Even though atmospheric testing was suspended long ago, there are still "Downwinders" with cancer wondering if the radiation got them. ALso, wasn't there some John Wayne movie where just about everyone on the set ended up dying of cancer... the suspicion being that this happened because it was filmed downwind of a test.
I voted 'yes' but its a heavily qualified 'yes'. I don't think its a good idea for Iran to have nukes and even though the nuclear genie is way out of the bottle proliferation needs to be checked. Airstrikes if there is good certainty about being able to take out a key facility. I would draw the line at a full scale invasion. This is a difficult situation and one that I don't have any good answers for.
I think we should strike Iran should it become necessary. I only lament that we have forfeited our moral, political, and military capital to do so by means of our disastrous failure of and in Iraq, as manyformer Administration officials have admitted, and as many of the admin's critics warned of before the fact.
If Iran reaches N. Korea's level, I'd support a NATO strike... or even an Israeli strike. Like before, I'd support it if the UN's in it.
I think if everyone had nukes the world would be a safer place. That way everyone would be kept in check. Its sort of like the gun debate. By having more guns on public citizens, it drops the crime rate, because the criminal is vary of getting shot at.
^^ Crime rates might be consistent, but the US's death rate in criminal acts is higher than other industrialized countries because of guns.
But can't you also say that America is more prone to violence regardless of having guns or not? It is almost as if America glorifies violence.
The U.S. can claim a mulligan on dropping the 1st two bombs on Japan since they were new. 60 years down the road no one is going to give the U.S. a mulligan if we use nukes, even tactical nukes, on Iran. Just because Iran may get nukes doesn't give the U.S. the right to use nukes against them. If the U.S. ever uses nukes first, then our government should be hauled in front of a war crimes tribunal.
Anybody else think that part of the Iran saber rattling by the Bush Admin is just the standard ploy to distract from Bush's pledge to keep violating the law, the Republican Congress scandal, the Iraq quagmire. Another play to create a "positive issue environment" as Rove has called the saber rattling and the constant attempts to scare people about Sadam's wmd and non-existent events leading up to the 2002 and 2004 elections.
Are you really putting forth the idea that enforcing the nuclear nonproliferation agreement by USING NUCLEAR WEAPONS is a good idea?!?!?!
Why can't people from Iran watch ever finish watching a baseball game? They get scared and run for the basement everytime they hear the word "Strike"
I'll still give the US the benefit of the doubt, but we might be diplomatically screwed if we use those bunker busting nukes.
No, I was just countering the argument that the US would not be able to defeat Iran militarily. Any country that thinks Iraq proves we cannot defeat them militarily did not learn the lesson of Saddam. Destroying the military and/or leadership of a country is well within the military capabilities of the US, even without putting our troops in too much danger. I was mearly stating some of our capabilities, not advocating any actions. I think we should let our proxy destroy their facilities using conventional means, or take it on ourselves if we felt that Israel would be incapable. We can warn the civilian population to vacate the areas around the facilities, so they can choose to get out of the way, or not. Ideally, the UN would get behind our actions, but I don't have a problem with proceding without their approval, as we are the ones who have the most at stake with regard to an Islamo-facist regime that sponsors terrorism like Iran getting nuclear weapons.
Blix advises carrot not stick for Iran http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/5D31F9A6-F2A7-4CDE-851A-D1989195E8FC.htm Thursday 26 January 2006, 6:25 Makka Time, 3:25 GMT Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix, who turned out to be right about Iraq not having unconventional weapons, says the United States should offer Iran a range of inducements to keep it from developing nuclear weapons. Blix, a Swedish diplomat, said on Wednesday inducements may be good enough to draw Iran away from an enrichment programme that he said could accelerate by about two years the weapons' production. Speaking at the 25th anniversary of the Arms Control Association, a private group, Blix criticised the Bush administration as putting arms control in reverse in many ways. Among the policies singled out by the former head of the International Atomic Energy Agency were US opposition to a test bank treaty, a proposed missile shield and lack of interest in establishing nuclear free zones around the world. "What is the situation now?" Blix asked. "Not a rosy one." Like the administration, the former UN official said he favoured trying to induce Iran to halt programmes that could produce nuclear weapons. But he disagreed with trying to bring Iran before the UN Security Council with the possibility of economic and political sanctions if Iran did not agree to reopen negotiations with the European Union. "I think that would harden Iran's attitude," Blix said. "It does not help very much to go to the council." Discussion forum He suggested the UN agency as an alternative forum for discussion, but said what was important was offering Iran a package of "carrots" that would include a US pledge not to attack Iran as well as trade and other economic incentives, some of which the Europeans offered. The United States has offered North Korea a written promise not to attack it, and a similar offer should be extended to Iran, he said. Before the US-led war in Iraq, Blix oversaw more than 700 inspections in search of weapons of mass destruction that came up empty. Had the US attack not stopped UN searches, Blix said in a few more months' the UN agency could have completed its job. George Bush, the US president, and his senior advisers rationalised the war on Iraq, which deposed Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi president, by saying Iraq had secret caches of unconventional weapons. Later, the administration blamed faulty intelligence for its unproven claims.
I understand where Blix is coming from, but I disagree that 'incentives' of any kind will get Iran to concede its legal right to develop nuclear energy. Iran is insistent on not being treated differently by the 'powers to be' (i.e. the West) and having its rights under agreements they have signed taken away. They perceive this as a 'bullying' tactic employed by the 'Zionists and their sympathizers' to keep Israel as the sole nuclear power in the region. I think Iran will be steadfast in their insistence on developing a nuclear energy sector. Legally, they're spot on, but we all know how the world operates, International Law and signed agreements hardly have any relevance in such matters.
ive been reading a lot about this issue for years....and there have so many possible options that the US has said it can take....but none of them will work, there is one option that was mentioned recently. And that is the one of talking to Israel so that they would denuclearize themselves in order for Iran to feel more protected....thats only if Iran agrees to such a proposal. That would leave nobody in the middle east with nuclear power. But i dont think that Iran is trying to get nuclear power just cuz they are afraid of Israel....naw they're doing it cuz they know they are unpopular amongst their people and that they know that the US will invade them somehow. So i dont even think that they will agree to it, but its worth a shot.
