Should we even care if Iran gets the bomb?

[Al Federfer]

Maybe I'm just being simple-minded, but to me the whole matter of Iran developing a nuclear bomb is a big yawn.

Iran is a sovereign nation, and it should be free to arm itself however it deems appropriate. I mean, what would the U. S. do if the United Nations, or even some other country, tried to tell us what weapons we could and could not develop? We'd tell them to buzz of, of course, and I think rightly so -- especialy if the nations attempting to prohibit us from such development already had those weapons.

We are told we should care because Iran wants to wipe out Israel. Do they really? I kind of doubt it. But even if they did, should the U. S. be so up-in-arms about it? Israel has nuclear weapons with which to defend itself, although from what I gather they don't like to admit it.

Iran's weaponry is none of our business, just as ours is none of theirs.

[napi21]

1. I would like to see ALL nukes disposed of by EVERYONE, but

I don't see that happening anytime soon. I happen to agree with you on Iran. I have to say, if I were Iran and Pakistan, India, Israel, China & Russia all have nukes, and the US has named my Country as one of the 3 axis of evil, I'd want them too! In addition to that, I'd look at how that crazy man in the US reacts to countries that already have nukes, like N. Korea.

I'd much prefer that no more countries get nukes, but that many who have them would decide to destroy them, but not to understand why Iran wants them now is simply playing the role of the ostrich.

[IDemo]

2. While even one nation with nukes is too many, you're correct

We dealt with the former USSR for decades, even though they had hundreds of times the destructive power Iran may wind up with (nevermind the missiles to deliver it). Pakistan represents at least as much a threat as Iran, and probably more if the government collapses.

Iran knows that any use of force, much less nuclear force, will result in their total annihilation by Israel and the US.

[LeftishBrit]

10. Not only would nuclear force result in annihilation through retaliation...

but even if it didn't, the fallout from attacking Israel or any other nearby country would have disastrous effects on Iran. So any halfway-sane leader would never do it. However, not all leaders are halfway-sane.

I'm not happy about Pakistan having nukes either. Or Bush/ Cheney, or Putin, or us for that matter. But that doesn't mean that it's a good idea for even more countries to have nukes.

I'm certainly not in favour of bombing Iran; I'm in favour of diplomacy, and if that fails, some form of economic sanctions by the UN. And keeping an eye open for *all* countries that might develop nukes. Just because Iran is Bush's latest bogeynation, doesn't mean that it's the only country that could get nukes.

[NightWatcher]

3. if they had it already, maybe we wouldnt hit them

[bryant69]

4. That's prettystupid

Iran is an unstable nation who's acted in extremist ways in the past and who's current leader seems to share the same messianic world view. Keeping a nation like that from getting the bomb is just smart.

I'd keep the bomb out of our hands, if I could, but that's no longer on the table; keeping it out of Irans hands though is possible.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

9. Oh, the irony.

[wuushew]

12. You best stock on on antacids and take Kubrik's advice

Good thing you're not the President.

[bryant69]

14. Is there any resposible person on either side of the aisle who isn't opposed

to Iran getting the bomb?

Bryant

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

18. Is there any responsible course of action...

that those opposed to Iran getting the bomb would like to suggest?

[bryant69]

19. Sure there are a number of them

A few guidelines. Obviously you need an accurate assessment of where Iran is in building a nuclear bomb (unfortunately, as we all know, the current Bush administration is likely to provide an inaccurate assessment in favor of goading us into war with Iran). How close are they? What do they need?

Then there is a banquet of responses. You can bribe them, you can impose sanctions, you can support those rebelling against the Iranian Government (which is pretty repressive), you can put diplomatic pressure to change course.

Merely being concerned about Iran getting the bomb does not lead inexorably towards invading Iran.

Bryant

[Terran]

16. What makes you say Iran is an "unstable nation"?

They've had the same government in place for 30 years, and since the fundies run the palce they don't have the same religious issues boiling just beneath the surface that many other ME nations do (Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, to name a few). And they haven't been at war with anyone for what, about 20 years? If I had to rank their stability, I would say they're just below Jordan, a very stable nation. The fact that their elected president is viewed as a nutcase by the US media doesn't make the whole country unstable.

[ThomWV]

5. I worry more about Israel having A-Bombs than I do any other country

[NNN0LHI]

6. People were hysterical at the thought of North Korea having nukes

Well they have nukes now.

No one seems hysterical any more.

Don

[Peace Patriot]

7. Bush and Cheney have the Bomb! That's who we should be worried about! nt

[LeftishBrit]

11. Too true...

[LeftishBrit]

8. Yes, we should care

We want fewer countries with nukes, not more.

And if a country must have nukes, it's probably best if it's a country which does not have a fanatical and stupid leader who could be prepared to risk his own people's, as well as other countries', lives for his hatred and macho attitudes. Too bad from that point of view that Bush has access to nukes; but it may not be too late to prevent Ahmadejinad getting them too.

[ecstatic]

13. didn't you get the memo? Only white nations are allowed to

have nukes!

[Swede]

15. Like China,India and Pakistan?

Just sayin'

[wuushew]

17. kick

:kick: