| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Bill" |
| Date: |
20 Mar 2006 01:55:31 PM |
| Object: |
Impertinent Question # 178 |
During the cold war with the Soviet Union possession of nuclear
weapons by both sides acted to insure perfect deterrence against attack.
Mutually assured destruction of both sides was the factor which prevented
either side from launching a strike against the other. Why is it believed
that possession of nuclear weapons by Iran would not establish a similar
stand off, and prevent either side from attacking ? The Soviet Union was
not stupid enough to attack, and neither is Iran.
.
|
|
| User: "DGVREIMAN" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # 178 |
20 Mar 2006 09:20:59 PM |
|
|
"Bill" <bmcc@XpaM.net> wrote in message
news:441f0908$0$3707$470ef3ce@news.pa.net...
During the cold war with the Soviet Union possession of
nuclear
weapons by both sides acted to insure perfect deterrence
against attack.
Mutually assured destruction of both sides was the factor which
prevented
either side from launching a strike against the other. Why is
it believed
that possession of nuclear weapons by Iran would not establish
a similar
stand off, and prevent either side from attacking ? The Soviet
Union was
not stupid enough to attack, and neither is Iran.
Doug Says: Because Iran would clandestinely deliver nuclear
weapons to a terrorist group. That terrorist group would then
deliver the nuclear weapon to an American city, and gleefully
take full responsibility for using the weapon. Iran would feign
innocence and demand a world court review to prove it had
anything to do with the attack. The world court, would of
course, agree. Ergo, there would be NO mutual assured
destruction. That is the problem.
Doug Grant (Tm)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill" |
|
| Title: Re: Impertinent Question # 178 |
22 Mar 2006 12:26:56 AM |
|
|
Doug Says: Because Iran would clandestinely deliver nuclear
weapons to a terrorist group.
In other words the bad guys'll get us if we don't watch out ?
And that includes the terrorists, Iran and the world court, right ?
Then why have the bad guys not passed weapons to the terrorists that
would have allowed them to cause widespread damage here already ?
Damage such as poisoning our water supplies ? Taking out our passenger
trains ? Knocking down our passenger airplanes while landing or taking
off ? Starting massive forest fires around the country ? The tools
needed to do such things are primitive and dirt cheap. Why would Iran
deliver costly nuclear weapons to the terrorists but not deliver these
things? I can remember when people like you held Americans up to
ridicule and contempt for "seeing a communist under every bed".
Now it seems you see a terrorist under every bed.
Look, After a savage war we are now allied with Japan. France is
now allied with Germany. After several wars, we are now allied with
England. Have you ever wondered why the Israelis have been in a
conflict with Muslims for sixty years and cant seem to find a way out ?
Isn't it because they have adopted a policy based on hate, suspicion,
fear and a "do unto them before they do unto us" attitude. A policy
of no compromise, no negotiation, no reaching out to try to understand
what's happening. I think Israel has lost its struggle for survival
in the mid east and it's only a matter of time before their next
diaspora. And it's their own fault for not reaching a settlement with
the people whose land they stole, and whose land they continue to
nibble away at. Your efforts to involve the US in this worthless
conflict is stupid at best and treasonous at worst. We are NOT the
world's policeman and it's time we saw the wisdom of minding our
own business.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
