WoW, Charlie, you had to go back a bit to dig that one up again, but still your lack of information remains.  The base of the problem is the nukes in Israel, that is an open secret, but
still regularly denied. If you were a reader I would suggest you give this old, but valid history of the development of Israel's nukes a shot. Did you note that Syria now and maybe
Egypt of late are also attempting to become nuclear powers? Would the whole issue of nukes in the ME be easily solved if Israel didn't threaten her neighbors with their nukes?  Just a bit of this long article not by "lefties" out there for years.  Some read and learn, some spout opinion out of ignorance. Do you have any concept of MAD or the deterrent concept?
It worked during the cold war between the U.S. and the USSR. Appears to work now between India and Pakistan. Though I would suggest no nukes anywhere might be the best
for all. It is hardly all considering the history since WWII a particularly realistic suggestion though it would be my choice.

Whoops, the ad at the top of the post could be identified as spam.

Instead of posting the info without a link lets give this one from Global Security from Canada a shot. More info and with no spam. Less history, but more updated.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=6918

this should be first and only

 

What neighbors are being threatened by nukes? How clueless can you get, Cassie?



Only US doctirne over the entire cold war era and saw many incidents where nuclear war almost became a reality.



Did it? Or did our presence in Germany, Italy, and eastern europe make a difference? Or did our Republic itself make a difference the clear choice of government based on success and lifestyle. I won't argue nuclear deterrence worked to a degree, it wasn't the only factor. The Russians knew we still had great advantage in targeting. We had sub based missiles much more effective than the Russkies and we had MIRV technology and separate targeting abilities that scared the living beJesus out of Communist Russia. They knoew the US had a chance to survive while they had zero chance of not becoming the next American car dealership blacktop parking lot included.


Appears so, I don't think Pakistan would send a suicide bomber to Israel. I aslo don't believe they're threatening Israel will be wiped off the map. I don;t think they're supporting international terror. I don't believe they're funneling weapons to insurgencies now. Let's pay attention Cass.



We'll keep ours but, thanks.

Counter away. It has been clear for years Israel is the only nation in the ME with nuclear weaponry with a huge head start. While primarily the U.S. assists with methodology for delivery which Israel usually improves upon.  Obviously, those who appear to support the possession have little or no concern about the use of them. I wish I shared your confidence
considering the upheavals taking place in the Israeli government and the question that remains as to whether the U.S. has an intent to attack Iran, supposedly with Israel's assistance with perhaps a false flag operation or from Iraq as the overfly for Israel is already approved. Balad is an obvious location for returning or also the provision of refueling aircraft to be launched and also a Predator launch location to provide intelligence. 

I remain amazed that some who appear to be quite intelligent individuals continue to propagandize threats related to "wiping Israel off the map," by Ahmadinejad, when the translation of that statement long ago proved incorrect aside from the fact his power in Iran is at the least questionable and most accept that the mullahs are those who actually control. There is also the reality to be faced that Iran is not Iraq and is quite different from Iraq with some capability for fighting back.

Poor Charlie remains ignorant of MAD though it was a lousy solution, but it did work and not because of bases in Europe or in the Far East like those where I lived in Japan.  I suspect Charlie has no real knowledge or experience of a former factor in the USAF, called Strategic Air Command. I've plenty living on military facilities under SAC, and understand how it worked. Maybe some one should introduce him to some of the popular culture of the cold war period. He could start with that old classsic about Dr. Strangelove, move on to others such as "Alas, Babylon" and finish up with "On The Beach." But when one considers the concept of sitting in the nations that are Israel's immediate or other nations in the area without abutting borders, the area is in reality quite small.

But I'm curious about the opinions of those who continue to feel so comfortable about the decimation of Iran without nuclear consequences.  This is also of interest to me if not by
you keyboard warriors.  It appears not all that different from Iran's claims to be building nuclear plants to provide for power.  I've never had a problem with that concept nor believe
it was off base to use nuclear power and save that oil to earn cash as more and more the reality of peak oil is coming home to roost. 

Looks like Iran is not the only nation in the ME interested in the use or nuclear power and maybe others are more than willing to assist. Other than the constant saber rattling by the
U.S. and the Israeli Zionists, "Axis of Evil" and all, where is the difference? Though I ask the question quite seriously, I'm not so naive based on experience that there will be any response other than the usual, long term posters, who regularly are Israeli sycophants and poor little old Charlie the Bushbot talking point guy.

The full article is on the link.

New French Nuclear Deals in the Middle East Generate Proliferation Concerns
April 2008 Issue
 
On January 15, 2008, the Associated Press announced that France and the United Arab
Emirates (UAE) had signed an agreement that establishes a framework for the construction of two nuclear reactors in the UAE. [1] The announcement follows a series of similar tentative agreements between France and other Arab states pledging nuclear cooperation, which have been signed since Nicolas Sarkozy assumed the French presidency in May 2007. In response to France’s newest agreement, many experts and politicians, including International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamed ElBaradei, have issued statements warning that France’s aggressive efforts to provide nuclear technology may pose proliferation risks.

http://www.wmdinsights.com/I24/I24_ME1_NewFrenchNuclear.htm

LOL, Charlie, once again you wander and wander, but make no valid point. Perhaps, you should check out some of the results
of those very small bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  I saw those locations many years later. Even then not a pretty
picture.  If you had even a minor inkling of the results of a bit of atomic war, you might not sleep so comfortably. Your arrogance abounds, Charlie, but it is only matched by your ignorance in the massive level as you continue.

"The Iranian population, which is now strongly pro-American, would naturally erupt in outrage.",,, this must a joke.

90% of Iranians are happily living under current religious government, happily hating US and praying to Allah and those few students who Americans call "democratic opposition" like USA as much as they like Mullahs. :sarcasm:

Article writer have no single clue about Iran as well as kactus. What an opportunity Iran is? Well US will loose Arabs ( except terrorists movements in Lebanon ) and Israel if they make friendly deals with Iran. Moreover China and Russia would never give up Iranian oil to US so easily.

So YES, if you hate America then do peace with Iran instead of making Arabs and Jews to deal with Iranian colonial age.

How the hell did you reach that conclusion? Let me tell you this, nevermind 90% of iranians, the constant threats by those israelis and their lobbies in US for an attack on Iran would 110% consolidate the position of 95% of iranians who are otherwise moderate behind the radical government in Iran to support their country. If another country invades Israel tomorrow would you sit there and say thank you for invading my country no matter how much you are in disagreement with your government? I would have thought the answer is obvious to most of us.

Iran has an election process although the president has little power and answerable to Khamenei the successor to Khomeini. He makes the final decision. Ahmadienejad is up for presidential election in March 2009. The whole point of this article is that US should adopt a different approach rather than listening to radicals in Israel to open another war front with Iran.
Sarcastic mode on: Being a centrist jew of course you would say that wouldn't you?  sarcastic mode off:
It's like asking a member of Hammas how they feel about your kinds. Having said that the thought of rapproachment between Iran and US would scare the hell out of losers like you. You are a fucking goof.
 
Let's get the fatc straight Iran was among one of the first countries that condemned the action of 9/11. How many of the culprits were of iraninan origin? zero [FACT] so don't come here branding iraninans as US haters as history has proved otherwise even when the relationship betweenUS and Iran hit low during the hostage taking. But by attacking another soverreign nation like Iran, is a big mistake that US would commit IMHO.

"Stupid is as stupid does."  

If Iran develops a Nuclear device, Israel will take out all the nuke sites in Iran as well as their missiles. The U.S. will be on standby with one or two Carrier groups to pick up the slack, if necessary.