On 2010-03-17, at 12:22 AM, Jim Devine wrote:
> Marv Gandall wrote: >> ... an Iranian nuclear deterrent, despite all the horror which such weapons >> invoke, would do more to dissuade the Israelis from acting with impunity in >> Lebanon, Gaza, Syria and elsewhere in the neighbourhood than a thousand UN >> resolutions condemning their aggressions. I suspect it is this potential >> constraint to its military freedom of action, rather more than an >> existential fear of an Iranian strike by mad mullahs, which concerns the >> Israeli high command and lies at the heart of Israeli efforts to quash >> Iran's nuclear program.< > > the "existential threat" to Israel is silly, given its military > supremacy. But one key problem with Iranian nukes is that they're not > a good deterrent: using them would kill a bunch of Palestinians. ========================== True. But I doubt the fate of the Palestinians or the massive loss of Iranian or Israeli lives would enter into the calculations of the generals on either side in an all-out war which escalated uncontrollably into a nuclear exchange. The brief history with these weapons indicates they act as a restraint when both sides have them. Past performance is no guarantee of future results, of course, but I think an Iranian nuclear deterrent would have a similar sobering effect on an Israeli state which has acted drunk with power in the region to date, not least because of its nuclear monopoly. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
