Thomas Friedman.

I know there are examples where unstable nations have built nuclear capabilities and haven't used them, but I'm pretty sure none of them had a direct hatred for America like Iran does, I feel like they are a threat to us, for ffs, they said "Death to America" when they announced their nuclear program's progress, it's just very disconcerting.

Like I said in my argument, China under Mao was seen as a grave threat, literally, when I read certain books on the Cold War it outlines America believed that China was sometimes a larger threat than soviet russia. Mao said to his counterparts "We must rule the world" (From Mao:The Unknown Story, brilliant bio) When the Chinese launched their first nuclear missile in 1969 The U.S were in anger but over time the Chinese and Americans started to realize if they launched a nuclear weapon on each other the world would end, everyone is dead no one wins. That is the principle theory of MAD, and MAD saved us from the cold war. It's incredibly interesting stuff and many see the MAD theory working in Iran, if they realize the capabilities the nukes have they wouldn't possibly end the world. Think tanks believe the MAD theory could help Iran into talks with Israel because they would realize just how dangerous having these nukes are.

Some say it's far fetched but I totally agree with Freidman, he is a highly respected figure in his writing..he carries a very balanced judgement about the Middle East. cool: Just last week he wrote a piece about it being a mistake to cut off aid to Hamas.

Side note interesting article:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HD25Ak02.html

[url=http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/25/D8H736Q00.html:8025d]Also very frightening[/url:8025d]

[quote:8025d]Iran's supreme leader said Tuesday that the country is ready to transfer its nuclear technology to other countries. Meanwhile, Tehran threatened to halt all cooperation with the U.N. atomic energy agency if the U.N. Security Council imposes sanctions, warning that it might hide its nuclear program if the West takes any other "harsh measures."[/quote:8025d]

So, people get angry at the US for rejecting the UN's supreme authority, but Iran takes this position and they get nothing but instead are treated like victims? We cannot allow them to develop nuclear weapons if they are serious about violating non-proliferation agreements.

I've read they are sharing rather than transferring...some say its just to saudi, pakistan and libya or sudan..Don't know, could be blowing hot air for all I know.

It's a worry though: The Chinese and the Soviets didn't have a religious ideology that supported their actions....They also weren't notorious for suicide bombings.

What happens if Tehran goes for the virgins in the sky?

Interesting point. But when you acquire a nuke and launch it at another country why would you want the entire world to end? Somebody in the inner circle in Iran may not want to see those virgins just yet.

Also to think they are going to use them right away is out of the context if you ask me.

http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?f ... edzbig.php

Strange to see Zbigniew Brzezinski take this stand, he is known for his rather hawkish views.

They have suicide bombers, people who end their lives for the purpose of killing infidels, I wouldn't put using nukes past them, it'd be just like a large scale suicide bomber attack.

So once they build a nuke they are going to hand it over to suicide bombers.. eek:

no, I don't think I'm being clear.

Many of these people we're taking about beleive that killing themselves in suicide bombings will give them eternal life. WHat I'm saying is that if these people have that sort of value in their religion, a value that consists of them forgoing there existance in order to kill others, then what makes the thought of them using a nuclear weapon so unheard of? They've already shown their disregard for their own lives, that's all I'm worried about. Obviously, not all Iranians are willing to commit suicide missions for Allah, but they have already had 40,000 people commit to become martyrs for Islam. I'm not saying they will do it, it's just I don't think they are trustworthy with such a technology, it's just too sketchy. Even if the chance of them doing something drastic with nuclear weapons is very small, that's still too much, if there is any doubt about what a country could possibly do with something as devastating as nuclear weapons, then they shouldn't be allowed to have them, it's just way too serious for "probably's" or "probably nots"

The fact that Iran is saying they will share nuclear technology is unacceptable, they should not be allowed to develop nukes if they say they are going to give the technology away, it is way too risky and potentially dangerous. Not to mention how many agreements and international policies it would violate. I think a lot of countries around the world will agree to confront Iran if they take the proliferation threat seriously, it's a big deal.

But launching a attack on Iran would not help much..Israel would get crushed by Hezbelloh..Iraq can surely become a worse situation then it already is..terrorist cells within the U.S under Iran orders may take create dismay..a your image in the muslim world will become worse then it is, making a new generation of muslims hate you, willing to become martyrs..maybe sammy's theory is coming into play here, again.

plus generals think that bombing the structre will take 1000-2000 sorties. How do you propose we end this?

I'm not really sure how to solve it, but I definately don't want to just let it go...

What about the nuclear bomb solution?

what nuclear bomb solution?