Shalom, Mr Ahmadinejad

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Amelius, I can't quote your post because of the font tags that show up in it, so it's easier to respond this way.

Israel acts overwhelmingly in a defensive manner, and at the time it acquired nuclear bombs it was in real danger of being totally destroyed. Now, this doesn't mean that acquiring the nuclear weaponry was a good thing, but from the Israeli point of view it was necessary. I don't disagree with you that further nuclear proliferation is a bad thing. In fact, this is exactly why I don't want Iran to acquire them. Israel has had them for decades, Iran is acquiring them now. We don't want more potential nuclear powers, but Israel already is one. It is not good to allow yet another nuclear power to emerge in that region merely in the interests of fairness.

For most of Israel's history it has been the underdog. It could easily take out every Arab state by itself one by one, but if they are allied together the situation becomes much more desperate, as shown at least twice since the end of the Second World War. While you are correct in saying that this is probably not realistic today, in the fifties and sixties it was a very probable possibility. It would be difficult to convince Israel to disarm at the same time that Iran is now arming - the rough equivalent of America giving up all of her nuclear bombs while allowing Russia and China to keep theirs.

Hell If Israel needs nukes to combat its enemies than what about the Iranians ?!

On the one side you have a bunch of fairly poorly equipped forces divided in opinion, on the other side you have two of the most powerful military's in the world...

Only Iran is in relatively little danger of actually being attacked. Russia and China would not like it either. There is no way America would attack Iran without bringing them on board, in which case Iran is screwed anyway, nukes or no nukes.

If anyone was asked (from a purely mathmatical POV) which side needed defensive nukes more in that equation the overwhelming answer would be Iran...

Only if your equation is wrong to start with.

My point is more along the lines of...

If you consider Israel's position in the 60's bad enough to need defensive nukes (by looking at the military strength of her enemies) then surely you can see the definite need for Iran to have defensive nukes (America + Israel = outside of Russia and China no one could put up much resistance AFAIK)

The only thing those other countries could possibly do is threaten them back with Nukes... which is porbably what the Iranians are thinking...

Iran is not under any threat from Israel whatsoever, and is under relatively little threat from America.

[Aemilius Paulus]

It is not good to allow yet another nuclear power to emerge in that region merely in the interests of fairness.

Hehe, well, I am not advocating that either. The last thing I care about in politics is fairness.
What I am merely pointing out is that the West has no one to blame for Iran's atomics other than themselves. You are inevitably putting yourselves in the position of blatant hypocrisy. Just how much you care about that is your choice...

It would be difficult to convince Israel to disarm at the same time that Iran is now arming - the rough equivalent of America giving up all of her nuclear bombs while allowing Russia and China to keep theirs.

Which is why Israel should not have waited by now. Iranian patience is not limitless. Israel continued their nuclear programme and no one did anything to stop them. They did not scrap their program like South African Republic or Libya did. Even after the danger clearly went away, it did not offer to destroy its atomics. Now they pay the price. Seriously, were the Jews honestly so foolish as to not realise that a powerful, militant, and uranium rich nation such as Iran would not attempt to catch up by producing its own fission armaments by the 1990s? I doubt it.

They knew it was coming, just not when. They could have extended the olive branch, but they did not. Of course, that is always hard to do. But even harder to now face nuclear Iran, which will stay nuclear even if it agrees to surrender its WMDs. After all, they have the technology, just like Ukraine, which produced atomics under the Soviet supervision and gave up its arsenal to Russia (and US I believe as well). If things heat up there, who knows...

[rvg]

Israel continued their nuclear programme and no one did anything to stop them. They did not scrap their program like South African Republic or Libya did. Even after the danger clearly went away, it did not offer to destroy its atomics.

The difference is that Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran did. The reason the UN is going after Iran is because Iran is violating the terms of that treaty. Nobody forced them to sign it, but since they did, they are obligated to abide by its principles.

[drone]

The difference is that Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran did. The reason the UN is going after Iran is because Iran is violating the terms of that treaty. Nobody forced them to sign it, but since they did, they are obligated to abide by its principles.

This.

And Iran has a way out of the treaty, a 3 month advance notice of withdrawal. Until then, research and development of nuclear weaponry is forbidden.

[Aemilius Paulus]

The difference is that Israel never signed the non-proliferation treaty. Iran did. The reason the UN is going after Iran is because Iran is violating the terms of that treaty. Nobody forced them to sign it, but since they did, they are obligated to abide by its principles.

ZOMFG!!!11! Breaking news - a nation dared to break a treaty not worth the paper it was printed on!!11!!!


Honestly, this is farce. Everyone could care less if Israel signed it and Iran did not. Or if it was the other way around. The levels of condemnation would remain the same. No one cares that Iran is breaking some toilet-paper treaty - they simply do not wish for another power to contend with.

Should I begin mentioning all the treaties Israel and US do not abide by? Nuclear non-proliferation treaty is bollox as are generally all international treaties banning a specific weapon. No one pays attention to them even if they signed it, and the only reason so few break it is because nations do not generally sign it if they plan a nuclear program in the future. And you do not even have to sign.

So how can you even condemn Iran for this when US broke essentially the oldest and the most respected one of them all - the Geneva Convention. How much did US torture suspected terrorists, circumventing laws, squeezing through loopholes, finding technicalities or even going over and into the territory of the absurd, such as redefining the very word "torture"? Even UK engaged in "enhanced interrogation".

How many times have the Israelis employed forbidden weapons, whether they signed the treaties prohibiting the use of those armaments or not? And the main point with Israelis is that they did not even have to use all the manure they did. It is not like Lebanon or Palestine are serious opponents engaged in a life or death war with Israel.


Please, cut the jokes...

[rvg]

Should I begin mentioning all the treaties Israel and US do not abide by?

Please do. Let's see how many treaties the U.S. has signed, ratified and subsequently dishonored in the past, say, 50 years.

[Beskar]

Trident actually breaks the Nuclear Disarmament treaty. Also, the Kyoto Protocol is a contending too. (Those just from the top of my head and big ones too)

[Aemilius Paulus]

Please do. Let's see how many treaties the U.S. has signed, ratified and subsequently dishonored in the past, say, 50 years.

Bah, you can do the research if you are so interested - I have a a class in thirty minutes, but to be on equal ground, Iran may have broken one treaty. And US, without a doubt, also broke one treaty. Iran is most likely going to aim for the nuclear bomb. That broke the non-proliferation treaty. US abused prisoners of war, and tortured them, so there goes the Geneva Treaty. There goes a definite violation (since Iran does not yet posses the bomb, nor is clearly attempting to produce it - for all we know it is merely developing nuclear power).

Oh, and just because I feel so amicable today, I will throw in another treaty US broke - the ones dealing with chemical weapons, which it stockpiled (as did everyone else, but still, a rule broken is a rule broken). Not to mention, do you believe US is complying or is going to comply with the Chemical Weapons Convention it signed? Not a chance.

[drone]

ZOMFG!!!11! Breaking news - a nation dared to break a treaty not worth the paper it was printed on!!11!!!


Honestly, this is farce. Everyone could care less if Israel signed it and Iran did not. Or if it was the other way around. The levels of condemnation would remain the same. No one cares that Iran is breaking some toilet-paper treaty - they simply do not wish for another power to contend with.

It was that Israel didn't sign, and Iran did. This is why there wasn't nearly as much fuss when it became obvious that Israel had the bomb. They weren't bound by the treaty. Neither were India and Pakistan.

All Iran has to do is put in it's 90-day notice, and then it can give El Baradei the finger when it comes to inspections.

Kyoto Protocol

how many treaties the U.S. has signed, ratified

[rvg]

I see a lot of claims regarding Uncle Sam's frivolities with international treaties, but no sources to back up those claims.

[LittleGrizzly]

Only Iran is in relatively little danger of actually being attacked. Russia and China would not like it either. There is no way America would attack Iran without bringing them on board, in which case Iran is screwed anyway, nukes or no nukes.

Not so long ago Iran was thought to be a possible target by alot of people, it had the rhetoric to go with it from the president as well.... Israel was also recently considering strikes... thats just recent history... the further you go back the more you see Iran being the much more threatened...

Honestly on a playground level Iran is a small six year old with a stocky 12 year old and his 16 year old brother picking on him... to call Iran the threatening one is quite frankly laughable....

Only if your equation is wrong to start with.

So taking your own national interests out of the equasion you still think two of the worlds most powerful militarys (even without thier nukes) need defensive nukes more than the relatively weak Iranian military ?!

RVG im not sure but you may have heard of Gauntanamo bay...

[rvg]

RVG im not sure but you may have heard of Gauntanamo bay...

Indeed. I haven't heard of any actual laws being broken there. U.S. or International.


Guantanamera, guajira guantanamera....

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not so long ago Iran was thought to be a possible target by alot of people, it had the rhetoric to go with it from the president as well.... Israel was also recently considering strikes... thats just recent history... the further you go back the more you see Iran being the much more threatened...

Why was Israel considering strikes? Because Iran was and is thought to be going for nuclear bombs, as well as helping out the terrorist groups fighting Israel.
Why did America consider Iran to be a possible target? Because it is actively working against them in Iraq and going for nuclear bombs, in addition to funding terrorist activity against Israel.

Iran isn't threatened. It's doing the threatening.

Honestly on a playground level Iran is a small six year old with a stocky 12 year old and his 16 year old brother picking on him... to call Iran the threatening one is quite frankly laughable....

Iran being picked on? No, Iran is the six year old who keeps making fun of the other six year old, because he knows that the twelve year old brother won't do anything about it. If Iran wasn't posturing like this and actively trying to work against us, we wouldn't even care it existed.

So taking your own national interests out of the equasion you still think two of the worlds most powerful militarys (even without thier nukes) need defensive nukes more than the relatively weak Iranian military ?!

Yes, since Iran going for nuclear weapons only raises the chance that we will strike them. In HOI2 speak, it adds significantly to their belligerence level.

[Azathoth]

ZOMFG!!!11! Breaking news - a nation dared to break a treaty not worth the paper it was printed on!!11!!!


Honestly, this is farce. Everyone could care less if Israel signed it and Iran did not. Or if it was the other way around. The levels of condemnation would remain the same. No one cares that Iran is breaking some toilet-paper treaty - they simply do not wish for another power to contend with.

Should I begin mentioning all the treaties Israel and US do not abide by? Nuclear non-proliferation treaty is bollox as are generally all international treaties banning a specific weapon. No one pays attention to them even if they signed it, and the only reason so few break it is because nations do not generally sign it if they plan a nuclear program in the future. And you do not even have to sign.

So how can you even condemn Iran for this when US broke essentially the oldest and the most respected one of them all - the Geneva Convention. How much did US torture suspected terrorists, circumventing laws, squeezing through loopholes, finding technicalities or even going over and into the territory of the absurd, such as redefining the very word "torture"? Even UK engaged in "enhanced interrogation".

How many times have the Israelis employed forbidden weapons, whether they signed the treaties prohibiting the use of those armaments or not? And the main point with Israelis is that they did not even have to use all the manure they did. It is not like Lebanon or Palestine are serious opponents engaged in a life or death war with Israel.


Please, cut the jokes...

Just like how the UN didn't care when Sadaam won the war with chemical weapons, right?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Just like how the UN didn't care when Sadaam won the war with chemical weapons, right?

Well they did not, if you are being sarcastic. UN never does anything by itself. When was the last time they stopped a genocide? Oh, that is right - never. Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Former Yugoslavia... All happened and still happens right under the eyes of UN, as it does nothing but wastes millions of dollars in maintenance costs for the army... Sure, UN helps out, and they were known to facilitate the evacuation of refugees during the Yugoslav and Kosovo Wars, but when actual acts of mass-murder happen, UN is either powerless to stop them, or merely chooses to stay at the sidelines - I understand they are avoiding direct confrontation and war, but really,... Gah, why shovel manure any further?

The bottom line is that if not for US, Hussein could have gotten away with all his chemical mischief against Iran as well as the Kurds and much, much more. But Bush already selected him as a target, fabricated a plethora of outright lies in addition to the true allegation that Iraq had chemical weapons and invaded the country.

Just take one of them - that Iran supposedly obtained 500 tons of yellowcake uranium from Niger. Five hundred? Was he serious? With the sorry state of roads and transportation in Niger that would have taken weeks to transport that from the mines to the coast, utilizing a great deal of trucks, and human resources. And there are no railroads there, as far as I read. This could not have been kept secret from even the common people, let alone the ever-prying eyes of CIA. Or the other watchdog organisations. Now, this data actually came from the British intelligence report, but it never said that it actually happened - it merely speculated, devoting literally one sentence to this alleged incident.

We all know Bush did not invade Iraq because of chemical weapons. He certainly had other reasons. Can we at least agree to that?

[Beskar]

UN never does anything by itself. When was the last time they stopped a genocide? Oh, that is right - never. Sudan, Rwanda, Burundi, Congo, Former Yugoslavia... All happened and still happens right under the eyes of UN, as it does nothing but wastes millions of dollars in maintenance costs for the army... Sure, UN helps out, and they were known to facilitate the evacuation of refugees during the Yugoslav and Kosovo Wars, but when actual acts of mass-murder happen, UN is either powerless to stop them, or merely chooses to stay at the sidelines - I understand they are avoiding direct confrontation and war, but really,... Gah, why shovel manure any further?

The simple fact is this, if you give the UN that power, all the nationalists will baww like babies.

Also, it gives UN a godly amount of power in the world, and if that something we actually want? An elected world government/organisation with the power to exert its authority over others?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Cue: Why a liberatarian socialist would dislike it.

[LittleGrizzly]

Why was Israel considering strikes? Because Iran was and is thought to be going for nuclear bombs, as well as helping out the terrorist groups fighting Israel.
Why did America consider Iran to be a possible target? Because it is actively working against them in Iraq and going for nuclear bombs, in addition to funding terrorist activity against Israel.

Iran isn't threatened. It's doing the threatening.

If building powerful destructive weapons is threatening then I do not even need to tell you why Israel and America are more threatening than Iran... it should be fairly obvious...

Yes, since Iran going for nuclear weapons only raises the chance that we will strike them.

So we (israel + US) need defensive nukes more because we will strike Iran if they try to get nukes.... ?!

So a country should not be allowed nuclear weapons if a bigger able power could attack them over it ?

That sounds like your basing your equasion on the wrong factors, what I asked was who needs defensive nukes more the fact another country may or may not strike them over them trying to get these nukes is not really a factor (or it would indicate if anything that the country that may get attacked needs them more if anything)

[Ironside]

This was done after the scientists said a 100 megaton bomb would cripple all of Russia with the fallout (which would be equivalent to 25% of all tested nuclear devices in the history of mankind) and the shockwave, which would generate a Richter 10 or worse earthquake if detonated on the ground – the 50 megaton test could have released 7.2 Richter if it was not an airburst…

Posting only because you have mentioned a preference of statistics.

100/2=50 megaton = half of Russia crippled with the fallout. (The reduced radiation comes from scrapping the uranium to lead in the final blasting cap. A pure fusion bomb is fairly clean, only neutron decay from the blast)

50*2 = triggering a 16.000 times stronger earthquake.

100 megaton triggering a seismic energy yield of 1.000.000 megaton (10 Richter).

Fair enough, the 50 megaton one is equal to about 7,1 Richter, but I would say that getting hit by the nuke is a bit worse than the following ground shockwave. ¨
The point of blowing it in the air is exactly that, because hitting the ground is severly weaking the blast, thus effiency.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Posting only because you have mentioned a preference of statistics.

100/2=50 megaton = half of Russia crippled with the fallout. (The reduced radiation comes from scrapping the uranium to lead in the final blasting cap. A pure fusion bomb is fairly clean, only neutron decay from the blast)

Sorry, but I do not understand you point well... what are you saying? You seem to be repeating my post:
Take the Tsar Bomba, which had a maximum yield of over 100 megatons, but had its uranium tamper replaced with a lead one to reduce its explosive power by half, downgrading it to 50 megatons, but at the same time made Tsar Bomba the cleanest and most efficient fusion or fission armament ever designed and/or tested.

Even as clean as most fusion designs are, the Tsar Bomba was expected to release momentous amounts of radiation, like I said, 25% of all the atomic tests ever conducted (roughly reported and estimated ~2600 nuclear devices – 2430 fully confirmed). Now, I am no physicist. Neither are you, or at least not a nuclear physicist. I see no reason why an official statement by the Soviet scientists, backed up by the American counterparts is not valid. If they say the radiation would have laid waste to much of Russia, then it must have had substantial amount of truth in it.



Like I said, please elaborate your post...

50*2 = triggering a 16.000 times stronger earthquake.

100 megaton triggering a seismic energy yield of 1.000.000 megaton (10 Richter).

Once again, what is your point? My apologies, but I do not see it (no, I am not sarcastic, I honestly did not understand your post).

[QUOTE=Ironside;2354108]Fair enough, the 50 megaton one is equal to about 7,1 Richter, but I would say that getting hit by the nuke is a bit worse than the following ground shockwave. ¨

The point of blowing it in the air is exactly that, because hitting the ground is severly weaking the blast, thus effiency.

Of course, I know that. An air burst utilises the ordnance’s blast most efficiently, but that is not always the goal. The 50 megaton did equal 7.1 Richter. I am citing the official reports, not my own reckoning. A 100 megaton bomb would have created a catastrophic earthquake, although due to the logarithmic scale of Richter I am cannot say what would be the power of a 100-megaton bomb – I have no desire to perform calculations now.

[Ironside]

Sorry, but I do not understand you point well... what are you saying? You seem to be repeating my post:
Take the Tsar Bomba, which had a maximum yield of over 100 megatons, but had its uranium tamper replaced with a lead one to reduce its explosive power by half, downgrading it to 50 megatons, but at the same time made Tsar Bomba the cleanest and most efficient fusion or fission armament ever designed and/or tested.

Even as clean as most fusion designs are, the Tsar Bomba was expected to release momentous amounts of radiation, like I said, 25% of all the atomic tests ever conducted (roughly reported and estimated ~2600 nuclear devices – 2430 fully confirmed). Now, I am no physicist. Neither are you, or at least not a nuclear physicist. I see no reason why an official statement by the Soviet scientists, backed up by the American counterparts is not valid. If they say the radiation would have laid waste to much of Russia, then it must have had substantial amount of truth in it.

Neutron radiation reduces with a 1000 every 2,5 hours (half-life of about 15 min), so basically any dangerous radiation that spreads (the neutrons are very dangerous in close proximity though, the principle used in neutron bombs) is from the blasting cap, that's a fission nuke for fusion bombs. So the radiation has more to do with the method of blowing the bomb than with the size of the bomb. Should that be 25% of the total radiation, then the 100 megoton nuke would be very dirty.

Like I said, please elaborate your post...


Once again, what is your point? My apologies, but I do not see it (no, I am not sarcastic, I honestly did not understand your post).

A 100megaton bomb is about 7.3 richter. Basically it's either hitting a critical point on the crust that have a meassurable treshold, is complete bull or the earth crust have been completly raptured, possibly with the whole planet cracking open by every larger meteor strike during earths history. A 400 megaton nuke would wipe out humanity with a vide margin (triggering a earthquake with about 16 on the richter scale).

Simply put, the differances between the 100 one and 50 one are wildly exaggerated. If that's in the offical report, it's plain propaganda.

[Aemilius Paulus]

Simply put, the differances between the 100 one and 50 one are wildly exaggerated. If that's in the offical report, it's plain propaganda.

The Americans never seemed to contradict anything said by the Soviets, the data is still widely cited in treatises on this subject. Actually, the Americans claimed the Russians understated the strength of the reaction, which the Americans measured at 57 megatons. Quite the opposite of dismissing the incident as padded and glorified/overstated with propaganda.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

If building powerful destructive weapons is threatening then I do not even need to tell you why Israel and America are more threatening than Iran... it should be fairly obvious...

Building the weapons in itself isn't threatening. Being threatening with them and threatening with the potential of making them is what Iran is trying to do.

So we (israel + US) need defensive nukes more because we will strike Iran if they try to get nukes.... ?!

So a country should not be allowed nuclear weapons if a bigger able power could attack them over it ?

That sounds like your basing your equasion on the wrong factors, what I asked was who needs defensive nukes more the fact another country may or may not strike them over them trying to get these nukes is not really a factor (or it would indicate if anything that the country that may get attacked needs them more if anything)

You seem to have a knack for missing the point of my posts on purpose.

[LittleGrizzly]

Being threatening with them and threatening with the potential of making them is what Iran is trying to do.

I haven't noticed Iran threatening Israel with Nuclear weapons they are going to acquire in the future...


And what do you mean threatening with the potential making of them... If iran is making nukes they are trying to cover it up... that doesn't seem like threatening with them to me....

You seem to have a knack for missing the point of my posts on purpose.

Its non sensical, our threatening or actually carrying out an attack is a reason we need nukes more than the country were threatening or attacking ?!

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I haven't noticed Iran threatening Israel with Nuclear weapons they are going to acquire in the future...

And what do you mean threatening with the potential making of them... If iran is making nukes they are trying to cover it up... that doesn't seem like threatening with them to me....

You're treading the very thin line between reasonable assumption of innocence and naïveté.

Its non sensical, our threatening or actually carrying out an attack is a reason we need nukes more than the country were threatening or attacking ?!

Which is not at all what I said.

[LittleGrizzly]

You're treading the very thin line between reasonable assumption of innocence and naïveté.

They are not threatening with nukes they don't have...

The threat is from your assumption of them wanting to get nukes (which isn't too much of an assumption) and your assumption they will use them (which is a HUGE leap) they are not suicidal nutters (despite what the propaganda might say) they would not be willing to use thier nukes and promptly be destoryed...

What is is that makes you think Iran would use thier nukes (presumably the reason you don't want Iran to have them)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

They are not threatening with nukes they don't have...

The threat is from your assumption of them wanting to get nukes (which isn't too much of an assumption) and your assumption they will use them (which is a HUGE leap) they are not suicidal nutters (despite what the propaganda might say) they would not be willing to use thier nukes and promptly be destoryed...

What is is that makes you think Iran would use thier nukes (presumably the reason you don't want Iran to have them)

Iran itself wouldn't use the bomb, they'd pass it or the technology to someone who could. Also, another nuclear power in the region would be a major destabilizer, especially in the hands of a country which has not only used such aggressive rhetoric but is actively working against Western interests in the region.

I don't see why anyone in a NATO member country bothers to defend them. They are already helping cause the deaths of our soldiers and the soldiers of our allies in regional wars.

[LittleGrizzly]

Iran itself wouldn't use the bomb, they'd pass it or the technology to someone who could. Also, another nuclear power in the region would be a major destabilizer, especially in the hands of a country which has not only used such aggressive rhetoric but is actively working against Western interests in the region.

I don't see Iran passing on a nuke too terrorists... no way they would get away with it.... I don't see terrorists being able to make one even if given the technology... so that leaves countrys they could pass it on to...

I can't really think of anyone that couldn't just get the technology off North Korea or somebody else... to the best of my knowledge Iran aren't the most popular country even with our enemies... Syria maybe ?

Western interests is not a fair way for the world to work so that argument is null to me...

I don't see why anyone in a NATO member country bothers to defend them. They are already helping cause the deaths of our soldiers and the soldiers of our allies in regional wars.

So I must support my country against the enemy because we are at war (at least by proxy) no matter what I think of the situation ?

That would be a dangerous attitude to have...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Western interests is not a fair way for the world to work so that argument is null to me...

Who cares? The world isn't fair. If you want to live, you have to be ready to get ahead and stay ahead.

So I must support my country against the enemy because we are at war (at least by proxy) no matter what I think of the situation ?

No, I simply find it absurd that your immediate reaction is to defend the enemy when your own soldiers are dying because of their actions.


The basic point it comes down to isn't fairness. It is if you personally would feel less secure if Iran had the bomb. If you would feel less secure, you should oppose it. If you would feel more secure, you probably should be locked up for question of your sanity. And that's phrasing it as nicely as I can.

[LittleGrizzly]

Who cares? The world isn't fair. If you want to live, you have to be ready to get ahead and stay ahead.

The world isn't fair but I would say would say with the advent of things like international law and such... I believe this is progress and a fairer world is what I strive for. That means western interests is meaningless to me (unless they are coinciding with other interests which are for the common good)

No, I simply find it absurd that your immediate reaction is to defend the enemy when your own soldiers are dying because of their actions.

Im not defending the enemy because our soldiers are dieing, that would only be out of some kind of hate, which I don't have for the military. I am defending (in your words) them because I believe it is right...

I suppose if it came down to some life or death choice either my country is destroyed or someone else's (with similar population) I would probably opt to save mine out for selfish reasons but I would like to think if it was Britian or somewhere like India or China I would opt for Britian's destruction for purely numerical reasons....

The basic point it comes down to isn't fairness. It is if you personally would feel less secure if Iran had the bomb. If you would feel less secure, you should oppose it. If you would feel more secure, you probably should be locked up for question of your sanity. And that's phrasing it as nicely as I can.

I wouldn't be worried either way... but then im really not the worrying type. I really don't see Iran using or supplying the nukes to someone else who would use them or using them themselves, so I don't really see any problems with it, if anything it may help thier domestic politics somewhat. If they feel more secure after they get the bomb then maybe the politicians won't be able to scare the population with outside threats as much and more concentration can be put on reform....

Don't get me wrong if anything I would rather Iran didn't have the bomb... I would rather nobody had the bomb but thats too idealistic...

Edit: Give it a few hundred years and we'll be back to sticks and stones

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst. You're hoping for the best and preparing for the best. The second we try to do that in our international politics, we lose.