Quote:
|
Originally Posted by naz
I agree that the Iranians aren't developing nukes for power generation. They are, like the Koreans (and probably with their help), developing them as a deterrent versus the US and Israel. Nuke's in the Middle East are a really bad idea, but then again so are nukes in the subcontinent and in cold war Europe (powderkegs).
No country is crazy enough to launch a broad nuclear attack, the outcome in most instances would end up with the total annhilation in a counterstrike by either the target or it's allies. What having nukes does ensure against is conventional war, ala the stomping of Iraq. All the nuclear armed nations, cannot be conventional invaded without the opposing army being completely destroyed. For the first time in history, security of the homeland is basically assured.
Proliferation is basically inevitable, definately not desirable.
|
a pragmatic view, one i agree with. imo, there are good reasons to cool down the rhetoric:
1)proliferation is inevitable - there is really not much the US can do about it in the long run. containment, a strong military posture, diplomacy and perpetuation of economic interdependence is the most comprehesive defense - the China model.
2) Iran is far less of a threat than several other countries - and certainly not an imminent one. (estimated 5 - 10 years away from having a bomb)
3) iran is the world's largest oil producer and is making cash by the truckload -why would it be in thier interest to destroy (or allow others to destroy) the world's largest economy (the US) and wreak havoc on the global econmy?
4) the policy of Mutually Assured Detruction (MAD) has been 100% effective throughout the nuclear age for obvious reasons - you nuke us, we nuke you.
the iranian leadership, like the US leadership, talk a tough game to appease thier key constituents, but they are not stupid.