I'm not Rim, but Gorbachev or Kruschev, or any of the leaders in between were a far greater threat since they actually had the means to deliver them, and reach the U.S. It isn't even really close.
I think the threat to the U.S. is minimal, since the regime in Iran would like rule a country... not a glass parking lot. Lebanon/Hezbollah is a thorn in our sides, but it's something that can be managed by competent leadership. Saudi Arabia has been buying billions in arms from both the U.S. and Russia for a decade. Let them manage the stability of the middle east and counter Iranian influence in the region. I don't understand why we still have to guarantee their security on our dime, while paying $130 a barrel.
We will eventually crush the mullahs with the irresistible force of materialism. It brought down the USSR. It brought down Communist Viet Nam. It brought down the giant of Red China. Totalitarian capitalism will dominate the world. Future wars will be fought with only economic weapons because violence between trading nations is inconvenient for business. (violence in proxy nations however, is good for business)
What is a greater threat the Soviet Union with 11k nukes or Iran with a possible desire to eventually start up a weapons plan to build a nuke someday Let me answer the question as Basso might. Well of course Iran, because they are terrorists, sub-human who would gladly sacrifice their whole country for the joy of delivering one nuke. So be afraid and don't resist the neo-con hoped for war with Iran. We must attack before they even begin to construct their first nuke. War is peace.
Those iranians are evil. who would ever negotiate with them? cough: iran-contra :cough These are the same people that still have nelson mandela under a terrorist watch
It's already being fought. We would be crushed by our own weight of materialist debt if other countries weren't afraid of being taken along with us. Financial wmd for the win.
basso, you're no spring chicken. You grew up during the height of the Cold War. Are you seriously asking this question? My kids don't do duck-and-cover drills at their elementary school. My parents don't feel driven to spend money on a bomb shelter. The Doomsday Clock hasn't been close to 3 minutes to midnight since 1988. And how come you never see these signs anymore...
I will humor you... Russia: 6,592,800 square miles Iran: 636,374 square miles Venezuela: 352,144 square miles Cuba: 44,164 square miles
Difference in Soviet threat vs Iranian threat: One party cares about survival, the other looks forward to rewards of Allah for killing infidels, regardless of the sacrifice. What I worry about, is Iran developing a few small nukes, and selling them to a proxy party to devastate any number of infidel countries on their list. If Iran gets to develop one, they'll soon have many more, with no way to stop them without the threat of Iran using them. I'm not saying we should invade Iran, but Iran cannot be allowed to develop nukes.
Yeah I guess Siberia isn't really a hotbed of population explosions. Since Russia is only ~75% the size of USSR and over 75% of Russia is Siberia I think I am right. Thanks for the humor.
Well outside of Tom Clancy novels delivering the bomb to somewhere that threatens the USA (beyond just a show of strength by blowing it up in the M.E.) The threat here and now is they dislike us, and will fight us any chance they get. By arming and supporting Iraqi terrorists they obviously have no higher level of game playing like the good 'ole commies did.
At this stage, any country committed to developing nukes will develop them. Haven't we learned from North Korea and Pakistan? You can't stop Iran from developing them, we can only delay it or remove the incentive. Bombing or attacking Iran may only make them take a more belligrent stance and in some ways playing into the hands of the extremist elements. Iran doesn't want to be destroyed, and if they put a nuke in the hands of terrorists, they'd be guaranteeing the end of their existence. Similarly, do you think that Iran would ever try to lob a nuke at Israel? Anti-semitisim is the only hold they have over their people anyway, eliminate the Jews and who's their scapegoat? The smartest approach is the one outlined by Powell, James Baker, and the handful of very senior and actually still logical republicans that we use to respect back when Bush I was a decent president. They all say engage Iran. Who knows, that might even be a way to get rid of the nut-job president because ya know what, that man doesn't even weild real power.
You missed the point... the population density of Western Russia is similar to that of the Eastern US. The population density of Eastern Russia is similar to Australia, Canada, and most of South America. Should we not count the Dakotas, Wyoming, Idaho, Montana, and most of Nevada. Should we just forget about Alaska? Do you really think the Outback is not part of Australia or the forests of British Columbia not part of Canada? You have a really curious way of looking at countries.
I think you misjudge the survival attitude of the IRanians. They aren't all wondering around their nation hoping to die in an exchange for an assured path to heaven. Nor do they consider all Americans infidels. Believe it or not, IRanians want to survive as well.
It is strange how in Tech and Basso's fear based world view, the Iranians, (before Sadam) are completely crazy, so no rules, desire for self preservation, logic about size or strength or historical examples of dealing with nuclear armed enemies apply.
I view the US threat to Iran as Huge and any Iranian threat to the US as a product of such. I posted about 4-5 years ago that Iran would be next after Iraq and they will be. Sorry Iran you have too much oil in a very tight market. Obama might be told to do something non military, anyways I am sure Iran will be all the rage after the election. (unless the plans call for a pre-election intervention)
hmmm, too bad Obama doesn't share your confidence in the Iranians' desire for survival: [rquoter] "In light of the fact that we're now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in," he said. "On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. . . . And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point." . . . Obama said that violent Islamic extremists are a vastly different brand of foe than was the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and they must be treated differently. "With the Soviet Union, you did get the sense that they were operating on a model that we could comprehend in terms of, they don't want to be blown up, we don't want to be blown up, so you do game theory and calculate ways to contain," Obama said. "I think there are certain elements within the Islamic world right now that don't make those same calculations. . . ."[/rquoter]
