

JP

Firstly that they have lied consistently about the existence of their arsenal, and are in complete abrogation of international treaties and controls.

Secondly, and more importantly, Israel's nukes, along with The US' massive military donations [ever wonder where your tax money goes?], have allowed the nation to act as the worst bully in the middle east. And that's saying something!

We would have had a negotiated peace in the middle east years ago if the US hadn't supported the Israeli government through every unsupportable act.

I'm going to get flamed to hell and back for this, of course, so I'll say up front that attacks against civilians, from any side, are an obscenity. Israel, doing it with American Helicopters and American Hellfire missiles, to Palestinians whose homes they've stolen and whose every ambition they've thwarted for decades, is just a little more obscene. And being able to get away with it, because Israel's got nukes and the others don't, and Israel's got the biggest bully on earth behind it, and they don't, doesn't add up to justification. Might doesn't make right.

I don't think Iran should have nukes. I don't think they can be trusted. I don't think *anybody* should have nukes. Nobody can be trusted. But with Israel threatening, and the US declaring them part of "the Axis of Evil", if they *weren't* trying to develope a nuclear arsenal, they'd be insane.

This doesn't have much to do with your Dreaded Yid Menace (tm). If anything, an Iranian bomb represents the following:

A disassembly of international controls on proliferation. Iran has already stated that when/if it gets the wherewithal to make a bomb they will sell it at highly subsidized prices to the rest of the Arab world. If a nuclear Iran doesn't worry you then how about a nuclear Egypt, Yemen, Nigeria, Indonesia and Bangladesh all beyond the scope of all international treaties and protocols.

A large threat to the internal politics of Iran itself. There would be at that point nothing between the nascent opposition in Iran and complete destruction were Iran to have a nuclear shied to fend off criticism of anything and everything it wanted to pursue internally.

See nuclear weapons are strategic in nature and the threat of using it is as big a danger as using them. Think of what the Cold War really represented - an attempt to successfully prosecute aggressive foreign policies across the globe in the face of 2 mortal enemies (3CP and PRC) each with nuclear weapons. So a nuclear Iran is then free to do whatever it wishes in Iraq in the Islamic former Soviet Republics, Syria and so on. Lastly, Iran like to outsource its terrorism to groups it can plausibly deny. One feasible use of Iran's nuclear weapons is to give one or two to hastily thrown together 'Islamic People's Fronts' under Iranian control and simply prosecute nuclear terrorism through other means. No one should doubt that a country that sent a million unarmed teenagers to die against Iraq tank and gas weapons battalions in the Iran Iraq war lacks the determination to do whatever it thinks it needs to do.

Back in the 1950s, the US twice threatened (or at least discussed) using nuclear weapons against China. China's reaction - not surprisingly - was to develop its own nuclear arsenal. Iran is in a similar position today -it's been put on the "axis of evil", it's being singled out as the object of violent rhetoric by a state that has proven its willingness to launch aggressive wars. Why wouldn't Iran want a deterrent? At the same time, it's worth noting that China and the USSR were far more dangerous foes than Iran, and the world survived that period. Exaggerating the importance of an Iranian nuclear capability is one of the biggest problems that we face.

As the article mentioned, it's unlikely that Iran will develop nuclear weapons, just the technology to develop them if it wants to. That's a perfectly adequate deterrent, and a perfectly reasonable response to a threatening situation. It's not that different from the "don't admit that we've got them" strategy that Israel has adopted. Iran has no reason to use nukes against any state inside or outside the region, and doing so would be tantamount to national suicide anyway. If the real threat of an Iranian nuclear capacity is that it would lead to proliferation - well, there's actually not much that can be done about this. Maybe a nuclear Iran will create a real drive to get nuclear weapons out of the Middle East - starting with Israel's arsenal - and create an impetus for the "great powers" to disarm themselves. After all, what possible right does the US have to nuclear weapons that any other state does not? Since when can the US be trusted to use its power responsibly? Surely Iraq has undermined that particular myth?

The idea that dealing with Iran's nukes is a test for the UN and the Security Council: this may be true, but it's also true that this approach presents a whole other set of problems. Remember that not long ago, the US decided the UN did not matter and launched an illegal war of aggression against a defenceless state. Now, when it wants the UN to do its bidding, the US suddenly decides that the UN matters again? I don't think the rest of the world is quite that stupid or forgiving. The double-standard at work here is ludicrous, and the risk that the UN runs is not just that it will be seen as ineffectual but that it will be seen as the unmitigated lapdog of the US and the other great powers. In such a world, there is simply no argument for obeying international law or respecting treaties that are designed to keep one group of countries dominant and relegate all others to second class status or limit their abilities to defend themselves.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine