I can understand why it would make sense for Iran to get nuclear weapons. The question is, would it be in America's interest to allow Iran to get them?

Anyway you look at it, if Iran gets nukes it increases the chances for someone using them. Either the Iranian regime, or terrorists, or maybe even someone like Israel launching their nukes on Iran in a pre-emptive attack. I agree that all the countries in that region including Israel and Pakistan should get rid of their nukes. But allowing Iran to get nukes doesn't help that effort. It's a move in the wrong direction. If Iran gets nukes then soon others will want to get them too.

I don't know about you, but I don't like the idea of ANYONE having nukes. And letting more countries acquire these weapons is the surest way to have someone somewhere, at some point in the future actually use them against somebody.

__________________
Love Angel Music Baby

It would not.
It is in everyone's interest to rid the world of nukes. Right now they act as a balance against local enemies. I think that if we could persuade India, Pakistan and Israel to give them up, then Iran might cease their quest.
I think Iran sees it differently and neither of us can really blame them.
Yup.
This is why a general disarmament is what's called for. All these nations depend on trade so they are all vulnerable to pressure. If they come to see themselves as trading partners rather than enemies they will also be much more susceptible to disarmament talks.
Agreed!

Wonderful idea, let's wait until 2010 to do something about it. No wonder the dems are viewed so poorly when it comes to national security. I wonder who the dems will nominate to be Appeaser in Chief in '08.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

It's actually spelled "bukkake." It's Japanese, and I'm pretty sure you don't really wan to know what it means, although you can check it out on wikipedia if you just can't resist. It is, however, a fitting metaphor for WW3.

That would never happen unless the US and the rest of the developed world got rid of all their nukes as well. Nukes have become the ace card that any developing needs to face off with the big boys (look at how we kiss NK ass now). Even if we destroy Iran's capabilities to make nukes, they still keep working at it.

__________________
LET ME SEE YOUR WAR FACE!!!

And what would you propose to do now?

Bomb and end up with a more radical regime in Iran?
Or invade, and where would you get troops from?

The US does not have a military option.

The last thing I want to see is this potential conflict drawn out in the media like Iraq was, it's a recipe for failure. Lets stick with the economic sanctions route and bomb the hell out of their nuclear sites if and when it becomes clear they have them.

What physical evidence is there that Iran is making nukes? I have yet to see any just hearsay from the politicians.

__________________
http://illinoisns.blogspot.com/

It can bomb the ever living bejeezus out of their facilities. That won't necessarily mean a regime change. Israel did the same thing with Iraq and Saddam still stayed in power. That said, if it ousted the current leader, who isn't even liked by many of his own people, the chances are better of someone less radical entering in his place than someone more radical.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.

You think declaring war on another nation would not make that nation more radical. The US under Bush became more radical after the twin towers got demolished what makes you think you need a regime change to become more radical. Look at the events in Iraq if you think the US can bomb a nation into a form of western democracy.

The US does not have a realistic military option.

It would be easy to bomb them without declaring war. Maybe it will engender hate for their leader who got them into that mess. It worked for Israel when they did it with Iraq, there is no reason to suspect this is different. But even if it did make them more radical it would still be a better choice than allowing them to have nukes. So they most certainly do have a realistic military option.

__________________
JMS gets another English lesson:

Quote:

there is no "mostly unique;" thats like saying "sometimes always," its an oxymoron - its either one or the other.

The result:

Quote:

By the mid-19th century unique had developed a wider meaning, “not typical, unusual,” and it is in this wider sense that it is compared. The comparison of so-called absolutes in senses that are not absolute is standard in all varieties of speech and writing.