In response to:

Is a Nuclear Deal With Iran Possible?

None1257 Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 1:37 PM
Let us for the sake of argument assume that nothing will stop Iran from joining the nuclear club. What happens then? Will Iran ever use that capability against another country? If they do use that capability on another country, what would the US response be? If you think you know what the US repsonse would be, would you use that nuclear capability against another country?
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 6:26 PM
Iran's first use of a nuclear bomb may not be over Israel,but the US,an EMP attack.An EMP attack on the US would set us back to 19th century living conditions we are NOT prepared for,and many millions would die from starvation and disease in the first year. It could mean the end of the US. Iran has been testing SCUD launches from containerships,with HIGH altitude detonations characteristic of an EMP attack,and not usable for attacks with conventional warheads . This type of attack is not needed for Israel,Iran's IRBMs already can reach Israel. But with the US crippled or destroyed,Iran is free to do as they please,without any other Western nation able or willing to interfere with them.
Jay Wye Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 6:29 PM
So,what good would it do -us- for the US to retaliate AFTER our country has been reduced to 3rd world status and a significant part of our population dead?

Isn't preemption or prior restraint better? For US,that is.
MAD only works with rational players.
Iran is not one of those.
RyanM Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 6:46 PM
Neither are you, Jay.

By your beliefs we better nuke Russia. They may not always have "rational players" and by your thinking it is better to be safe than sorry. You people are insane.
David238 Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 2:55 PM
Once Iran has a nuclear weapon they will look for any excuse to use it Israel. For example, a bunch of rocket are launched from Syria into Israel and hits a school full of kids. The Israelis responds by sending in tanks and leveling the area that launched the rockets. The Iranians come to the defense of one of their allies and nuke Israel. The U.S. with a Democrat in office would attempt to severely chastise Iran in the United Nations, but would be blocked by Russia and China.
David238 Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 2:57 PM
Sorry about the horrible grammar -- I really should proof read. That should be "use it against Israel" and "a bunch of rockets".
JustMC Wrote: Oct 09, 2012 3:16 PM
Iran isn't going to use a nuke on Israel until they think they can do so without being annihilated (which won't happen until technology changes a LOT, if ever). Stand back and look at the way the various Muslim politicians have behaved. Strip away the religious frills as you would George Bush's cowboy boots. Look at the BEHAVIOR, The real BEHAVIOR. They are a bunch of power-hungry crooks just like the ones here. They use whatever nonsense they can to sway people's minds, they are bought and sold, they try simply to enrich themselves and entrench their power.

The good news is the same as the bad: they are a bunch of crooks just like nearly all of our politicians in the West. Different wrapping paper is all.
In diplomacy, always leave your adversary an honorable avenue of retreat.

Fifty years ago this October, to resolve a Cuban missile crisis that had brought us to the brink of nuclear war, JFK did that.

He conveyed to Nikita Khrushchev, secretly, that if the Soviet Union pulled its nuclear missiles out of Cuba, the United States would soon after pull its Jupiter missiles out of Italy and Turkey.

Is the United States willing to allow Iran an honorable avenue of retreat, if it halts enrichment of uranium to 20 percent and permits intrusive inspections of all its nuclear facilities? Or are...