is it a bird? is it a plain? is it a....... oh,  oopsie

About the same as anyone else having a nuclear weapons program and/or stockpile.

Why don't you invade all the other countries that can fire missiles halfway around the world and have nukes?

IN another way of looking at it, having a missile and having a nuclear prgram =! having a nuclkear missile that can hit your precious east coast

It's time to use the air force and eliminate those suckers.

I am strictly committed to the monopolization of nuclear technology. Any expansion of its availability must be met with ruthless military force.

plentiful to throw a 500 lbs bomb into every freight yard, dock, highway intersection and runway in Iran.

Pfft! Everytime the US wants to start an air campaign, people would come yelling; OH NOES TE SAMS ARE TEH OWNZORS!!!

AA and SAMS have done jack shit against US air power for decades.

I guess everyone missed the ** Hypothetical **
at the top of his post.

I.e he made it up, lts not true, much like the majority of rightwing posts.

Oh the US Rules the Ground, the air and the Sea.
Period.

Cant stop every rifle that pokes out a window....
..Prob is, the US doesnt line 10 Civilians randomly chosen up against a wall, and blow their heads off every time ONE US soldier is harmed.
Not that I advocate that.....but......     .....   ..   .

No one is as smart As Selur...... No one.....  He is a legend in his own mind.
A one of a kind vs the one.
So smart even he konws he is smart.

And, to boot, he is a Socialist.

> Econamatrix wrote:

> So it's ok for the US to own nukes, but not ok for anyone else? The Iranians probably also wish to be the only country to own nukes. Yet I'd wager that the English have no problems with the French owning nukes, and vise-versa.

So what's the difference?

France and England are both moderates, the US and Iranians are both extremists.>

Lets just say it would disrupt the balance of power.

I'm from New Zealand, living in Canada at the moment.

The US is the Chrisitian extremist version of Iran. 80-something% of American's believe that the world will end in some kind of judgement day. A similar number (higher?) number of Iranians think that if they kill themselves in a Jihad they will go to paradise with 72 virgins. These are not the kind of people that I believe should be in charge of nuclear weapons.

Of course countries like France and England have their fair-share of both religions, but certainly far more non-believers.

I would not like Iran to have nukes, but if someone like avagardo, Balsz, flint etc was in charge of the US nuke codes I'd have a pretty similar level of concern. .....  Doubt either could find too many reasons to nuke NZ so I should be ok

> Econamatrix wrote:

> The US is the Chrisitian extremist version of Iran. 80-something% of American's believe that the world will end in some kind of judgement day. A similar number (higher?) number of Iranians think that if they kill themselves in a Jihad they will go to paradise with 72 virgins. These are not the kind of people that I believe should be in charge of nuclear weapons.

BIG difference.  The vast majority of Christians (granted, there are a couple terrorist Christian groups in the US who would disagree) do not believe that the individual should work to speed up that judgment day.  The issue is more of "okay, this day is coming... just be prepared, be without sin so you don't get your own ass kicked."

Now, there are some Christian groups that are quite extreme, saying they should deliberately try to screw up the world to bring about Judgment Day.  Hell, Napolean actually had a campaign to bring Jewish populations to Israel to speed it up... (wait... maybe not Napolean... shit, I'm not sure, and I have to go back through my books to find out.  Crap!)

Now, this is also true of most Muslims.  There are some branches (including a very large contingent in the US) that believes the so-called "jihad" is an internal struggle, rather than an external struggle, against evil.

However, here are three things to note:

A: Problems with Iran having nuclear weapons are primarily based on the issue of who is in the GOVERNMENT, not who the people are.  Honestly... if Iran was run by a moderate government that was integrated in the global trade system... I would have absolutely no problem whatsoever with them having a nuclear bomb.  If the government was integrated in the global trade system, they would have a greater cultural and economic link with the rest of the world, making it all the less likely that they would actually use the bomb.  In addition, it would at least provide some balance against Israel, just in case shit ever hit the fan with Israel's government.

But Iran is isolated, impoverished, and, by your own admission, religiously fanatical.  Um... that doesn't sound safe.

B: Nuclear weapons as a percentage of overall defensive capability.

Put yourself in this situation:

You're in your home.  Someone breaks into your house, and starts walking toward your bedroom.  You need to defend yourself.  The only weapon you have to defend yourself, however, is a flamethrower.  It becomes an issue of using the flamethrower, and risking huge overkill plus damaging the surrounding area, or you risk dying.

Now picture you in that same home.  Same situation.  But this time, you have a flamethrower and a handgun.  You would probably take the handgun.

That's the issue here.  The US has nuclear weapons.  However, it also has some of the most advanced conventional weaponry on the planet.  As a result, there is no need for the US to use nuclear weapons, because conventional weapons are a useful deterrent.

This is empirically proven by the fact that no nation has used nuclear weapons against enemy nations since the US during World War 2, when military forces were strained anyway, even into the end.

Now, let's go nation by nation:
Russia: Huge freaking military, sophisticated, etc.  They've got it down pat.
France: Part of NATO, so they're pretty safe.  Plus a sizable military.  Don't need to resort to nukes.
Britain: Same story as France.
China: No major military conflict has occurred since they obtained their nuclear weapons, so we can't accurately analyze this issue.  However, there is still a pretty damn big military there.
India/Pakistan: Not going to say shit.  If there was one other place on the planet where we needed to get rid of nuclear weapons, it would be these two guys.  (Mainly due to Pakistan, but only because of their political instability.  However, a nuclear India without a nuclear Pakistan would be vastly unstable... the region is just damn scary)
Israel: Advanced conventional military, thanks in no small part to US assistance. 

Now what about Iran?  Alright, Iran is arming its conventional military.  But here's the problem: Its enemy is the US.

Unless you can argue that Iran can safely say it can beat the US in a head-to-head conventional war, the risk is extremely high that Iran would use nuclear weapons as its primary weapon of defense.

C: PALs!

Yes, every nuclear nation wants PALs!  What's a PAL?  It's a failsafe security system that prevents unauthorized detonation of the device.

Now, these things are a PAIN IN THE ASS to make.  As a result, it takes a while for new nuclear nations to get their missiles PALed up.  But right now, most nuclear nations (there's some skepticism about India and Pakistan, which is another reason the region makes me cringe) have these placed on their weapons.

What does that mean?  Without a PAL, it becomes extremely easy to have an accidental launch.  Something like a simple technical malfunction could send a ballistic missile smashing into the city of another nuclear nation, causing a nuclear war over a simple technical error.  Oops!

Skoe you proved your an idiot today.

Israel and Turkey are allies. They will not fight eachother in our lifetimes without a dramatic change.