What's to be done about Iran?

[klr]

The least of what? The least of any country that has nuclear weapons, or the least of any country?

Thought that was quite clear...I trust the US the least when it comes to actually using nuclear weapons.

It's not at all clear to me. The USA hasn't used nuclear weapons for oh, nearly 56 years now. What happened in the past is not necessarily an indicator of future behaviour, especially for something like a very large (and complex) nation state. Come to think of it, the USA doesn't seem to go in for incinerating entire cities by conventional means either, as they did before using The Bomb. No air strikes directed by the USA against cities in the years since then have resulted in casualties that even registers on the scale of (say) Tokyo in March 1945, even though the USA clearly has the capacity to inflict same by a variety of means if it put its mind to it. Come to think of it, why aren't we fearful that the Germans would use poison gas on the battlefield any more, or that the Chinese would once again would allow tens of millions of its citizens to die through gross and wilful mismanagement of its economy and society?

[Robert_S]

Explain to gays, Jews, uppity women and apostates why Iran not more scary than the US.

[sandinista]

Explain to gays, Jews, uppity women and apostates why Iran not more scary than the US.

Explain to muslims, socialists (think Venezuala/Cuba/Bolvia etc), and most of the 3rd world why the US not more scary than Iran.

[Robert_S]

Explain to gays, Jews, uppity women and apostates why Iran not more scary than the US.

Explain to muslims, socialists (think Venezuala/Cuba/Bolvia etc), and most of the 3rd world why the US not more scary than Iran.

I asked you first. While you're at it, explain to this guy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12272067 (oops, make that his next of kin) how great Iran is.

Have we nuked Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Iran, N. Korea, Syria, or Iraq lately?

I'm a fucking socialist, I think what Evo Morales is doing is great and what Chavez is doing is good-but-worrisome, but I understand that he's using extreme methods to try to undo extreme historical injustices from the last few hundred years so I cut him some slack.

But before I'm a socialist, I'm a rationalist and a humanist. I oppose Iraq under its current government having nuclear weapons for the same reason I oppose Sarah Palin getting anywhere near any weapon. I oppose anyone infected with an highly doctrine based ideology anywhere near any power.

I'm not comfortable with any nation having nukes. But some make me more nervous than others and more nations with nukes makes me more nervous than fewer.

[sandinista]

Explain to gays, Jews, uppity women and apostates why Iran not more scary than the US.

Explain to muslims, socialists (think Venezuala/Cuba/Bolvia etc), and most of the 3rd world why the US not more scary than Iran.

I asked you first. While you're at it, explain to this guy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12272067 (oops, make that his next of kin) how great Iran is.

Have we nuked Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Iran, N. Korea, Syria, or Iraq lately?

haha, "how great Iran is"... Yah, I said Iran was "great" fuck off. Have you nuked Cuba etc...of course not, any idiot (ask NK) knows nukes are more of a power display, a defensive weapon, a deterrent of attack as well as simply a threat. Nukes mean power, defensive as much as offensive, and you need not use them to reap their rewards.

I oppose anyone infected with an highly doctrine based ideology anywhere near any power.

Then you oppose the US and Israel having them as well. Good we agree.

[DRSB]

Hypocrisy or not, the less countries have the nukes, the better! Halt whoever is haltable!

[Warren Dew]

So? So what if it is hypocritical?

It's not hypocritical, anyway. I'd prefer to see nuclear weapons held only by nations that represent a significant proportion of the world economy, so they have a lot to lose if someone retaliates against them, and that have a falling population, so they don't have an incentive to annex land for the use of their own people, and that have a stable government, so they're less likely to use nuclear weapons randomly. China, France, Russia, the UK, and the U.S. each meet two of those three criteria, with China cloe to a third; Iran meets none of them. One can have perfectly rational and consistent reasons for preferring that some nations have nukes and others not.

In the hands of major powers, the deterrent effects of nuclear weapons can greatly limit the size and damage of major wars. Before nuclear weapons, a war like the Iraq War would have been a minor blip, not a major event, because the major events would have been far more devastating. It's only in the hands of smaller, less stable states that nuclear weapons are likely to increase, rather than decrease, the average damage from wars.

[sandinista]

So? So what if it is hypocritical?

It's not hypocritical, anyway. I'd prefer to see nuclear weapons held only by nations that represent a significant proportion of the world economy, so they have a lot to lose if someone retaliates against them, and that have a falling population, so they don't have an incentive to annex land for the use of their own people, and that have a stable government, so they're less likely to use nuclear weapons randomly. China, France, Russia, the UK, and the U.S. each meet two of those three criteria, with China cloe to a third; Iran meets none of them. One can have perfectly rational and consistent reasons for preferring that some nations have nukes and others not.

In the hands of major powers, the deterrent effects of nuclear weapons can greatly limit the size and damage of major wars. Before nuclear weapons, a war like the Iraq War would have been a minor blip, not a major event, because the major events would have been far more devastating. It's only in the hands of smaller, less stable states that nuclear weapons are likely to increase, rather than decrease, the average damage from wars.

It is hypocritical, period, no matter how you dress it up. Nice try though. What you "prefer" doesn't really play into it. I "prefer" the US announce they will destroy all their nukes and tell Israel to do the same. One can have perfectly rational and consistent reasons for preferring that some nations have nukes and others not. It is perfectly rational for the US to NOT have them since they have a history of invading other countries, bombing people all over the planet, and actually using a nuke. You're "criteria" is simply opinion.

[Santa_Claus]

I've got a Nuclear Weapon.

And it glows in the dark.

[Warren Dew]

One can have perfectly rational and consistent reasons for preferring that some nations have nukes and others not.

Exactly, and rational and consistent reasons are exactly what I have.

It is perfectly rational for the US to NOT have them since they have a history of invading other countries, bombing people all over the planet, and actually using a nuke. You're "criteria" is simply opinion.

My opinion is backed up by the facts. The U.S. killed more people in the Phillipine American war when they didn't have nukes than in the Iraq War when they did have nukes, despite the Phillipine American war being more of a sideshow. During WWII, the U.S. killed many times more people in Germany through conventional strategic bombing associated with the invasion than they killed in Japan through nuclear bombing in place of an invasion.

The evidence is that the U.S. having nukes results in the U.S. killing fewer people. You somehow seem to have this idealistic idea that taking nukes away from the U.S. would make the U.S. completely peaceful, but the evidence is to the contrary: the evidence is that it would cause the U.S. to do more killing.

[sandinista]

The evidence is that the U.S. having nukes results in the U.S. killing fewer people. You somehow seem to have this idealistic idea that taking nukes away from the U.S. would make the U.S. completely peaceful, but the evidence is to the contrary: the evidence is that it would cause the U.S. to do more killing.

wow, what a load of baloney. What "evidence"? Maybe the US should just stop murdering altogether.

[Coito ergo sum]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hoiy6X4V ... re=related[/youtube]