Since the advent of the nuclear age, only two nuclear weapons have ever been employed, both in August of 1945 on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
While many will argue that their use was required to avoid directly invading the Japanese islands, an effort that the government and military at the time claimed would cost the lives of upwards of a million US soldiers, the reality was that most of Japan has been decimated by conventional fire bombing, that the government of Japan had been attempting to negotiate a surrender all that summer, and that the people of Japan, despite news reels shown in US movie houses, were not on the streets in force training to repel US forces. They were, in truth, in the grips of near total economic and civic collapse.
The bombs were, in all honesty, dropped for post-war geopolitical reasons. The Soviets, who had coveted most of Eastern Europe in their advance towards Berlin, were viewed as a threat to Western post-war interests. Thus, individuals such as Dean Acheson urged the use of the bombs to demonstrate US military might, a position that was completely abhorrent to the likes of then General Dwight Eisenhower and the majority of the scientists that had worked on the Manhattan Project. They were dropped nonetheless, ushering in a new age of permanent global nuclear proliferation.
From the second that Little Boy detonated above Hiroshima unleashing the equivalent of 16 kilotons of TNT, decimating everything in a 1.6 kilometer radius, evaporating every living thing within the bomb’s primary blast radius, and killing some 140,000 people (during, and by way of radioactive fallout), deterrence immediately became the primary purpose for possessing a nuclear capability. That reality has not changed in the 63 years since.
The Manhattan Project placed the United States at the forefront of the nuclear arms race, but their position as the planet’s lone nuclear power would end when the Soviet Union successfully tested First Lightning, referred to as Joe 1 by US intelligence, on August 29th, 1949. The rest, as they say, is history.
Reason And Emotion
That’s not to say that the world hasn’t flirted with the possibility since. Fortunately, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, for example, cooler heads prevailed. Then again, it should be noted why they prevailed.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, both Washington and Moscow had their fair share of Hawks pressing for a confrontation. Thankfully, a handful of individuals on both sides possessed the emotional fortitude to examine the realities of what would become of the world in the aftermath of posturing that had but one outcome. The United States would ultimately view it as a victory, but the reality is that it was nothing more than a victory over political arrogance. Of course, little mention is ever given the role played by then Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, a veteran World War Two Commander who witnessed first hand the horrors of Stalingrad. Khrushchev was no stranger to the realities of war, and in his first transmission to President Kennedy during the crisis made that point very clear – that both he and Kennedy knew full well the ramifications, betraying an emotional state that was extremely uncommon for as Soviet leader.
Emotionality is something that many view as extremely dangerous when it comes to the nuclear equation, but it is perhaps the one thing that perseveres when it comes to facing the realities of mutually assured destruction. Reasonable men can find excuse enough to destroy the world on any given day. It is not until emotionality enters into the equation that the reality of nuclear war becomes abundantly apparent.
The Inescapable Outcome
There is no winning a nuclear contest – that is, not a contest between two or more nations that possess nuclear weapons. The reality is that the modern destructive power of a single nuclear weapon is such that the devastation wrought is not something that can be justified with regards to proportional or superior responses. The loss of hundreds of thousands of lives simply cannot be viewed as acceptable compared to the loss of a million or more lives in response. No citizen of any nation on earth would think that acceptable given the lasting affects of even a single nuclear weapon on a specific city or location.
In the case of Iran, were the Iranians to possess a weapon and use it, or even three, against Israel, they would be facing a nation with approximately one hundred times their nuclear capability. In short, while the Iranians would be able to, for example, strike Tel Aviv, killing multitudes, the Israelis could eradicate every major city in Iran, not to mention a list of other targets.
There is also the political question of approximation to consider. Were Iran to target Israel, the conventional response against groups in Palestine and Gaza would most likely be as immediate as possible, decisive, and unrelenting. Under the circumstances, collateral damage, including the death of civilians in large numbers, would most likely occur. Given the state of mind that the IDF would be in, were such a thing to occur, I do not think that that is at all a stretch.
All of that, of course, is without involving the United States and what their nuclear response would be were Iran to strike Israel. Compared to Israel, the United States possesses vastly more advanced delivery capabilities, the most lethal being the use of Ohio Class Submarines that have the ability to strike multiple targets within minutes if their proximity to those targets is within a certain radius. As it stands now, given that two US battle groups are in the Gulf, there are certainly nuclear boats with them, making their proximity to Iranian targets minimal. A single such boat carries a compliment that could completely wipe out the population of Tehran.
Given the magnitude of both Israeli and American capabilities, even the most crazed lunatic in Iran would be faced with the reality that their nation would be utterly devastated in response to any attack made against Israel. Their family, the families of their friends and counterparts, all would be killed. The government of Iran, along with its entire military, civic, and religious infrastructures would cease to exist. The majority of Persia, as we know it, would basically be gone.
It’s one thing to believe that a group can exist that believes self-sacrifice is required for some greater, albeit fanatical, purpose. It’s entirely another to believe that the government of a nation would sacrifice the majority of its population for the sake of ideological fanaticism and nothing more, with no endgame or stratagem involved. To believe the Iranian government stupid enough to employ nuclear weapons as a first strike option requires the inclusion of the belief that they have no goal other than to ensure their own destruction, that they not only have no regard for the lives of the Iranian people, but their own as well. Even were they to gift a weapon to a terrorist group, the ramifications would be the same, because they would be held responsible. In fact, were Israel attacked with a nuclear weapon, no matter where that attack originated from, Iran would still be the victim of nuclear reprisals, and it is rather unintelligent, in my opinion anyway, to think that the government of Iran isn’t aware of that fact.
In essence, the current position of the United States, Israel, and others, is that the Iranians are seeking to obtain an offensive nuclear capability. Such a position all but promotes the fundamental tenets of the Bush Doctrine, the cornerstone of which is the use of preemptive, unilateral force to deal with those deemed a threat to US national security, its interests, or allies. Mind you, the US is not alone when it comes to such policies. The Israelis also partake in such practices when it suits their purposes, such as violating Lebanese airspace and conducting over-flights over Beirut, which they recently did.
I have said it before, and will exhaustively say it again now – what constitutes a ‘safe’ nuclear power? One that discloses its nuclear practices? The Iranians have been repeatedly accused of hiding their program by nations that have never allowed the IAEA to inspect theirs. Israel, as I have pointed out in the past countless times, has an estimated 300 nuclear weapons, though denies to this day that it even has a weapons program at all and refuses to allow its facilities to be inspected by the United Nations.
So what exactly makes Israel a ‘safe’ nuclear power? They continue to diversify their delivery systems, such as through the acquisition of submarines, and have even been caught stealing nuclear secrets from the United States – something that has, to this very day, never really been addressed by the highest levels of the US government. And yet the world is supposed to believe that the Iranian government is bent on not only acquiring a nuclear capability, but also actually being ignorant enough to employ it knowing full well that the consequences of such actions would result in their destruction?
Why? Because the current Iranian regime refuses to acknowledge Israel’s right to exist? I’ll not disagree that that’s a ridiculous position, but it is by no means provides justification for initiating a nuclear exchange that would be tantamount to suicide.
Given the realities of modern nuclear age, are we to believe that the Iranian government, or even a radical faction within its military, is so consumed by madness that it would use nuclear weapons against those that possess the ability to retaliate in an overwhelming fashion? And if we are, then how are we to view the last 63 years since their first employment and the overwhelming proliferation that followed? As nothing more than a game played by sane men using the most insane weapon ever conceived to play an elaborate game of global chess? And if we are, then what exactly does that make us?
Pawns or Kings?
In Addition
Updated for content on May 3, 2008, at 1:30 PM, PST.
Report
Sadly, pawns. Definitely pawns.
Report
Well Done. I’m now very worried.
Report
Ever see War Games with Matthew Broderick?
Even a computer can learn that there’s no way to win.
Also worth watching: The Day After and Miracle Mile (not the Day After Tomorrow about the bullshit instant freeze of NYC).
Report
I completely agree with your overall point, Matt. Nuclear weapons, and any policy of their use is basically insane. But I don’t agree entirely with your view about Nagasaki and Hiroshima though, that we deployed the atom bomb merely as a show of strength towards the Soviet Union. It’s the type of historical argument that will never die, but I just think the evidence doesn’t support that conclusion.
Also, I once read a really compelling piece about how religious fundamentalism really shouldn’t be underestimated when others are making rational decisions, ie, the logical process that no nation would willingly submit itself to nuclear destruction to attack its enemies, but I cannot recall the author or source. It’s not something I entirely agreed with, but it’d have made an interesting counterpoint. But I can’t find it, ah well.
Report
First off “The bombs were, in all honesty, dropped for post-war geopolitical reasons. ” is completely wrong and a great insult to those who made the enormously heroic yet painful decision to drop the bombs and end the war. The allies had strong reasons to believe that the Japanese would fight to the last man and take upwards of a million allied troops with them. On the Japanese Island of okinawa, which was pulverised to an extent far greater than mainland Japan, 4000 marines died taking just one hill. The negotiations the Japanese were engaged in essentially would have been for the Allies to not invade or occupy the country but to essentially ceasefire. Those terms were completely inacceptable to the allied forces. Were there post-war geopolitical considerations? Absolutely, but they were very much secondary. Many of the forces in the pacific were using the slogn”home by ‘49″ - that’s how long most of those in theatre thought a conventional outcome would take. Richard Rhodes has an excellent run-down on it in this book: http://www.amazon.com/Making-Atomic-Bomb-Richard-Rhodes/dp/0684813785/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209703992&sr=8-1
Second, the closest the world came to a nuclear conflict was probably between India and Pakistan. Either that or during the blockade of Berlin - before the age of ICBMS. The Cuban missile crisis was in many respects overblown. The seeds of the crisis were sown when JFK moved missles into Turkey - just a few minutes flight to Russian soil. The Kremlin responded by trying to level the playing field by stationing missles in Cuba. The tension was exacerbated by the power-struggle in the kremlin between Nikita and the hardliners which cause very erratic confusing messages from them to the White House. The resolution came when the Americans agreed to remove its turkey-based missles a few months after the soviets turned the missle-laden ship around - the time delay on the american side being a face-saving measure. Beschloss’s book “the crisis years” is the definitive one on it http://www.amazon.com/Crisis-Years-Kennedy-Krushchev-1960-1963/dp/0060981059/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209704056&sr=1-5
Third, re: the Iraninan nuclear threat
The third reich was a far more sane group of leaders than what exists in Iran today yet they had no compunction in bringing on the devastation that was visited upon them. the Iranins have:
a) said publically that they will as their first objective is to obliterate Isreal.
B) argued that this will bring about the return of the 12th imam and the annilihation of the infidels. Obliteration of Iran does not enter into their calculations - they are all going to heaven.
“Do they really believe all of that?” is a good question but “do we really want to find out the hard way?” is a better one.
Remember this is the same bunch that send five-year olds into minefields to clear the way and similar atrocities on their own people. The really worrying thing to me (and others) is that there is very little sign that these guys are corrupt - none of them seem to be squirrelling away cash in swiss bank accounts like sabre-rattlers like saddam and ghaddafi - they seem not the least interested in mortal self-preservation - these guys really are fanatics not just poseurs.
Report
Monkeys…long line of kings? Sorry, tired, couldn’t resist. I’m sure you hate that…though it’s probably not that far off.
Anyway, you just reminded me of Dr. Helen Caldicott - “emotional fortitude”. Everyone should look her up and listen to her speeches and read her books.
Report
To use the chess analogy, it seems to me that the U.S. has been playing chess with itself for a while now. As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki - the general consensus is that they first of all wanted to conduct a giant human experiment to see the effect of nuclear explosion and, of course, anytime you can show off your power is an extra benefit.
I don’t believe that religious fundamentalism can be boiled down to anything precise. Would a nation be willing to submit itself to total destruction just to attack its enemies? Difficult question. But think of human nature - anyone read descriptions of trench warfare in WWI?
http://www.slate.com/id/2099425/ - from 2004 but about nuclear research budget for US
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov2004/Giroux1129.htm - also from 2004 but is quite interesting, about growth of religious fundamentalism in U.S. since Bush took over.
Report
Amazing food for thought, as always (you should lecture in politics ;0) ). To quote Catch, “Also, I once read a really compelling piece about how religious fundamentalism really shouldn’t be underestimated when others are making rational decisions, ie, the logical process that no nation would willingly submit itself to nuclear destruction to attack its enemies” – I think he/she raises a very good point. Religious fundamentalism / fanaticism (call it what you will) has sparked some crazy reactions before, albeit on a smaller scale. I also think your comment about the US/Israeli stance on Iran (allegedly) nurturing a nuclear capabilty for OFFENSIVE reasons to be a pathetic excuse – please explain, Mr President…
In my opinion, the US is becoming increasingly irritated by Russia’s stance on the situation; the Russian-built nuclear power plant at Bushehr (ironic name!) has now received a cargo of heat-isolating equipment – sanctioned, it must be said, by the UN – which will allow the plant to be operational this summer. Russia is refusing to comment on the US paranoia…
Matthew, do you think this whole Middle East situation is making other, more likely potential protagonists twitchy? I refer, of course, to China and Korea…
Report
Sorry, to answer you question…pawns, without a doubt.
Report
I’ve been to Hiroshima and the Peace Park, walked by the infamous dome that survived the atomic bomb and I’ve visited the nearby museum. The memories I have are powerful not only of the museum itself but of all the piles of colorful paper cranes that line the benches of the park. I remember thinking if every one of those cranes represented a person who was affected by what had happened there in Hiroshima. Every day more cranes are being added, it’s unimaginable.
I’m not able to answer the question, Pawns or Kings. I admit, I don’t understand the intricacies of it all, but there is one thing I do understand. The realities of nuclear weapons aren’t in scientific labs or political offices. They are on display in a museum. The realities are in the black shadow burned into a child’s tricycle, the only evidence that its 3 year old owner ever existed.
Report
Pawns.
Russia continues to have the world’s second (first??) largest nuclear arsenal, but it’s influence has only been on the decline since the dissolution. Additionally upkeep on the military is still a gigantic cost, having a large and expensively equipped army doesn’t count for as much any more. Only economic power and the influence it allows.
Report
To me, this is yet another example of the US asserting their dominance in the Middle East. I completely agree that there is no way that Iran would use a nuclear device offensively, and I think that the US and Israel are scared that nuclear weapons would give Iran a much stronger defensive standpoint. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons, as is would surely intensify the political situation in the region, but the whole thing stinks of American/Israeli bullying. In their eyes, Iran must be kept subordinate to the current nuclear powers.
As a side note (and I am sure many will not appreciate this comment), I still have a hard time swallowing the American cries of terrible inhuman acts committed on September 11, 2001, when the Americans themselves unleashed unspeakable devastation on civilians in August of 1945, ultimately killing nearly 100 times as many people. Again, don’t get me wrong, I am not condoning the terrorist attacks of September 11, I am merely making a comparison.
And to answer the question, I am going to have to disagree with others, and say that we are Kings - relatively powerless players that hold the key to the game.
Report
“Only once in modern history has the world seriously come to the brink of nuclear war. On that occasion cooler heads on both sides prevailed, but it should be noted why they prevailed.”
That is not entirely right I think. Just seven years after the Cuban missile crisis there was a very serious border crisis between China and the Soviet Union (Ussuri river, Xinjiang). Both massively increased troop deployments and in March 1969 the situation was about to escalate as actually armed clashes broke out. Soviet documents reveal that they had detailed plans for a nuclear attack on China. This really serious situation could’ve easily escalated into an open conflict. Unfortunately, at least in the “west”, this story is not as “popular” as the Cuban missile crisis because everyone tried to construct the image of a monolithic Eastern Bloc - which never existed. If you take a closer look at the conflicts in Korea and Vietnam you’ll notice that the situation was by far more complex - and that - at this point - China and the Soviet Union were bitter rivals. So I think the dominance of the Cuban missile crisis is another example of a historiography which is entirely focused on the “predominant” role of the “West”.
Report
To think that your dealing with a sane bunch in the leaders of iran or any of it’s government then your delusional.You think they they care about their people dying given their human rights record.They are terrorists and like terrorists they don’t think about casualties, they only care to decimate their counterparts period.You guys need to wake up because it’s funny how you think iran is this sweet bundle of joy and they would not do anything crazy. The difference between isreal and iran is that isreal would not just fire nuclear weapons at iran for no reason, they are responsible. I don’t think many would trust iran to do the same. Go ahead and let sweet lil iran, the crazy unstable country build many nukes and in 2012 we will fullfill the prophecy of the end of the world.
Report
Kings in pawns clothing.
Report
Rook
Report
In the first war against Iraq when the objective was to drive them from Kuwait, the U.S. went to great lengths to protect there troops from chemical warfare. Iraq never employed such weapons in that campaign. In the aftermath, when asked, Sadam Husein said that he chose not to use chemical warfare against the Americans because he was afraid of the consequences. This came from one of the most radical & fanatical leaders in the Persian Gulf area at the time. The man was insane not stupid.
It is truly amazing how the U.S. & Israeli governments play on peoples fear in order to justify there actions in there continued attempt at complete domination over the Persian Gulf area. Not surprising I guess considering that we are talking about the likes of George Bush. A man who is in fact both insane and stupid.
Report
no no no
we are all the chess board
Report
Lol, is that^^ supposed to be deep, because I don’t get it. We’re the playing area?
Report
Since my yesterday’s post never got posted…is it somewhere out there UPDATED? I’ll try again (this is different though)
This is an interesting article with a link to some of Pentagon plans regarding nuclear actions. The next nuclear bomb is supposed to be called “Demo” http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7649
Anyway, I was trying to post yesterday that you can never underestimate the insanity of humanity - whether it is due to religious fundamentalism, desperation, or willingness to follow orders. Just try thinking back of some books that you might have read on trench warfare in WWI - that is sending your countrymen to slaughter.
What makes everything worse is that one side is given a carte blanche to act as they choose while the other is scrutinized under a microscope for the same actions. Just to be slightly off topic for a second, as Israel continues to build settlements on Palestinian territories, nobody is talking about it as an attempt to drive Palestinian population out of existence, when Soviets did the same in the Baltic Republics - the World’s reply was “well that’s just simply unacceptable!”
as far as chess analogy, try “Royal Game” by Zweig - playing chess against yourself could save you but is arisky business
Report
I think everything got posted now - was stuck in moderation. Thank You !!!!!!!!!
Report
while always rediculiously correct, i do see a flaw in many of your statements matt. your assumption that people arent stupid. that they think reasonably like you, and that they have compassion.
if this assumption were true of the majority of the world’s people, would we really be in this mess?
Report
Quoting Mike Florek:
Ya. You enjoy that purple kool-aid
Report
Quoting canuck97:
Oh, totally conceded. But within the limited space I thought it best to keep it in a North American context/sphere of understanding.
Report
Quoting Matthew Good:
Don’t quite understand that Matt, was that irony or did you change your mind?
p.s. on a lighter note, we don’t really need Iran to fulfill that prophesy do we, we are well on our way as it is (judging by spring on the Pacific North-West and the greater state of the Globe), so enjoy the here and now! (I don’t know about kool -aid, never tried it, is it really purple?)
Report
Quoting Patrick Pitt:
Nice. I was going to answer Bishop.
Quoting Mike Florek:
Mike, do you really believe that the entire populace of Iran are terrorists? Further, do you really believe that the entire government of Iran are terrorists? And what exactly brings you to that conclusion? Is it the fact that Iran is an Islamic state? Their skin is brown? What? Really, I’d like to know.
Sure, no country in the world is the ideal picture of perfection. Every state in existence has its faults, with no exceptions. Even Athens, the vaunted creators of democracy, had a laundry list of faults that in the modern world would incur the wrath of social activists and innovators all over the world. However, generalizing the entire populace of Iran as terrorists goes to far. They are no more terrorists then the citizens of the United States or Israel, both of whom are a greater threat to regional stability in the Middle East then the state of Iran, which has existed there in some fashion or other for longer then either the US or Israel.
Report
it might be possible for some of us to survive. if we tunnel deep, deep underground and live there. of course the ratio of women to men would have to be excessively on the womans side. there we shall live and grow carrots until the fuhrer comes back and liberates us all. Oh how I love the atom bomb and its strangelove.
Report
It’s interesting. After 9/11, 1 million people in Tehran held a candle-light vigil for the victims of September 11th. Now the nation is replete with lunatics.
Report
Can someone point me to an incident that would justify all the concern over Iran aggresively confronting other nations? I keep hearing from some people that they are the greatest threat to world peace but I never get an explination or an example of why this fear is justified? I don’t think having the view that Iran is in fact no real danger to the world is an endorsment of their government, but unfortunatly these are “you’re with us or against us” times we live in. BTW, the 2012 is not an end time prophecy but a prophecy about the evolution of consciousness, but the whole 2012 thing is all about interpretation anyway … for me it’s kinda like 9/11 theory’s I don’t fully believe it but I keep my mind open.
Report
The threat is that Iran is actively resisting US cultural and political imperialism. Oh heavens no! A state that is rejecting the exported US cultural and political ideology! They must be the enemy, because who wouldn’t want to adopt US values??
Now… where’s my tripple bacon cheese burger.
Report
Pawns.
happy mission accomplished day everyone!
Report
Quoting Matthew Good:
Can you enlighten us on this Matthew?
Report
I think it makes us hostages.
We created automobiles, and yet we struggles with emissions and the related affects on global warming. Plastic was (and maybe still is to some extent) a good idea. So we went from inventing gunpowder in China in the 6th century to having the capacity to totally irradicate life on earth (with the exception or cockroaches, rats, and lawyers). We are prisoners of our own inventions.
Frankly I’m more worried about the Israelis than the Iranians. If that makes me an anti-semite then so be it - that’s my opinion and kiss my Irish ass in the county square if you don’t like it - but I don’t have anything against Jewish people or anyone else for that matter - just the proliferation of nuclear weapons.
Report
Quoting Brian Smart:
Good lord!! You’ve managed to seperate the state of Israel from the Jewish religion. How on earth did you do that?
Excuse my sarcastic asshole-dom. However I think you’ve made an extremely good point. The state of Israel is not the Jewish religion, and by being concerned about that state you are far from being anti-semitic. We should all be concerned about a country which refuses to acknowledge they even have one nuclear weapon, when we know that they have far more then one.
Report
Quoting Stormydog:
Very informative
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/view/
Report
Hi Matt,
While I agree with the arguments you presented here, I would like to hear your opinions about what should be done about Iran. I mean, it’s one thing to say that nuclear weapons are insane, that the United States is the only country that’s used them, that their non-proliferation policies are hypocritical, etc. These things are all true. But that is not what the Bush government or other Western governments are concerned about. What they see is a hostile nation that is developing enrichment technology. So the question facing them is whether they can trust Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, in other words will Iran use this new technology to reduce Western power in the area? If they probably will, then what do you do about it? Do you try and stop them? Do you let them develop nuclear weapons just because Western power in the area is illegitimate and exploitative? Do you let them develop nuclear weapons just because we let Israel develop them? Does that justify the existence of more nuclear weapons in the area?
I think that given the threats currently arrayed at Iran, it would be desirable for them to try and develop a nuclear weapon at some point to provide a deterrent from invasion. So I would like to hear your thoughts on what stance you think Western governments should take with regards to Iran.
In a semi related topic, your link to the Nuclear Policy Research Institute no longer directs anywhere.
Report
Quoting Stormydog:
Rent “Why we fight”.
Report
I in no way implicated the people of iran as terrorists, rather I stated their leaders as such. I sympathize with many people of iran because they are pawns of their governments crazy actions. Are there terrorists among the people in iran, I would bet on it..President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s proclamation that isreal should be wiped off the map reeks of love and peace. I hear other presidents threatening to wipe other countries off the map all the time, It’s perfectly normal. Like I said, I don’t worry about the people of iran, I worry about their government. Much like the citizens of the U.S. they’re governments evil cast a shadow back on the people.
Report
Quoting Mike Florek:
A dozen different reports have been done in the media about the speech in which he supposedly said that, and all of them came to the same conclusion - the translation was not exact. Of course, that didn’t stop the wrong translation from spreading.
For example, from Arash Norouzi at Antiwar…
Quoting Matthew Good:
Think for yourself? Why bother when CNN can do that for you?
Report
Quoting Mike Florek:
You are way off the mark. Israel not only has a clear record of similar abuses against Palestinians, but a record of covert and overt operations against neighboring states, often with dubious justification when any justification is even attempted at all. The difference between Israel and Iran is billions of dollars of US aid, mostly military in nature, and a huge Israeli lobby influencing US domestic and foreign policies. In terms of leaders, hell, they’re all brothers and sisters. To think otherwise is incredibly ill-informed and naive.
Report
In terms of leaders, hell, they’re all brothers and sisters. To think otherwise is incredibly ill-informed and naive.
At What point did I argue about anything having to do with brothers and sisters, but sure you win that point even though I never argued against it.Also I was not worried about isreals little dablings on the side, I’m talking about nuclear weapons and who I feel more comfortable having them. Isreal might be doing some shady things on the side but I don’t sit up at night worrying that isreal is going to cause nuclear winter. Besides, does another country need to start amassing weapons of mass destruction.
As for Ahmadinejad’s mis translation I think the word regime is just miles away from the meaning of isreal .. So it was translated to be “the elimination of the regime” , it still seems to me that means isreal.
I’m just tellin’ it like I see it, and in the end it doesn’t matter anyhow because we’re the ants.
Report
Quoting Agent-K:
They are the enemy because they are next on the list (I;m sure there’s a list). But truly there is no real threat:
1. Israel is separated by over 600 miles from Iran, with Israel’s far superior Air force and intelligence services it will all be over before it begins. As discussed above, I don’t believe any of the Middle Eastern Nations wish to “wipe Israel off the map” after all, for religious reasons, that land is holy to them as well. The matter is political and concerns Western Zionist agenda.
2. Iran’s nuclear program was actually jump-started by U.S. - Lost in Bush’s current obsession with Iran’s nuclear intentions is the fact that the United States—from the Eisenhower administration through the Carter years—played a major role in the development of Iran’s nuclear program. In 1957, Washington and Teheran signed their first civil nuclear cooperation agreement. Over the next two decades, the United States provided Iran not only with technical assistance but with its first experimental nuclear reactor, complete with enriched uranium and plutonium with fissile isotopes. Despite the refusal of the shah to rule out the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapons, the Ford administration approved the sale to Iran of up to eight nuclear reactors (with fuel) and later cleared the sale of lasers believed to be capable of enriching uranium. Surpassing any danger from the mullahs now in power, the shah’s megalomania led arms control advocates to fear a diversion of the technology for military purposes. (from “foreign policy in focus)
3. Iran and terrorism - investigations show that most support comes from Revolutionary Guards and Intelligence Services, two groups that are apparently outside of control by the president.
But, even though they are the enemy, guess how many Afghan and Iraqi refugees they took in. What about U.S., Europe and Canada?
Report
I think sometimes the words ‘I don’t know’ will suffice. I agree with Matt about this, but nothing’s written in stone, people have reason to worry. Not everything’s some CNN-induced culture of fear.
Report
Quoting Matthew Good:
Thanks, I will. I didn’t realise it was on release over here yet. Now I see it has been available since March . Thanks also to “NathaN” for the link…
Shouldn’t we also be concerned about Korea, and their underground runways, which allow nuke-carriers to attain top ground speed underground, allowing swifter undetected air entry? That’s scary? Why would they go to such great lengths?