Joboy, whereas I share your opinion that Chapman's position is imbecilic, I have to agree with Jim1050, calling him names does nothing. Far better to destroy Chapman's misguided logic than hurl dirt bombs.

Iran does not need to destroy the USA. It just needs the nuke umbrella to protect against an American counter attack after Iran invades and conquers Kuwait and Saudia Arabia.

Plus, the Pak's fear India and know we'd throw our weight behind India in any conflict. India has nukes.

Raliass, a little FYI, after 9-11 the USA told Pakistan, allow our troops to operate from your country and join us in the so called War on Terror; or, we'll destroy you. The Pakis became our "friend" because they had no choice. Our nukes are bigger than theirs.

Your reasons for appeasement are strikingly similar to the arguments against attacking the relatively weak Nazis in 1937, 38, or 39. And, just like the Nazis, the Iranian regime despises the Jews, believes it is their destiny to conquer their region and then establish a global caliphate. If you think a preemptive strike on Iran is expensive, just wait till you get the bill for a war with a nuclear armed, regional superpower Iran. OLD MIILITARY ADAGE Delay the Butcher’s Bill, Pay Tenfold in Blood

Steve, I love, ya guy, but you're living in la, la land. You said: “The number of members added since then is not 15 but three: India, Pakistan and North Korea. Most of the other countries on the list of likely proliferators never came close -- including Argentina, Chile, Morocco and Tunisia. Iraq tried and failed. Libya made an effort and then chose to give up. The peril was greatly overblown.”

Your own arguments defeat your position. The peril was and is very real indeed: a) Expanding from 6 (including Israel) to 9 nuclear weapons armed nations is a very bad especially when those new club members are Pakistan, India and North Korea. The first 2 are quite likely to use nukes against each other. The 3rd, N. Korea, is run by madmen. Both Pakistan and N. Korea are likely to sell nuke weapons to the highest bidder, including rouge, non-state, terrorist groups. How this is “OK” with you boggles the mind.

b) Of the 15 countries seeking nukes, 3 of them were either bombed or outright defeated in battle by existing members of the nuke club. a. 1981 - Britain defeats Argentina’s military junta in the Falklands War b. 1982 - Israel bombs Iraq’s nuclear reactor ending Saddam Hussein’s nuke ambitions c. 1986 – US bombs Libya dissuading Gaddafi from pursuing WMD’s; Libya’s neighbors, Tunisia and Morocco also go the message The point that you so conveniently omit is that Britain, Israel and America attacked these countries and that these attacks disrupted and deterred their nuke ambitions. Plus, these attacks served as a warning to all other wanna-be nuke nations. The peril was not greatly overblown. It was attacked and defeated.

ADD to below: … all in a 2 week blitzkrieg. Then, announcing to the world a 20% reduction in oil prices. Would the USA respond? Would our allies want us to? c) Alliances with the USA can be an iffy proposition. Sometimes we will come to your aid, other times, no. Right now the USA is war weary and soon we’ll be financial broke and unable to respond. Iran knows this. So do Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Egypt, Turkey, etc. d) Why rely upon “they would probably find they can manage fine” when you can get your own nuke and insure that you’ll do fine.

Steve, You said: “there is no reason to think Iran would ever use such weapons, and there is little reason to think it would spur other countries to get them … since Israel has had them” a) Iran is not Israel. None of the Arab states seriously believes that Israel wants to conquer them and occupy their lands. Iran, however, very much wants to do so. Iran dreams of re-establishing the Ottoman Empire and then a world caliphate with Tehran as its capital. b) Iran doesn’t have to fire its nukes, just use them as a nuclear shield against counter attack. Just imagine if Saddam had them before he invaded Kuwait. Would the USA have counter attacked? Now imagine Iran slicing thru southern Iraq, taking Kuwait and the conquering Saudi Arabia

Steve, You said: “China regards Taiwan as part of its territory, but the island has remained functionally independent despite the threat of nuclear coercion.” a) This is true only because the UN Navy and the implicit threat of US strategic weapons (nukes). Without both American conventional and nuclear protection, Moa would have taken Taiwan decades ago.