What if Israel strikes Iran?

[Just_A_Guy]

Interesting column by John Bolton in the WSJ.

[Elphaba]

Interesting column by John Bolton in the WSJ.

I am certainly no expert on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but I have read various reports on it, and unfortunately, they often disagree with each other. I found the following intriguing. It’s an interview with David Albright, a long-time expert on Iran’s nuclear program. He says a military action would not be wise.

Some interesting excerpts:

Interview: Iran May Achieve Capability to Make Nuclear Weapon in 2009

February 20, 2009

David Albright . . . says that Iran will probably accumulate enough low-enriched uranium this year to "reach the first level of breakout capability, namely enough low-enriched uranium to make one nuclear weapon." And in an ironic twist, he says even though Iran's stated goal is to have a nuclear program for domestic power, it appears to be running out of uranium for such a plan. "It's one of the unfortunate ironies of the situation that while they don't have enough uranium for a civil nuclear energy program, they have plenty for a weapons program," Albright says. "Even if Iran runs out of uranium, they have more than enough to eventually produce tens of nuclear weapons." He urges the United States to seek tougher sanctions, but also to open wide-ranging negotiations with Iran.

You've been following Iran's nuclear activities for years. Could you provide an update on its progress so far?

Iran continues to move forward on developing its nuclear capabilities, and it is close to having what we would call a 'nuclear breakout capability.' That's a problem because once Iran reaches that state then it could make a decision to get nuclear weapons pretty rapidly. In as quickly as a few months, Iran would be able to have enough weapons-grade uranium for nuclear weapons. And if a breakout occurred, they would not likely do so at the well-known Natanz enrichmentplant. Rather, the Iranians would most likely take low-enriched uranium that's produced at that plant and then divert it at a secret facility that we wouldn't know anything about. And at this secret facility, the Iranians would produce this weapons-grade uranium. And so if you were in the camp that said, 'Well, we'll have to strike militarily,' you won't actually know where to strike because you won't know where that secret facility is. Whatever camp you are in, the situation is bound to grow more tense. So for 2009, probably the big technical issue is when Iran establishes this breakout capability. It could be soon. They don't need that much more low-enriched uranium before they reach the first level of breakout capability, namely enough low-enriched uranium to make one nuclear weapon.

You're saying it would be helpful to talk to Iran, but you have to put the nuclear freeze up front?

I would. It is essential that the United States talk to Iran directly. And talk to them on many fronts. The United States should allow diplomats to engage with Iranians around the world.

. . . .

It's also important in this to remember that you want to avoid setting up this situation with Iran where you are forced to two choices, namely capitulation or military strikes. Military strikes are very unlikely to be effective unless you're willing to launch massive campaigns against the country and that means going to war against Iran. I don't think anyone wants to do that. And I'll also say, even in that case, you might not stop Iran from building nuclear weapons because in the end, the places that they would need to make nuclear weapons are not that large. And after being attacked, they would likely launch a Manhattan-style program [the code name for the U.S. secret program during World War II to produce the atomic bomb]. So I would still say that military options are just not feasible. That doesn't mean you can't apply pressure on Iran, and I would argue that if you're not going to favor military strikes, then you need to focus more on sanctions to get Iran to rethink its priorities on enrichment. (emphasis mine)

I will say I don't trust Iran's leaders as far as I can spit.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Another related article:

Obama Envoy Raises Possibility of US Strike on Iran

U.S. envoy Dennis Ross, in a new book he co-authored, raises the possibility of the use of military force against Iran should negotiations fail to head off Tehran's nuclear ambitions.

Ross, who is leading the U.S. diplomatic effort to engage Iran on a series of issues, wrote "Myths, Illusions, and Peace - Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East" with David Makovsky, a former journalist who is a fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

. . . .

Tougher policies - either militarily or meaningful containment - will be easier to sell internationally and domestically if we have diplomatically tried to resolve our differences with Iran in a serious and credible fashion," they wrote.

In fact, they argued, if negotiations fail to prevent Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons - which Tehran denies seeking - any package of inducements that had been offered to Iran should be made public.

"Such an approach may build pressures within Iran not to forgo the opportunity that has been presented, while also ensuring that the onus is put on Iran for creating a crisis and also for making conflict more likely," they wrote.

The Obama administration, like the Bush administration before it, has refused to take the military option off the table in dealing with Iran, while stressing a desire to find a diplomatic solution.

[jadams_4040]

I am certainly no expert on Iran’s nuclear capabilities, but I have read various reports on it, and unfortunately, they often disagree with each other. I found the following intriguing. It’s an interview with David Albright, a long-time expert on Iran’s nuclear program. He says a military action would not be wise.

Some interesting excerpts:

I will say I don't trust Iran's leaders as far as I can spit.

Elphaba

What i canott figure is excatly where when and how did we become the "God of the world" and are able to tell every other country what they can and canott do? It does not matter what hogwash we have been filled with, it simply is not right. How would we respond if china started telling us what we can and cant do within our own boundries? maybe a nuclear iran would be dangerous, that is not my point. my point is we need to respect others soverignty; it is not our right to decide.

[Elphaba]

What i canott figure is excatly where when and how did we become the "God of the world" and are able to tell every other country what they can and canott do? It does not matter what hogwash we have been filled with, it simply is not right. How would we respond if china started telling us what we can and cant do within our own boundries? maybe a nuclear iran would be dangerous, that is not my point. my point is we need to respect others soverignty; it is not our right to decide.

In theory I agree. I remember when a US reconnaissance airplane hit a Chinese military plane and then landed in China. I believe it was not our place to be spying on China; if the same thing happened off America's coast there would obviously be an uproar.

I also take issue with the fact that America can have nuclear weapons, but no one else can (should); in other words, we should destroy all of our nuclear weapons as well. That's a very simplistic response to a complex situation, and not quite accurate. But ultimately that's the way I see it.

In reality? Simplistic responses ignore the most dangerous catastrophe possible to any people on the planet, especially in the hands of a country where a number of fanatics think Israel should be annihalated.

Should we be the ones to force that country to abandon its nuclear weapons programs?

Got me.

Elphaba

[Hemidakota]

We continue to spy on the world as the Chinese are far worse than us, when it comes to homegrown spying. The purpose of bringing the P3 naval spy plane down, if you want to call it that -a spy plane, laughable here since there are better equipped classified aircraft that caresses the Chinese airspace continually, P3 had some special unique equipment which the Chinese wanted.

Now what is a greater power, nuclear weapons or the Priesthood in the hands that are GOD's personal henchmen? :)

Edited June 13, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Guest]

In theory I agree. I remember when a US reconnaissance airplane hit a Chinese military plane and then landed in China. I believe it was not our place to be spying on China; if the same thing happened off America's coast there would obviously be an uproar.

I also take issue with the fact that America can have nuclear weapons, but no one else can (should); in other words, we should destroy all of our nuclear weapons as well. That's a very simplistic response to a complex situation, and not quite accurate. But ultimately that's the way I see it.

In reality? Simplistic responses ignore the most dangerous catastrophe possible to any people on the planet, especially in the hands of a country where a number of fanatics think Israel should be annihalated.

Should we be the ones to force that country to abandon its nuclear weapons programs?

Got me.

Elphaba

Actually, AMERICA are not the ones that are forcing Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc. to abandon nuclear weapons programs. The United Nations is. America is just one of the countries represented by the UN. And America is one of the strongest, if not THE strongest that's why when the US President says something, people around the world pay attention.

And the reason why they have to abandon uranium enrichment programs and the US doesn't have to is because they have governments that have broken UN regulations in the past and has not shown any desire to do better. America has not. There are more uses to uranium than just nuclear weaponry - one of the most popular is nuclear energy. It is impossible to tell if a country has uranium enrichment for energy or for weaponry. So, if you're going to make countries lay down nuclear weapons, you might as well have them lay down their nuclear energy. And that is something the US will really be disadvantaged with.

It's like having a child who has toed the line and followed the rules and shown responsbility - he is now then allowed to have a car. Whereas the other one who has a history of irresponsibility will remain car-less in the fear that he would inadvertently kill somebody with that car.

Make sense?

[FunkyTown]

And the reason why they have to abandon uranium enrichment programs and the US doesn't have to is because they have governments that have broken UN regulations in the past and has not shown any desire to do better. America has not.

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | World news | The Guardian

Yes. The US ignored the UN charter and went to war with Iraq. Yes. The US has broken UN regulations. Would you like me to point out other times when it ignored UN regulations when it fit the US?

EDIT: I should be a bit more careful. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the US, but the invasion of Iraq really strained international relations. Here is basically what the international community said when this started:

US: "We have to find the monsters who destroyed the World Trade Center!"

Rest of the world: "Yeah! It was that Bin Ladin guy, right? Let's get 'im! We have to go in to Afghanistan. Let's go!"

(Invasion occurs. Bin Ladin has never been found.)

US: We know Iraq was associated with Al Qaeda. We need to go in there!

Rest of the world: Wait... Whoah... Whoah... no. Al Qaeda is a religious organization and Iraq is led by a secular dictator.

US: They have weapons of mass destruction!

Rest of the world: Really? Can we see the proof?

US: No.

Rest of the world: ...

US: We'll show Great Britain!

Great Britain: Totally! There are weapons of Mass Destruction.

Rest of the World: ... Well... okay. We'll send in UN representatives to look in to Iraq's weapon of mass destruction.

Iraq: We will never let you on to our sovereign soil!

US: We're going to war! They're hiding it.

Iraq: CRAP! Okay. Yes. Come on in.

US: Too late! We're invading.

Rest of the world: HE FOLDED LIKE A CHEAP SUIT! JUST LET US INVESTIGATE, FIRST!

US Invades: We'll show you. Weapons of mass destruction are here.

(No weapons of mass destruction are found).

Rest of the world: Look... Uh... You guys really messed up.

US: We came in to take out Saddam Hussein and protect the people of Iraq.

(A year passes. More people die in that year than in the 20 previous years combined under Saddam Hussein.)

Rest of the world: HEY! Far more people are dying now than ever.

US: DEMOCRACY! We came to offer freedom and democracy to this people.

Rest of the world: ALL RIGHT! You're lying! First, you said that it was to find Al Qaeda. When we pointed out that Saddam Hussein was a secular leader who was hated by the same religious groups that attacked you, you said it was because he had weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons of mass dest -

US: ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT THE EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE!

Rest of the world:ruction. Then, you said it was to protect the people of Iraq. Now that we're pointing out that lots of people are dying - Far more than did even under the regime of that madman, you say it's to bring Democracy. You're lying. We know you're lying. You know you're lying. You refuse to tell us the real reason you went in there and that's why you're losing support in this.

Edited June 12, 2009 by FunkyTown

[Moksha]

Now what is a greater power, nuclear weapons or the Priesthood in the hands that are God's personal henchmen? :)

Hey, That sound catchy. Priesthood in the hands of God's PERSONAL HENCHMEN.

Sort of like "Onward Christian Soldiers" on steroids.

:)

[Elphaba]

We continue to spy on the world as the Chinese are far worse than us, when it comes to homegrown spying.

I have no idea what this means. Are you saying we continue to spy on the world because China can't?

The purpose of bringing the P3 naval spy plane down, if you want to call it that -spy plane, laughable here since there are better equipped classified aircraft that caresses the Chinese airspace continually, P3 had some special unique equipment which the Chinese wanted.

This is obviously in dispute. Apparently the Chinese pilot was known for being a hot shot and getting too close to other American military spy planes. In fact, he once got so close he held up a sign with his e-mail address on it, and the American pilot could read it.

So there is no way to know whether he was instructed to intentionally ram the spy plane or did so accidentally; obviously the Chinese say it was an accident. But even if you are right, the question is not whether it was expedient to spy on China.

The question is, did we have the right to spy on China, a sovereign nation. From what I've read, America and China interpret the laws governing this particular airspace very differently. Since China was the coastal country, in my opinion, it has the ultimate authority in the interpretation.

I'm not saying we should or should not be spying on other countries. Reality makes that a difficult question for me. But did we have the right to do so with China? In my opinion, no, we did not.

Am I naive about this? Probably.

Elphaba

[Elphaba]

Actually, AMERICA are not the ones that are forcing Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc. to abandon nuclear weapons programs.

I never said otherwise. I was responding to jadams comments about America only. Additionally, I acknowledged: “That’s a very simplistic response to a complex situation, and not quite accurate.”

America is just one of the countries represented by the UN.

Wow, I never knew that.

And America is one of the strongest, if not THE strongest

Exactly. In fact, even if America withdrew its membership from the United Nations, it would still lead the world in doing whatever possible to ensure one or more of these countries does not deploy a nuclear weapon.

And the reason why they have to abandon uranium enrichment programs and the US doesn't have to is because they have governments that have broken UN regulations in the past and has not shown any desire to do better. America has not.

The reason America does not have to abandon its nuclear weapons programs is simply because it does not want to, and probably for good reason. But if, for some admittedly unimaginable reason, the UN were to pass a resolution saying American must abandon these programs, America would violate the resolution.

Obviously these other countries, including Iran, feel the same--that they have a sovereign right to develop nuclear weapons, regardless of what the UN says. Putting aside their motives, why don’t they have the right to develop them when we do?

In my opinion, the lofty answer is they do. In reality, I think it’s too dangerous to allow these countries to develop these weapons. How does America prevent that while allowing them their sovereign rights? It depends on who you ask. All I know is I have no idea.

It is impossible to tell if a country has uranium enrichment for energy or for weaponry.

Apparently, it is in Iran. According to the interview with David Albright I posted above, Iran does not currently have the ability to acquire enough uranium for nuclear energy, while it does have enough for nuclear weapons. If this is true, then it is possible all Iran’s posturing about nuclear energy is a diversion to its real intent. That frightens me.

So, if you're going to make countries lay down nuclear weapons, you might as well have them lay down their nuclear energy.

If they’re not willing to stop developing nuclear weapons with the intention of obliterating a nation it does not believe has the right to exist, then so be it.

And that is something the US will really be disadvantaged with.

How so?

It's like having a child who has toed the line and followed the rules and shown responsbility - he is now then allowed to have a car. Whereas the other one who has a history of irresponsibility will remain car-less in the fear that he would inadvertently kill somebody with that car.

Go back and read Funky's post. America irresponsibly violated a UN resolution which resulted in the horrific deaths of lots of innocent somebodies.

Any country that thinks it's in its best interests to violate a UN resolution is going to violate it if it has the means to get away with it. That does not mean we shouldn’t keep trying, especially with these particular countries. I am all for negotiations and negotiations and negotiations if it will prevent an unnecessary military action. Is that reality? I don’t know.

But in the case of Iran, until I hear its mullahs admit Israel has the right to exist, that the holocaust did happen, and that America is not its sworn enemy, I will not feel the world is safe from Iran. I have no doubt these mullahs, who are the ones who really rule the country, will seriously consider using these weapons, even if it puts its own citizens in danger. That is how Islamist extremist fanatics think, as we all already know.

Make sense?

Frankly, I don’t understand your point. Are you saying America should strive to disarm Iran, or not? Or are you saying something completely different?

I admit I'm all over the map on this one.

Elphaba

Edited June 13, 2009 by Elphaba

[Palerider]

Actually, AMERICA are not the ones that are forcing Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc. to abandon nuclear weapons programs. The United Nations is. America is just one of the countries represented by the UN. And America is one of the strongest, if not THE strongest that's why when the US President says something, people around the world pay attention.

And the reason why they have to abandon uranium enrichment programs and the US doesn't have to is because they have governments that have broken UN regulations in the past and has not shown any desire to do better. America has not. There are more uses to uranium than just nuclear weaponry - one of the most popular is nuclear energy. It is impossible to tell if a country has uranium enrichment for energy or for weaponry. So, if you're going to make countries lay down nuclear weapons, you might as well have them lay down their nuclear energy. And that is something the US will really be disadvantaged with.

It's like having a child who has toed the line and followed the rules and shown responsbility - he is now then allowed to have a car. Whereas the other one who has a history of irresponsibility will remain car-less in the fear that he would inadvertently kill somebody with that car.

Make sense?

Anyone know how many years it has been since a country actually did what the united nations told them to do?????

[Hemidakota]

Hey, That sound catchy. Priesthood in the hands of God's PERSONAL HENCHMEN.

Sort of like "Onward Christian Soldiers" on steroids.

:)

I need to stop reading your post since I beginning to add humor to mine.

[Hemidakota]

I have no idea what this means. Are you saying we continue to spy on the world because China can't?

This is obviously in dispute. Apparently the Chinese pilot was known for being a hot shot and getting too close to other American military spy planes. In fact, he once got so close he held up a sign with his e-mail address on it, and the American pilot could read it.

So there is no way to know whether he was instructed to intentionally ram the spy plane or did so accidentally; obviously the Chinese say it was an accident. But even if you are right, the question is not whether it was expedient to spy on China.

The question is, did we have the right to spy on China, a sovereign nation. From what I've read, America and China interpret the laws governing this particular airspace very differently. Since China was the coastal country, in my opinion, it has the ultimate authority in the interpretation.

I'm not saying we should or should not be spying on other countries. Reality makes that a difficult question for me. But did we have the right to do so with China? In my opinion, no, we did not.

Am I naive about this? Probably.

Elphaba

HOME GROWN is a CXX term. They are more spies in the United States than we have in China.

It was not an accident but intentional. Sorry! But what ever the media told was not reality. They had another agenda after seeing a 'few special' destroyed equipment did not make it back aboard the plane.

We need to continue the spying effect no matter the cost. Something will come later, which will prove its value.

[john doe]

Anyone know how many years it has been since a country actually did what the united nations told them to do?????

Oh come on, haven't you heard of the power of the 'strongly worded letter'? I'm sure that would scare any dictator intent on flexing their muscles.

[Hemidakota]

Maybe we need to use the 'paddle' on the dictator of NK behind? :)

[Dravin]

Maybe we need to use the 'paddle' on the dictator of NK behind? :)

[Palerider]

now thats scary.....reminds me of some teachers I had to deal with as a teenager......LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest]

Iraq war was illegal and breached UN charter, says Annan | World news | The Guardian

Yes. The US ignored the UN charter and went to war with Iraq. Yes. The US has broken UN regulations. Would you like me to point out other times when it ignored UN regulations when it fit the US?

EDIT: I should be a bit more careful. I have a tremendous amount of respect for the US, but the invasion of Iraq really strained international relations. Here is basically what the international community said when this started:

US: "We have to find the monsters who destroyed the World Trade Center!"

Rest of the world: "Yeah! It was that Bin Ladin guy, right? Let's get 'im! We have to go in to Afghanistan. Let's go!"

(Invasion occurs. Bin Ladin has never been found.)

US: We know Iraq was associated with Al Qaeda. We need to go in there!

Rest of the world: Wait... Whoah... Whoah... no. Al Qaeda is a religious organization and Iraq is led by a secular dictator.

US: They have weapons of mass destruction!

Rest of the world: Really? Can we see the proof?

US: No.

Rest of the world: ...

US: We'll show Great Britain!

Great Britain: Totally! There are weapons of Mass Destruction.

Rest of the World: ... Well... okay. We'll send in UN representatives to look in to Iraq's weapon of mass destruction.

Iraq: We will never let you on to our sovereign soil!

US: We're going to war! They're hiding it.

Iraq: CRAP! Okay. Yes. Come on in.

US: Too late! We're invading.

Rest of the world: HE FOLDED LIKE A CHEAP SUIT! JUST LET US INVESTIGATE, FIRST!

US Invades: We'll show you. Weapons of mass destruction are here.

(No weapons of mass destruction are found).

Rest of the world: Look... Uh... You guys really messed up.

US: We came in to take out Saddam Hussein and protect the people of Iraq.

(A year passes. More people die in that year than in the 20 previous years combined under Saddam Hussein.)

Rest of the world: HEY! Far more people are dying now than ever.

US: DEMOCRACY! We came to offer freedom and democracy to this people.

Rest of the world: ALL RIGHT! You're lying! First, you said that it was to find Al Qaeda. When we pointed out that Saddam Hussein was a secular leader who was hated by the same religious groups that attacked you, you said it was because he had weapons of mass destruction. There were no weapons of mass dest -

US: ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT THE EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE!

Rest of the world:ruction. Then, you said it was to protect the people of Iraq. Now that we're pointing out that lots of people are dying - Far more than did even under the regime of that madman, you say it's to bring Democracy. You're lying. We know you're lying. You know you're lying. You refuse to tell us the real reason you went in there and that's why you're losing support in this.

Hey Funky, you are absolutely correct. I completely agree with you!

Okay, let me clarify my post on the UN...

I was just going by historical occurences and not "what should have happened".

Anyway, Iran got UN sanctions in 2005 for their nuclear program. This was done because Iran vocally vowed to annihilate Israel. Since Israel is a member of the UN, the UN felt it prudent to stop Iran's quest for nuclear energy to caution against them arming with nuclear weapons aimed straight at Israel. Their bad history with the British in the 60's and their capture of the US Embassy in the late 70's did not gain them any favors...

My position on this matter is that the British/US made a big mistake in Operation Ajax in the 50's when they deposed the Iranian Prime Minister. This was when Iran was at it's height in industrialization - building of transportation/railroads/etc, nationalizing their oil industry, starting up a nuclear energy program - all because of the brilliance of PM Mossadegh. The ouster of Mossadegh gave rise to the Pahlavi dictatorship which really hurt the Iranians lasting for decades! This then led to Khomenei's anti-US sentiment. So that when the Islamic Revolution came about in the late 70's to oust the Pahlavi dynasty, the Iranian people cried against the US with Khomenei causing the US Embassy to get seized. The Islamic Revolution caused Iran to become a theocracy that expressed their anti-Israel sentiments as a government, instead of just as a group of Islamic terrorists. Until today, they recognize the sovereignty of all UN countries except Israel.

Iraq got UN sanctions in 1991 for the Iraq-Kuwait conflict. Iraq has a bad history with their neighbors since Saddam came into power in 1979. In 1980, Saddam used Iran's preoccupation with the US to launch an attack against Iran in the hopes of controlling the entire region. By this time, Iraq has already developed a nuclear reactor. Well, Israel didn't wait to find out who gets to win the conflict or even if the UN can control the opposing forces - Israel went ahead and bombed the nuclear reactor before they can be used for nuclear weaponry. This act caused Israel's nuclear capability to be put under IAEA restrictions as well. But, even with the bombing of the reactor in 1981, I will submit that it is very naive for anybody to say that Iraq does not have a nuclear weaponry program - even the capability - in 2002, especially since Saddam has been doing a hide-and-seek game with the UN inspectors.

North Korea has always been on the UN "watchlist" since they are still technically at war with South Korea. There was never a treaty or anything that ended the Korean War. There is only cease fire until today. Therefore, any nuclear capability here (and they claim to be already nuclear) is a danger according to the UN, because North Korea has a history of breaking bilateral talks with any of its neighboring UN-membered countries.

Now, the US went into war in Iraq without UN approval. So, yeah, they are also in violation of UN agreements even if they got the support of the "UN big wigs" - Britain especially. But the UN has not issued any sanctions against the US (to my knowledge). So, Elphaba is right. The US get to keep their nuclear weapons because the UN is not brave enough to slap the US hand.

Now, here's my take on the matter again. I'm Filipino - from this little tiny country a stone's throw away from North Korea. There is absolutely no way for us to fight off any of these people. The only way we have been able to keep our sovereignty is because the US made it so. Not the UN - the US. Therefore, I would really be very upset if the US military gets any weaker than it already is. You think if North Korea ever decides to use that nuclear weaponry that it will be merciful against the Philippines? We have a major muslim presence in Southern Philippines. Iran/Iraq goes nuclear, the Philippines becomes an Islamic Theocracy - if there is no USA to get them under control.

Because, if you really get down to the reality of the situation, there is NO ABSOLUTE WAY for any of these idiots to keep their hands off of their neighbors unless some REALLY COOL GUYS beat them off with a REALLY BIG STICK. And yes, the USA, are the really cool guys. Whether it be Bush or Obama or John Doe at the helm.

[Guest]

In my opinion, the lofty answer is they do. In reality, I think it’s too dangerous to allow these countries to develop these weapons. How does America prevent that while allowing them their sovereign rights?

Hi Elphaba, you're exactly right. In a perfect world, nobody has the right to prevent any other sovereign nation from advancement. I've always been a proponent for "defense" - that is, make sure you can prevent a nuclear weapon from exploding when it does get released in the air. Very idealistic, I know. I'm very far from being an expert in weaponry, but, I would hope that by now, the US would have gained intelligence capabilities that will make it impossible for another Pearl Harbor from happening - not only in the US but also abroad. As it is, the UN can only go by what happened in the past to decide who gets to keep nuclear programs... tough job that is - and prone to bias.

How so?

Are you asking why I think it is disadvantageous for the US to abandon nuclear energy? I mentioned that it is impossible to abandon nuclear weaponry without abandoning nuclear energy. And that abandoning nuclear energy is disadvantageous to the US. The reason I said this is because there are many states that rely on nuclear energy for their electric consumption. For example, Vermont is 76% nuclear, South Carolina and New Jersey are over 50%, Connecticut, Illinois, and New Hampshire are over 40%. With the demand for Clean Air, demand for nuclear energy is just going to rise some more. I used to work for a nuclear plant in Ohio.

Frankly, I don’t understand your point. Are you saying America should strive to disarm Iran, or not? Or are you saying something completely different?

My first post was just a historical perspective devoid of opinion. I have some explanations on my opinions on my post directly above. Basically, my logic dictates that the Iranian people should benefit from nuclear energy. But the same logic also dictates that somebody HAS TO be able to prevent a nuclear strike from Iran. The problem is, I don't think the US, or any other nation for that matter, has the capability to prevent ANY of the nuclear-capable countries from launching an attack on its neighbors.

When Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactors in 1981, I was ambivalent on it even if it went against my "basic principles" (at that time, clarification to follow) - because, I can't really blame Israel for their method of defense since it is the only thing as of now that would guarantee that these pesky governments don't make good on their promise to annihilate them. Clarification: I was only 11 years old at that time, so my principles then were not really developed yet - I was riding my Father's views at that time. But until now, my ambivalence has not changed even with er, ahem.... maturity (if I can consider myself mature). I really find this a very difficult issue with my position on things really shaky. And I wouldn't be surprised if an escalation of this conflict would be the exact thing that would bring about the millenium.

[Elphaba]

Hi Elphaba, you're exactly right. In a perfect world, nobody has the right to prevent any other sovereign nation from advancement. >snip<As it is, the UN can only go by what happened in the past to decide who gets to keep nuclear programs... tough job that is - and prone to bias.

I agree.

Are you asking why I think it is disadvantageous for the US to abandon nuclear energy? >snip<I used to work for a nuclear plant in Ohio.

Okay, I understand your point. I thought you meant that if we forced Iran to disarm, or stop developing nuclear weapons, we would also have to prevent them from developing nuclear energy. I didn’t realize you were talking about America’s nuclear energy. With that information, I agree with you.

My first post was just a historical perspective devoid of opinion. I have some explanations on my opinions on my post directly above. >snip< I was only 11 years old at that time, so my principles then were not really developed yet - I was riding my Father's views at that time. But until now, my ambivalence has not changed even with er, ahem.... maturity (if I can consider myself mature).

I really find this a very difficult issue with my position on things really shaky. And I wouldn't be surprised if an escalation of this conflict would be the exact thing that would bring about the millenium.

Since I’m an atheist, I don't believe in a millennium. However, I do agree with everything else you’ve said. It is so unbelievably complicated.

I absolutely believe Israel has the right to exist; however, Israel has committed its own atrocities and is not blameless in his situation. But given the Iranian mullahs fanaticism, I don't think they'd care about a retaliation if they decided to nuke Israel. Maybe I'm wrong, but these men terrify me.

Again, I will not trust these leaders until they acknowledge Israel has the right to exist, the holocaust actually happened, etc. But I don't see that happening anytime soon. In fact, I wonder if Mousavi had won (he probably did, but. . . .) if he would have admitted such. I don't know the answer to that, but my gut tells me probably no. I hope I'm wrong about that. (I guess I should go and look it up, eh?)

I am so conflicted about this whole situation, it makes my head hurt thinking about it.

Elphaba

[Mahdi]

In the name of God

Interesting column by John Bolton in the WSJ.

ha ha,they couldn't defeat a little group like Hizbollah,then they want to defeat Iran?it is ridiculous.
thanks
Mahdi

[john doe]

They don't want to defeat Iran, just stop Iran's ability to blot them out in a nuclear attack.

[Hemidakota]

Interesting column by John Bolton in the WSJ.

Old news though still interesting.

[Hemidakota]

In the name of God

ha ha,they couldn't defeat a little group like Hizbollah,then they want to defeat Iran?it is ridiculous.

thanks

Mahdi

Not the case here but what prevented this little country in doing so, is the US. They only exist if the aforementioned has control over this country destiny.