Re: Iran signals nuclear work expansion

[Guest guest]

He's going to find that a lot harder to do than winning an election against a very unpopular president. There really isn't any way to stop Iran from getting nukes short of attacking them and possibly stirring up a global war we aren't ready for, especially no with this kind of economic crisis on our hands.

The world is just going to have to accept that Iran is going to get nukes and the only way to contain them will be with the threat of retaliation if they use them on anyone. We'll just be going back to the days of Mutually Assured Destruction, as bad as that was.

In a message dated 11/26/2008 12:06:06 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

They also underlined the challenge facing U.S. President-elect Barack Obama, who after his election victory this month called for an international effort to stop Tehran developing a nuclear bomb, saying it was "unacceptable."Life should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

I would agree. The US shouldn't have to be the world cop, particularly since we usually catch nothing but grief for it. Its like the Balkans in the 1990's. The Europeans were afraid of a regional war or more, but was unwilling to take action itself. So Clinton let himself get tricked into doing the deed for them. Rather than being grateful, we got hammered for it.

If it weren't for the possibility that terrorists could smuggle in an Iranian nuke or two and take out a city or two, and the panic it would cause, we really shouldn't worry about it. The Russians and some European nations helped the Iranians build this reactor and got them Uranium, so they should be the ones to deal with it.

In a message dated 11/26/2008 1:10:38 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, no_reply writes:

Nevertheless, why should the US always be the one to make the move to prevent weapons from being developed? I think it would be a good idea for the US to sit this one out and let the rest of the world deal with it. They will talk and talk and negotiate and negotiate and then Iran will probably drop the bomb on an enemy of theirs with the result being that the world will have no one to blame but themselves and they will have a greater understanding of why the US always sticks its nose in everywhere.AdministratorLife should be easier. So should your homepage. Try the NEW AOL.com.

[Guest guest]

The best bet is to strike before they actually develop anything. If

they have so much as one bomb hidden anywhere, they can launch it or

detonate it. If the world is to ever be rid of such weapons, step one

is to destroy the ability to make them. Step two is to destroy or

dismantle the ones that are already made.

Nevertheless, why should the US always be the one to make the move to

prevent weapons from being developed? I think it would be a good idea

for the US to sit this one out and let the rest of the world deal

with it. They will talk and talk and negotiate and negotiate and then

Iran will probably drop the bomb on an enemy of theirs with the

result being that the world will have no one to blame but themselves

and they will have a greater understanding of why the US always

sticks its nose in everywhere.

Administrator

" He's going to find that a lot harder to do than winning an election

against a very unpopular president. There really isn't any way to

stop Iran from getting nukes short of attacking them and possibly

stirring up a global war we aren't ready for, especially no with this

kind of economic crisis on our hands.

" The world is just going to have to accept that Iran is going to get

nukes and the only way to contain them will be with the threat of

retaliation if they use them on anyone. We'll just be going back to

the days of Mutually Assured Destruction, as bad as that was. "

[Guest guest]

A big reason I see the US itself being concerned is that of defending

one of our biggest allies, whom has a target painted all over their

existence by the president of Iran, who has sworn to wipe them off

the face of the earth: Israel. And yet, of course, if they do

something that they can't prove without a shadow of a doubt stopped

nuclear weapons, they'll face international condemnation, and

regardless of their methods, will always be spat upon by the arab

nations, just for daring to do anything: Israel can't win in the eyes

of the world, though I'm not sure that the US would have any better

end results.

One bomb could make a mess of a small chunk of the US, and even in

the most densely populated part of the US, there's no way they'd take

out the entirety of the US, not even close. However, the climate of

Israel and the way things are there for size, geography, etc. means a

single bomb can go much farther in effects, and could possibly knock

them out of existence for all practical intents.

Of course, bombing Israel is the act of someone with more anger than

sense, since it'll instantly make them a word-wide pariah, not to

mention that other than the direct military responses that can be

expected, and the economic results, the amount of damage it'll do all

over the area from the fallout and weather changes would push things

over the edge for many countries in the area: it'd effectively be an

act of war on several countries at once, who'd feel a need to stomp

them down, if only to minimize the future damage to their own

ecological existence. You really can't be 100% sure what the results

of an above-ground nuclear detonation will be beyond the immediate

effects, in most practical cases.

Why the US and the USSR ever got into the nuclear arms race, is still

something that's hard to fully comprehend: it just doesn't make sense

to have so much that's so long-term destructive to the overall

environment that there's no such thing as " winning " in the first

place. And yet, India and Pakistan are bent on repeating our past...

>

> " He's going to find that a lot harder to do than winning an

election

> against a very unpopular president. There really isn't any way to

> stop Iran from getting nukes short of attacking them and possibly

> stirring up a global war we aren't ready for, especially no with

this

> kind of economic crisis on our hands.

>

> " The world is just going to have to accept that Iran is going to

get

> nukes and the only way to contain them will be with the threat of

> retaliation if they use them on anyone. We'll just be going back to

> the days of Mutually Assured Destruction, as bad as that was. "

>