The USA can't stop the world from nuking up

[Circe]

I think one of the biggest mistakes people make is to assume everyone is an ethical person like oneself.

So we believe people because we ourselves don't lie, and fall prey to Nigerian scams.

That's what happened to Chamberlain: he was so sure Hitler had to be telling him the truth, that he wouldn't invade Poland or anywhere else at all, just give him what he already had and everything would be fine, appeasement because he really, really wanted it, and that's all. Nothing else bad would happen.

Chamberlain believed Hitler because he himself was an honorable man and simply could not imagine that Hitler COULD be lying about such an important thing.

But Hitler's tanks rolled into Poland Sept. 1, 1939, and Chamberlain's government immediately fell and Churchill, who had been saying for years that Hitler was the worst of liars, aggressive, militaristic, bent on world conquest -- rose at once to be prime minister, because he had been right and poor Chamberlain was now a watchword for foolish idealism.

I think it's obvious Iran is developing the bomb just as North Korea is, and obvious that Iran means to obliterate Israel and also take over Iraq and Saudi Arabia and control the whole Middle Eastern area. The Persian Empire has quite a long history of controlling that whole area, after all: there's nothing new or remarkable about it. Manifest Destiny, from their point of view. I think it's a mistake to think the best possible about a nation that is clearly doing the worst and saying much worse even than that.

It's like all Hitler's speeches about how Jews were Germany's misfortune and internal enemies. Why did people assume he didn't really mean it?

He did mean it. IMO, Iran means it, too.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yes again, is Is Ahmadinejad one of the crazies who would sacrifice everything to please Allah? Or is his rhetoric, bluster, and fury all an act to fool us into thinking he is crazy enough to do that? Who wants to bet the farm on which way it is?

 

[Circe]

Yes again, is Is Ahmadinejad one of the crazies who would sacrifice everything to please Allah? Or is his rhetoric, bluster, and fury all an act to fool us into thinking he is crazy enough to do that? Who wants to bet the farm on which way it is?

Well, we aren't supposed to, is the way I understand how geopolitics works. Many people here are speaking to motive and intention, but those are irrevelant, since they change quickly and are lied about and so on.

All that matters is capability. If a power is capable of destroying us or our interests, we must assume that they will at some point and prepare to meet that threat.

Iran is nuking up, and so must be assumed to be hostile to us and our interests, especially since they keep saying they are.

 

[oldfart]

The stability of countries with small arsenals, facing other countries with small arsenals is less than you think. Without the assurance of a mutually destructive counterstrike, a country might risk a first strike and hope it could live through any residual retailiation.

Point well taken. This is akin to the US--Soviet situation in the mid-50's.

The US and USSR never got to the point where one thought it could attack and survive the response. that kept the fingers off the trigger (though the guns were still drawn).

No, but there were at least four points at which one party felt that a first strike had already been launched or was imminent, the last being in 1984. And there were a couple of times the United States was unsure of who actually controlled Soviet strategic nuclear forces. I would put the cumulative probability of a mistaken launch at over 50% for 1946--today. We have been incredibly lucky.

On the side of iran, you have leaders only accountable to themselves. They also have a large territorial size advantage and a more disperse population. With enough warheads they may think they could strike and decapitate the Israeli leadership quickly enough to prevent a massive counterstrike. With the majority of the Israeli population dead, they would "win".

The key to deterrence in the Middle East is to convince hostile nations that the response would be American. In 1970--72 the Nixon White House seriously vetted the idea of a joint American-British-Israeli task force of four boomers (two at sea at all times) to make the point that a nuclear response did not have to come from within Israel, and that therefore a first strike, even if successful, could not protect from a massive counter strike.

 

[skye]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

Many speculate that as soon as Iran nukes up, all the countries in the area will acquire nukes in defense against the Persian Empire, which does NOT have a peaceful history over the last 3,000 years.

After that, will nuclear war become common, or will deterrence hold as it has for nearly 70 years?

We could say, well, it's not our problem if Africa goes up, but it is not in our national interest to have the oil fields of Arabia become radioactive wastelands. Or Europe's, either.

A lot of commentators have been saying that there is nothing to stop Iran and North Korea, or indeed any other country rich enough to purchase nukes. Pax Americana seems to have run its course. Anyone?

Your comments seem a bit defeatist in nature.

If history, blindly accepted situations which had to be opposed by all means we would be in a real disaster area right now.

The US is still the most powerful nation in the world and it is under some obligation together with its allies, to oppose these various unfriendly, ant-western nations.

NK is all bluster and it has yet to be proved that it is capable of launching any devastating nuclear strike. The new sanctions against NK which have caused all these rhetoric, may yet prove to quieten them down, especially as its sanctions were taken in conjuction with NK most important ally, China.

 

[Connery]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

Many speculate that as soon as Iran nukes up, all the countries in the area will acquire nukes in defense against the Persian Empire, which does NOT have a peaceful history over the last 3,000 years.

After that, will nuclear war become common, or will deterrence hold as it has for nearly 70 years?

We could say, well, it's not our problem if Africa goes up, but it is not in our national interest to have the oil fields of Arabia become radioactive wastelands. Or Europe's, either.

A lot of commentators have been saying that there is nothing to stop Iran and North Korea, or indeed any other country rich enough to purchase nukes. Pax Americana seems to have run its course. Anyone?

Your comments seem a bit defeatist in nature.

If history, blindly accepted situations which had to be opposed by all means we would be in a real disaster area right now.

The US is still the most powerful nation in the world and it is under some obligation together with its allies, to oppose these various unfriendly, ant-western nations.

NK is all bluster and it has yet to be proved that it is capable of launching any devastating nuclear strike. The new sanctions against NK which have caused all these rhetoric, may yet prove to quieten them down, especially as its sanctions were taken in conjuction with NK most important ally, China.

Further, while China is not willing to give up on an ally, it is wondering whether Korea is worth the trouble. This behavior only leads to a deepening isolation for Korea.

 

[Foxfyre]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

Many speculate that as soon as Iran nukes up, all the countries in the area will acquire nukes in defense against the Persian Empire, which does NOT have a peaceful history over the last 3,000 years.

After that, will nuclear war become common, or will deterrence hold as it has for nearly 70 years?

We could say, well, it's not our problem if Africa goes up, but it is not in our national interest to have the oil fields of Arabia become radioactive wastelands. Or Europe's, either.

A lot of commentators have been saying that there is nothing to stop Iran and North Korea, or indeed any other country rich enough to purchase nukes. Pax Americana seems to have run its course. Anyone?

Your comments seem a bit defeatist in nature.

If history, blindly accepted situations which had to be opposed by all means we would be in a real disaster area right now.

The US is still the most powerful nation in the world and it is under some obligation together with its allies, to oppose these various unfriendly, ant-western nations.

NK is all bluster and it has yet to be proved that it is capable of launching any devastating nuclear strike. The new sanctions against NK which have caused all these rhetoric, may yet prove to quieten them down, especially as its sanctions were taken in conjuction with NK most important ally, China.

It isn't an easy thing to sort out for sure. Do we go with the "Paul-ician" (pure Libertarian) model that what anybody else does is none of our business and we should stay out of it? That is such an attractive concept to all of us who are war weary and sick of seeing our treasury drained and our young people die in what feels like pointless conflicts.

We did that in the 1930's and watched Hitler force Austria to join Germany as one country, then he annexed the Sudetenland districts of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Then in 1939 he invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland, in 1940 marched into Denmark, Norway, France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium. In early 1941, he invaded the USSR and seized Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and western Russia before Russia, and eventually the rest of the Allies, started pushing back. More than 60 million people died in WWII.

Had we intervened on Austria or Czechoslovakia's behalf at the very beginning, how many of those lives would have been saved?

But ultimately we did bring all Axis nations to unconditional surrender and all those countries became our friends and trading partners. I don't believe I can name a single country that we have appeased who we would count as friend.

What if we had not intervened on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's behalf with Desert Storm? Is it inconceivable that Saddam Hussein would not have stopped with taking over those two countries, but would have continued on to overrun Iran, United Arab Emirite, and the rest of the oil bearing Middle East which would have effectively given him ability to cripple much of the free world and would have almost certainly generated something akin to WWIII?

And re the 2003 invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, yes both have become albatrosses around our neck. But at what price would it be to allow al Qaida to continue their murderous goals of destroying what they call 'the Great Satan" which is the free world? Can we say that it would not have done so? (Admittedly the White House and Congress were convinced Saddam was just as bad as al Qaida at the time and the sanctions were killing many innocent people.) Can any of us say with certainty that it would have been better for us and everybody had there been no such intervention?

So now we are faced with two new tyrants developing nuclear weapons presumably for the purposes of greater ambitions.

At what price do we prevent that? And at what price if we do not?

 

[hoosier88]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

Many speculate that as soon as Iran nukes up, all the countries in the area will acquire nukes in defense against the Persian Empire, which does NOT have a peaceful history over the last 3,000 years.

After that, will nuclear war become common, or will deterrence hold as it has for nearly 70 years?

We could say, well, it's not our problem if Africa goes up, but it is not in our national interest to have the oil fields of Arabia become radioactive wastelands. Or Europe's, either.

A lot of commentators have been saying that there is nothing to stop Iran and North Korea, or indeed any other country rich enough to purchase nukes. Pax Americana seems to have run its course. Anyone?

Your comments seem a bit defeatist in nature.

If history, blindly accepted situations which had to be opposed by all means we would be in a real disaster area right now.

The US is still the most powerful nation in the world and it is under some obligation together with its allies, to oppose these various unfriendly, ant-western nations.

NK is all bluster and it has yet to be proved that it is capable of launching any devastating nuclear strike. The new sanctions against NK which have caused all these rhetoric, may yet prove to quieten them down, especially as its sanctions were taken in conjuction with NK most important ally, China.

It isn't an easy thing to sort out for sure. Do we go with the "Paul-ician" (pure Libertarian) model that what anybody else does is none of our business and we should stay out of it? That is such an attractive concept to all of us who are war weary and sick of seeing our treasury drained and our young people die in what feels like pointless conflicts.

We did that in the 1930's and watched Hitler force Austria to join Germany as one country, then he annexed the Sudetenland districts of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Then in 1939 he invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland, in 1940 marched into Denmark, Norway, France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium. In early 1941, he invaded the USSR and seized Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and western Russia before Russia, and eventually the rest of the Allies, started pushing back. More than 60 million people died in WWII.

Had we intervened on Austria or Czechoslovakia's behalf at the very beginning, how many of those lives would have been saved?

But ultimately we did bring all Axis nations to unconditional surrender and all those countries became our friends and trading partners. I don't believe I can name a single country that we have appeased who we would count as friend.

What if we had not intervened on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's behalf with Desert Storm? Is it inconceivable that Saddam Hussein would not have stopped with taking over those two countries, but would have continued on to overrun Iran, United Arab Emirite, and the rest of the oil bearing Middle East which would have effectively given him ability to cripple much of the free world and would have almost certainly generated something akin to WWIII?

...

So now we are faced with two new tyrants developing nuclear weapons presumably for the purposes of greater ambitions.

At what price do we prevent that? And at what price if we do not?

(My bold)

Iraq's Hussein of course invaded Iran in the 1980s - & even with US support - supplies, weapons, ammo, surveillance intelligence - failed. He had to sue for peace. In fact, that war broke the Iraqi bank & drove him to invade Kuwait - when the oil sheikdoms wouldn't pony up more $ & forgive his expenses from the Iran war. So Saddam wasn't much of a threat after all - his army looked good on paper, but it was more of a national police force, & mostly used to punish the Kurds & any Shiia who got uppity.

& that's assuming that we - the US - would allow Saudi Arabia to go under militarily. Their theology is rabid - well, the Wahhabis are - but we've not let them hang out to dry since Feb. 1945, when FDR sealed the deal with King Faud.

In the case of Iran, we've already intervened once in 1953 - with the Brits - to oust elected PM M. Mossadegh - because he nationalized the Brit. oil concession there. & when the Brits began plotting to stage a coup, Mossadegh ousted the the entire British legation. After Prexy Truman turned down the Brits on an Iranian coup (he thought it was unprincipled, & the Brits were being horses' asses about paying a fair price for the oil concession), they approached Prexy-elect Eisenhower. Casting the argument as being about keeping out the Commies, Ike assented, & allowed Sect. State J. Dulles & his brother DCIA A. Dulles to toss out Mossadegh & installed a weak Reza Pahlavi upon the throne. Pahlavi was an excellent tool, spending Iran's oil money on more & better weapons systems for Iran, far & beyond what was necessary. But he lost track of his country, & we - the US - were too stupid to run our own intelligence operation. We kept relying on Savak's reports - which were mostly screams of pain & terror.

That began US problems with Iran - & we're still facing the consequences, & still denying that we did anything to cause the problems.

 

[Connery]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

Many speculate that as soon as Iran nukes up, all the countries in the area will acquire nukes in defense against the Persian Empire, which does NOT have a peaceful history over the last 3,000 years.

After that, will nuclear war become common, or will deterrence hold as it has for nearly 70 years?

We could say, well, it's not our problem if Africa goes up, but it is not in our national interest to have the oil fields of Arabia become radioactive wastelands. Or Europe's, either.

A lot of commentators have been saying that there is nothing to stop Iran and North Korea, or indeed any other country rich enough to purchase nukes. Pax Americana seems to have run its course. Anyone?

Your comments seem a bit defeatist in nature.

If history, blindly accepted situations which had to be opposed by all means we would be in a real disaster area right now.

The US is still the most powerful nation in the world and it is under some obligation together with its allies, to oppose these various unfriendly, ant-western nations.

NK is all bluster and it has yet to be proved that it is capable of launching any devastating nuclear strike. The new sanctions against NK which have caused all these rhetoric, may yet prove to quieten them down, especially as its sanctions were taken in conjuction with NK most important ally, China.

It isn't an easy thing to sort out for sure. Do we go with the "Paul-ician" (pure Libertarian) model that what anybody else does is none of our business and we should stay out of it? That is such an attractive concept to all of us who are war weary and sick of seeing our treasury drained and our young people die in what feels like pointless conflicts.

We did that in the 1930's and watched Hitler force Austria to join Germany as one country, then he annexed the Sudetenland districts of Czechoslovakia in 1938. Then in 1939 he invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland, in 1940 marched into Denmark, Norway, France, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Belgium. In early 1941, he invaded the USSR and seized Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, and western Russia before Russia, and eventually the rest of the Allies, started pushing back. More than 60 million people died in WWII.

Had we intervened on Austria or Czechoslovakia's behalf at the very beginning, how many of those lives would have been saved?

But ultimately we did bring all Axis nations to unconditional surrender and all those countries became our friends and trading partners. I don't believe I can name a single country that we have appeased who we would count as friend.

What if we had not intervened on Kuwait and Saudi Arabia's behalf with Desert Storm? Is it inconceivable that Saddam Hussein would not have stopped with taking over those two countries, but would have continued on to overrun Iran, United Arab Emirite, and the rest of the oil bearing Middle East which would have effectively given him ability to cripple much of the free world and would have almost certainly generated something akin to WWIII?

And re the 2003 invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, yes both have become albatrosses around our neck. But at what price would it be to allow al Qaida to continue their murderous goals of destroying what they call 'the Great Satan" which is the free world? Can we say that it would not have done so? (Admittedly the White House and Congress were convinced Saddam was just as bad as al Qaida at the time and the sanctions were killing many innocent people.) Can any of us say with certainty that it would have been better for us and everybody had there been no such intervention?

So now we are faced with two new tyrants developing nuclear weapons presumably for the purposes of greater ambitions.

At what price do we prevent that? And at what price if we do not?

The line is drawn when our interests or way of life is being adversely effected. We cannot allow those who are stated enemies of the US develop weapons of a magnitude that may destroy us. It is that simple.

This is not an argument of philosophical perspectives, history has taught us to turn a blind eye to a threat is to invite disaster.

 

[PaulS1950]

Yes again, is Is Ahmadinejad one of the crazies who would sacrifice everything to please Allah? Or is his rhetoric, bluster, and fury all an act to fool us into thinking he is crazy enough to do that? Who wants to bet the farm on which way it is?

Well, we aren't supposed to, is the way I understand how geopolitics works. Many people here are speaking to motive and intention, but those are irrevelant, since they change quickly and are lied about and so on.

All that matters is capability. If a power is capable of destroying us or our interests, we must assume that they will at some point and prepare to meet that threat.

Iran is nuking up, and so must be assumed to be hostile to us and our interests, especially since they keep saying they are.

So, it is normal to assume that enemies are dangerous enough to prepare a defense against if you are a nation but not as an individual? Circe, this concept of what is OK flies in the face of your posts against the proliferation of guns.

 

[Billo_Really]

Israel actually probably has about 80-300 warheads, delivered via cruise missile, ballistic missile, or bomber.

Israel doesn't have bombers, they only have fighters.

They have no air-born ability to bomb Iran.

 

[Billo_Really]

All this talk about Iran is the same as shooting someone just in case they think about getting a gun.

 

[Foxfyre]

All this talk about Iran is the same as shooting someone just in case they think about getting a gun.

False analogy. The correct analogy: All this talk about Iran is the same as denying a gun to somebody who is on the record as wanting to use it to kill somebody or who already has a track record of using guns for illegal purposes.

 

[hoosier88]

Israel actually probably has about 80-300 warheads, delivered via cruise missile, ballistic missile, or bomber.

Israel doesn't have bombers, they only have fighters.

They have no air-born ability to bomb Iran.

(My bold)

Sure they do. See Israeli Air Force - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. IDF flies 25 F-15E Strike Eagles, optimized tactical bombers. Range is about 2,500 nm (2,878 mi). With conformal tanks, stripped of cannon & other fripperies, they certainly have the range for a one-way strike. With AWACS coverage & in-flight refueling, & say F-16 fighter cover, a substantial part of the package might make it back to base.

What's not clear to me is if the F-15Es can carry penetrators to reach deeply buried targets - or if IDF has enough of the right kind of penetrators. If the answer to either is No, then this discussion is moot, & any strike on Iranian nuke sites is in somebody else's hands.

 

[Weatherman2020]

"After that, will nuclear war become common, or will deterrence hold as it has for nearly 70 years?"

Last 70 years has been with people afraid to die. Islamos say more the merrier.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

This is, of course, false.
The only thing that keeps us from stopping anyone from building their oen nuclear weapons is the lack of political will to do so.

It’s this sort of neo-con idiocy that resulted in over 4000 American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And neo-cons want to repeat that idiocy in Iran.

 

[Circe]

The line is drawn when our interests or way of life is being adversely effected. We cannot allow those who are stated enemies of the US develop weapons of a magnitude that may destroy us. It is that simple.

This is not an argument of philosophical perspectives, history has taught us to turn a blind eye to a threat is to invite disaster.

You are saying that we have to move when our way of life is being adversely affected. But IS it, yet? It was certainly affected when Japan bombed our Pacific Fleet in Hawaii and when Hitler declared war and threatened to sink all our shipping (same week).

There is no question but that both Iran and North Korea are making explicit threats to bomb our cities: North Korea did so repeatedly this very month. I suppose the difference is that Hitler and Japan could and did put power behind their threats, whereas it is not clear that Iran and NK can do anything but talk big, using that new style of negotiation called "I'm crazy and I've got The Bomb!!"

You are saying we can't allow stated enemies to develop weapons that may destroy us. Two things about that: first, stated enemies may not be as much of a problem as the weapons. That is, China is surely a bigger potential threat than Iran or NK, though they are not stated enemies. But China has a far bigger capacity to fight and develop major weapons and a navy and large army and so on. I'm not saying we should fear or fight China, but that things change rapidly in geopolitics: Germany was not our enemy until December 1941. Then suddenly it was. Iran could suddenly become our ally, and the current danger over.

Second, a country as large as the USA takes a lot of destroying. It would be so much easier for us to destroy Iran than for Iran to "destroy" us that I'm not actually worried, unless they turn out to be irrational. Here is Israel's vulnerability: it looks easier for Iran to destroy Israel than vice-versa, which is why Israel wants to hold the coats while we fight their war with Iran.

I think nukes are going to get normalized. I'm just surprised it's taken 70 years. I do think nuclear wars will break out after that.

 

[PaulS1950]

I tend to disagree, Circe.
After all the USA is the only nation to have ever used an atomic weapon in war and I believe that it taught the world that it should never be done again. If a thermonuclear device is used I believe it will be used as an EMP device rather than a physically destructive bomb. It covers a wider area that way and in today's technological world it is far more cripling than when used at low altitude or at ground level.

 

[Msr5258]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

Many speculate that as soon as Iran nukes up, all the countries in the area will acquire nukes in defense against the Persian Empire, which does NOT have a peaceful history over the last 3,000 years.

After that, will nuclear war become common, or will deterrence hold as it has for nearly 70 years?

We could say, well, it's not our problem if Africa goes up, but it is not in our national interest to have the oil fields of Arabia become radioactive wastelands. Or Europe's, either.

A lot of commentators have been saying that there is nothing to stop Iran and North Korea, or indeed any other country rich enough to purchase nukes. Pax Americana seems to have run its course. Anyone?

I disagree with some of the points you make. You say that nothing we can or will do will stop North Korea or Iran. I think, unless one is deeply involved with intelligence analysis on either country, nobody is qualified to say that we cannot stop these countries. If you look at the whole Iraq fiasco, we invaded Iraq at the possibility that the government had their hands on "weapons of mass destruction". I feel as though if either of these governments were remotely close to nuking the world, Obama would play world policeman and stop them. If you look at North Korea, a lot of their weapons tests have failed, and there is just way too much information that the common American doesn't know to make the claim that it is inevitable for North Korea or Iran to get nukes.

Also, if we are talking about the common interests of the U.S. in the world, I don't think a single nuke fired will be of interest to the United States. I believe that this, and any federal administration on the left or right will do everything possible to avoid a nuclear war including invading a hostile nation that may gain nuclear capability. I do not believe that a nuclear war in inevitable and I do not believe that either Iran or North Korea will ever fire a single nuke, whether we have to stop them or not.

 

[Circe]

You say that nothing we can or will do will stop North Korea or Iran. I think, unless one is deeply involved with intelligence analysis on either country, nobody is qualified to say that we cannot stop these countries. If you look at the whole Iraq fiasco, we invaded Iraq at the possibility that the government had their hands on "weapons of mass destruction". I feel as though if either of these governments were remotely close to nuking the world, Obama would play world policeman and stop them.

You are saying that if a serious threat of nuclear war started by NK or Iran existed now, we would invade and stop it; therefore there must not be a serious threat. You use the supposed "WMD" Iraq was said to have by some propagandists as an example, that we invaded Iraq to stop Saddam using his WMD. I never supposed that Saddam had any WMD! That was obvious to a lot of people including people like me who supported the war (till it got so direly bogged down) as an interesting experiment in directly removing one of these problem dictators that seem to use our "sanctions" as a fountain of eternal youth and rule on forever. So I don't agree that Iraq had anything to do with any proscribed or particularly dangerous weapons. Just a rogue dictator they were going to try to remove.

I've been reading Reuters and WSJ and other commentators saying that we are indeed going to let NK and Iran "nuke up" because we can't stop them, without war. And we can't keep on doing these ten-year losing wars that are bankrupting us. Lots of countries do have nukes now: Britain, Russia, China, Pakistan, Israel, France, possibly Japan or they could in a couple weeks, as well as probably North Korea already. If we COULD crush the nuke site in Iran, we would, just as Israel bombed Osirak in Iraq and the Syrian site: get 'em while they're small. Or Israel would take out the site as usual, more likely, but it's too large. That's the Persian Empire for you; they were always difficult and still are.

I think you are saying the same thing as I am, that Iran and NK gaining nukes is not the same thing as "nuking the world," and so.............it doesn't matter. We hope. We can't stop it without war, and we aren't willing to wage another aggressive war, so we'll let it go till it's a clear and present danger. If that is what you are saying, that is also what I am saying I think is current policy. I think Obama will let it go on to nuclear weapon development in both Iran and NK and hope for the best. After four years, it's not his problem anyway.

If you look at North Korea, a lot of their weapons tests have failed, and there is just way too much information that the common American doesn't know to make the claim that it is inevitable for North Korea or Iran to get nukes.

Well, true --- a serious revolution and reunification in North Korea could stop it. A revolution in Iran could stop their nuking up. I think it is a mistake to suppose NK won't get them out of sheer incapacity, however ---- even Pakistan has nuclear weapons, a lot of them, and they are a FAR less competent and intelligent people than North Koreans! I think it's generally agreed NK has nukes already and now it needs to develop rockets to carry them to targets. Happy thought. There is nothing inevitable about anything, but they are certainly on track.

Also, if we are talking about the common interests of the U.S. in the world, I don't think a single nuke fired will be of interest to the United States.

I don't understand what you mean here? A single nuke fired..........at whom? I would think any nuclear weapon fired at, say, New York or Los Angeles or Tel Aviv or Baghdad would be pretty interesting to us.

The second power that fires nuclear weapons will open the sluice gates. So far it was only us, in 1945. Next country that does it, after that everyone gets to.

I believe that this, and any federal administration on the left or right will do everything possible to avoid a nuclear war including invading a hostile nation that may gain nuclear capability.

Well, we never have before...........so I don't know on what you are basing this belief. We didn't invade the Soviet Union when it stole nuclear technology from us (the Rosenbergs) and developed nuclear weapons explicitly aimed at us. We didn't invade Israel, or Britain, or France, or more antagonistic powers such as China when it developed nukes. Nor did we invade Pakistan when it developed and stockpiled nukes. I think the pattern is clear: as soon as they develop nukes, they are home free. We will take them a lot more seriously and we will never invade them. No wonder nukes are so popular.