To quote your response to someone else: "If I were you I would not bet on that." Or perhaps you are playing word games, for instance, if a rogue element 'stole' a nuke from Iran and then used it against Israel then it would be true literally that no country today used a nuke, however the end result would be the same. To state that no country today will use nukes against another country is an optimistic opinion that I cannot share.
If you think mullahs have the right to develop nukes because they are a sovereign country then I assume any sovereign country that has been openly threatened with total destruction by these mullahs then has the right to defend itself and it's people with pre emptive strikes... no...? Dont they have rights ? After all, they were openly threatened with total destruction. Also, I'm sure the mullahs would have no problem arming terrorists...That means the US has the right to defend itself against nuclear attack as well. Bottom line....this is a very dangerous game the mullahs are playing. One that the US can not afford to lose. The US has been put in a position in which they must act or face a certain nuclear attack.... there is no other way out. I guess it could be looked at like the next Cuban missile crises....the risk of not acting was greater then acting. Now if you want play the childish game of "who has the right to develope nukes" etc.. be my guest... But if you really want to get serious then you must look at the world with your "reality " glasses on. And the reality of the situation is that the US can not allow Iran to go nuclear since IMO a nuclear Iran would pose an even greater threat then the soviets did. How is this possible you ask,,,,The soviets responded to Mutual assured destruction .. or the mad doctrine "MAD" but I don't think the mullahs would respond to the MAD doctrine. This is why the US doctrine has gone from MAD to Pre emptive. obviously military experts agree with me ...They don't think mullahs could be deterred and contained with the MAD doctrine. So does iran have the right to devolope nukes....I guess one could argue that case... But one can also argue that the risk to the world community outweighs irans nuclear rights... It's all a matter of perspective... Nick
. Arnie: I can guarantee you that the US will not allow Brazil or any other country in the Western Hemisphere to develop or obtain nukes. ********* February 6, 2006 SouthAmerica: Your guarantee it is only fiction on your mind and not the reality of our Western Hemisphere since the early 1960âs. Here is why: On October 23, 2003 â I wrote the following on Brazzil magazine. I will repeat a portion of that article as follows: "The world is changing very fast, and we have to prepare Brazil for the future and adapt Brazil to the new world reality. I would tell my fellow Brazilians: "Please, wake up and look around the world; even poor countries such as India, Pakistan, South Africa, and North Korea have nuclear weapons". Today we should also add "Cuba" to this list. On November 22, 2002, I was watching a television program on PBS called "Now with Bill Moyers," Mr. Moyers was interviewing a historian, James Blight (he is considered today to be one of the foremost experts on this subject) - he wrote a book about the 1962 Cuban Nuclear Missile Crisis. It was an enlightening interview. The professor was saying that only recently, (in the last ten years) the U. S. learned a lot of new information about the Cuban missile crisis that the United States did not know at the time. He said that the U. S. intelligence thought that Fidel Castro had no nuclear warheads on his island in 1962. Since 1992 the U. S. learned that, in fact, the Soviets had already placed 162 nuclear weapons in Cuba. Fidel Castro had been cleared and had all the authorization necessary from the Soviets to use the weapons. If the United States had attacked Cuba in 1962, the invading US forces would have been annihilated by these nuclear weapons. I am glad that that crisis was resolved with diplomacy. I know that we don't learn lessons from past history, but that particular crisis is a very good example of what we don't know can hurt us in a big way. Usually when I see lists of countries that have nuclear weapons in the newspapers, the lists never list Cuba as being a nuclear weapons country. Since the U. S. was not aware that Cuba had such a large number of nuclear weapons on the island in 1962, is it very possible that Fidel Castro still has many of these weapons in Cuba. Why should Castro return any of his 162 nuclear weapons to the Soviet Union at that time, when the United States was not aware that he had all these weapons? I will not be surprised in the future when we find out after Castroâs death that Cuba had all these weapons on that island during all these years." .
southamerica, I disagree. The whacko Iranian Mullahs donât care about mutually assured destruction? They donât care if they die. Ahmadinejad has been quoted as saying with the destruction of Israel the 12th Imam will return. You donât negotiate with insanity.
Ahh yes...pbs... I can gaurantee thay there are no nukes in cuba. Just a little fact..... Nuclear matierial can not be hidden... not even if burried and in led enclosures. I agree...Time to move this to chit chat...
. nkny: If you think mullahs have the right to develop nukes because they are a sovereign country then I assume any sovereign country that has been openly threatened with total destruction by these mullahs then has the right to defend itself and it's people with pre emptive strikes... no...? Dont they have rights ? After all, they were openly threatened with total destruction. Also, I'm sure the mullahs would have no problem arming terrorists...That means the US has the right to defend itself against nuclear attack as wellâ¦. ******** February 6, 2006 SouthAmerica: If you are so worried about the mullahs arming terrorists with nukes â then you are worrying about the wrong country in my opinion â If you want to worry about any country then you should shake on your boots about Pakistan arming the terrorists with nukes and not Iran or North Korea. I donât know if you are aware of but Al Qaeda and the Taliban have a strong connection with Pakistan and Pakistan is a nuclear state â if these groups are going to get their hands on any nukes in the future most likely the nukes will be supplied by Pakistan â and today the leader of Pakistan is on very shake grounds in his country and he can be out of power at any time. If you want a country to worry about because of any nuclear threat then you should start worrying about Pakistan instead of all these other countries. In my opinion, if you use common sense then âPakistanâ could be considered the real nuclear threat and not Iran and North Korea. .
. âFear rattles oil marketâ Reuters â February 6, 2006 Oil prices surged this morning as tensions flared over Iran's nuclear program. Over the weekend, the U.N. atomic watchdog agency said it was reporting Iran to the U.N. Security Council over concerns the country was trying to develop nuclear weapons. Iran responded by resuming uranium enrichment and barring international inspectors from its nuclear sites. The oil market had already been shaken by fears that the dispute would disrupt supplies from the world's fourth largest oil exporter, said a Commonwealth Bank of Australia commodities strategist. "This adds fuel to the fire," he said. .