On 2008-Jul-02, at 18:29, Kevin Callahan wrote: > On Jul 2, 2008, at 10:27 AM, Stefano Mori wrote: > >> >> On 2008-Jul-02, at 17:59, Kevin Callahan wrote: >> >>>> So is it that you think the Iranians don't have any way of >>>> delivering >>>> their nuke? >>> >>> >>> what nuke? >> >> >> The one that Jared said they'd only need one of. >> >> Or for the sake of argument, we could say the one they borrow from >> Pakistan. >> >> Stefano > > what if Israel took 200 of their 400 nukes and gave them to Iran > > would that accomplish anything ? > > then we wouldn't have to invade Iran
Well what I'm trying to get at is what are these nukes for. Maybe they are only sensibly used for defense. But Lewis suggests that if Israel became an unstable regime, then they could use them. If you want to talk about the idea of giving nukes to Iran to balance the power a bit, or at least give them a deterrent--stop America invading--there's still the issue that the Right is so fond of salivating over, which is that Iran could become unstable. Perhaps nukes are a deterrent to other's aggression, and they are not a restraint on one's own. There was an article that since India and Pakistan gained nukes, they are both more confident and aggressive. It boils down to Orange level technology possibly ending up in the hands of Red level aggressive power hungry war loving irrational people. Something that's always struck me about American and Israeli aggression is, if you remember just how much firepower these nations have at their disposal, they are both remarkably self-restrained. If Israel wanted to, they could have committed genocide against all the Palestinians years ago very easily, particularly during the wars, when such things are more easily covered up/post-rationalized. So Kevin, you're suggesting a notion and betting that Iran will remain stable. Stefano _______________________________________________ OSX-Nutters mailing list | [email protected] http://lists.tit-wank.com/mailman/listinfo/osx-nutters List hosted at http://cat5.org/
