Iran has made it clear that they want to be a superpower in the region. The foundation to "accession" to superpower will be nuclear weapons. This is not some idle threat by Iran. They have made it clear to many small nations that they are illegitimate in Iranian eyes and it's a matter of time before they become part of greater Iran. With Iraqs invasion so fresh in everybodies mind, this is no idle threat.

With that goal very clear to everyone in the region, what are the other countries going to do when Iran has nukes? Capitulate? Surrender their sovereignty? Of course not. As soon as Iran has nukes, Saudi Arabia must and WILL have them. If Iran has nukes and is a backer of Syria, Turkey MUST have nukes also. If Turkey has nukes, Greece MUST have them too. Now we have THREE countries that MUST have nukes because of the fear of their neighbors. Will it stop there? Of course not, Kuwait will also acquire nukes and so will any small country that can afford them.

Israel can NEVER have any threat of nukes on it's soil. They are far to small a country to absorb direct hits. With that in mind, Israel will change it's nuclear policy form "Last Resort" to pre-emptive strike. Before anyone dismiss this, think about what a country like Greece is likely to do. If Turkey threatens to hit Athens and Greece believes that this is absolutely true, will Greece not respond to first strike as a matter of self defense? This true of EVERY country in the world.

And here is where it becomes almost a certainty that nuclear weapons will be used. With the cascading and proliferation of nukes, it's inevitable that radical groups will get a hold of one. With the most likely target beign Israel, as a deterent, Israel willl make it clear that they intent to retaliate against he perpatrator and the suppliers.

What then? A nuclear exchange in that region will escalate intantly. Israel has over two hundred nukes and that is sufficient to convert the region into glass. With that much radiation released, the planet is doomed.

To remind everyone again, before you blame Israel, think of what YOUR country would do in the same situation? Will ANY of you let Ankara or Athens get destroyed IF you could do something about it? Why do you expect anything less form Israel? If YOUR country had nukes and was hit, would you not respond in kind and then MORE?

Who would supply all these nukes? besides China, Pakistan and Russia, Israel itself is likely to supply it's allies like Turkey. They may even supply Saudi Arabia as a counterbalance to Iran. Iran is likely to arm Syria. Turkey can develop their own. Greece will be supplied by a EU state OR US. Remember one thing. It is of uber national security to acquire nuclear deterence. NO country can expect it's freinds to respond if they are hiot. France will NOT sacrifice Paris to save Athens. The US will NOT sacrifice New York to help Ankara. NO country should have any expectations of help simply because of the magnitude of the destruction. Besides the retaliatory fear, no nation can justify the destruction of another nation on behalf of a friend.

The bottom line....

The nightmare has always been that nuclear prolifiration to second tier countires will inevitably lead to a nuclear holocaust. I truly believe that Iran's ambition to be a nuclear power and a regional power will lead to a domino effect of nuclear prolifiration and the final tile will be ....humanity.

MAD doesn't work if the other side has nothing left to lose.

http//www.trilobia.com/pictures/global1.jpg

My friend Spartan,

It was nukes (yes, amongst others) that brought peace to the US and USSR. The most effective prouven deterrent of armed conflict is the Mutually Assured Distruction Doctrine. So if all the countries you listed got nukes, wouldn't the probibility of armed conflict be greatly reduced once any action can potentialy escalate to mutual nuclear destruction?

Look at India and Pakistan, have they had any wars since their aquisition of nuclear arms? and how many wars did they have before nukes? 3 wars in 40 years? And after, nothing? Think about it...

As you said, if Turkey had nukes, we would want them also. So since Israel has them, isn't it reasonable that Iran and others would wan't them as well?

And all this aside, the US, being the only country to obliderate humans with nukes, has no moral high ground to try and dissuade other from aquireing nukes.

Finaly, these are all hypothetical arguments. The fact is that Iran has every right under the NNPT to have an UHEX cycle. Trying to convince someone to give up their legal and scientific rights with no authority or respect will only distance them more.

So then why do certain countries push others into positions where they have nothing to lose? If you back is to the wall, what you do? what would anyone do? Both India and especialy Pakistan could be thought of as having "nothing to lose", but they still haven't fought.

That is the problem with Israel. It's back is already pushed against the wall with a sea of people wanting it's destruction. it will have NOTHING TO LOSE. Unlike Iran who has NO natural enemies and does not face any threat from anyone in the region. Iraq is in no position to threaten Iran for the foreseeable future.

As for First Strike.....

Simply put, India and Pakistan have a "second chance" even if a nuke or two were to explode on their soil. Countries as small as Israel or Lebanon would face annihliation even after one strike. These countries are 70 KM wide, a blast radius of 30 kms and you have cut the country in half while irradiating most of their population. With Middle East nuclear prolifiration, simply because of it's size, Israel has no choice but to change it's policy from using them as a last ditch, facing final destruction to "First Strike". Mutually Assured Destruction does NOT work if the threat of even ONE weapon was to destroy a country. First strike is the only reasonable option.

The US use of nuclear weapons has no bearing on this. It's another discussion.

As for the Greece and Turkey having nukes, that is the LAST thing I or any other Greek/Turk should want. With long standing enmity and distrust between these countries, they serve no purpose other then lower the threshold while raising the consequences. It is one thing to fight over an island or even a brief scuffle with a few thousand loses. It's totally different matter to use a nuke on each others cities. Greece would be crippled with the loss of Athens. Turkey would be crippled with the loss of Ankara and Istanbul. Wars damage economies, nukes destroy countries. Secondly, with heavily damaged central governments, Turkey will face secondary problems from enemies within and outside it's borders while Greece will face increasingly ambitious northern neighbors.

Sadly, nuclear weapons are seen by many as something to be proud of. Instead of fearing the consequences, they rejoice in the ability to destroy. I for one, want no part in nuclear weapons.

You do bring up a valid point with the first strike vs the second strike option... I don't however think that Israel has its back against the wall like Iran. Quite the opposite. Especialy since Israel allready have nukes and Iran doeasn't, and Israel has show many times over the years that they are happy to strike first when it suits them.

So for the above reasons I would support Iran getting nuke weapons unless Israel disarmes as according with the NNPT, that the international community is selectivly enforcing.

Now everyone afraids of Iran because it is a fundumelistic(did i write it right?) country right?Well why would saudi arabia,palestine,syria,jordan and the other Muslim countries around Iran fear? I don't think iran would ever decimate saudi arabia,iraq or any of these countries..The one who is afraid of being decimated-annihilated is Israel right?Well i don't think Iran would nuke a country who is so tightly connected with the muslim religion...What Iran wants nukes for is means of "diplomacy" let us not forget that Israel had that ace up it's sleeve till now...And in a final analysis why would the US and the rest nuke forces have the right to own and use nukes and the other countries not?Is that "moral"?
When Turkey and Hellas acquire nukes(which they will) won't it be the same thing? Or are we not fundamentalists?Pakistan who is in the same category with Iran as far as the religion strength concerned has nukes in it's arsenal...You'll tell me that Pakistan has to face 1 bilion enemies huh? Well Osamah bin landen is hiding in the Pakistany borders....Can't a pakistany nuke "slip" to the hands of al qaeda? For me dear gentlemen this hole nuke thing is a big BS...The only country that ever used nukes even though it's enemy was down on his knees and ready for surrender is the almighty US...The ones that judge the rest of the world.....

Noone believing that much in god(any god) would like the destruction of humanity to fall upon his hands yay?

Those who are so afraid of iran getting nukes maybe should'nt be enemy's wiith iran then!

2002, we were almost at the brink of a war,

Extermists getting nukes from pakistan is all BS. You tell me, when people who have acess to advanced techonolgy, living in a devloped counrty don't know where our nukes are, then how will some extermist living in mountions know where are nukes are?? Tell me,

And you think osamah is just an extremist?....Think again...

He might be a millionaire, but he still lives in caves. :)

Brother, nukes are'nt something that can be hidden under your shirt and be brought across the border :lol: . Those things can be easily noticed. And i belivive that in order for a nuke to activate, you must have a code. <-- Can anyone confirom this?

Well nukes cannot be hidden under a shirt but they can be smuggled with lets say an innocent looking donkey wagon huh?Anyways i think Osamah has many connections with the pakistany and it wont be difficult for him to smuggle a nuke if he wanted to.
I think yes a code is needed to activate them but with enough explosives around the warhead can't the job be done?

On the other hand why nuke someone and not biobomb him?..It's cheaper,harder to dedect,easier to made and easier to be disposed..

Iran, nukes, Al Queda, Osama, again and again and again.. give us a brake re Spartan.. everytime you post something is about Iran and nukes..
Why?????????????????
Who is branewashing you that much and you want to relay this to all of us too????????????

Why don't you thing a bit about all this "War against terror" US creation and it's consequences to all of us practically??????

Why don't you spend some time wondering about some real issues like who was behind 9/11? what were the results of that? what changed in everyones life? who benefited from that? why US are screwing up everyone? who is actually threatning us? where this will lead and how will it end? where are the Iraqi WMD? Why US attacked Afganistan? Why US attacked Iraq? What are the results of these attacks and who gained from them?

These are the questions Spartan.. not hypothetical threats of non existing weapons of mass distraction in the hands of hypothetical terrorists that will hypotheticaly attack i don't know who because they are blind fanatics and want the distruction of Israel, the US, the western way of life and want to go to their heaven with the 72 virgins and the valleys of milk and rise.. wake up please..

A code in not necessarily required, depends on the design. And no, just putting explosives around a nuke will not detonate it. First off a very high calibre of explosive (RDX/Cyclonite, mecrury fulminate, anhydrous hydrazine, ect) must be used, and second, the explosion must be COMPLETELY 100% equal over the entire surface of the atomic core to create the compression required to start the atomic reaction. Even <1% misplacement of the detonation charge will fail to start an atomic reaction.

Transportability again completely depends on the design. The ex-soviets have "suitecase nukes" which would be the only potentialy trasnportable ones. Pakistan only has the ballistic deliverable ones, which would be much, much more difficult to transport to the location of detonation.

So yes, bio-weapons would be much more praktical/effeciant/concerning. All easy to detect with the right equipement...

I sometimes wonder..If osamah wanted to kill 100k people what would he use? A nuke or a biobomb? But what we should ask is if he is such an extremist why hasn't he done it yet?..What easier way to erase israel from contaminating it's water reserves..Or is it that osamah is just another pawn of the US of A?... Sometimes politicians even sacrifice their own people for a specific strategy/politik to take place..

If terrorists existed and wanted to kill people dear DEA they could have done it in more spectacular and deadly ways... the fact that they didn't is enough for me to believe that Osama and all similar figures are probably some CIA individuals that are dressed up like this every now and then for making a small video that will be send to Al Jazeera so that the "terror" fear gets some more fuel when needed... the whole terror story is becoming rediculous..

Then another question surfaces...

Can we afford not to take them seriously?....

To take seriously who? the Terrorists or the US agencies?

For Greece and all countries except England and US i believe that real terrorism is not a threat... what we should take seriously are provokative actions that will be blamed on terrorists and that will aim into turning public oppinion against them and in favor of US plans..

For US and UK i believe that real terrorism will strike someday soon and it will make 9/11 attacks to look like a walk in the park.. i really pitty americans.. they will have to suffer the consequencies of their policy and the real terrorists they create every day with their actions.. i believe it is just a matter of time to see something really big and ugly happening.. and i think that nuclear is more probable than biological even if the later is much easier... biological weapons will have uncontrollable results and noone is that stupid to use them.. they can wipe everyone out while nuclear have a more concentrated effect...
The most probable is the so called dirty bombs that are easier to manufacture and they can have really big impact to infrastructure and economy instead of killing thousands of practically innocent people.. the only thing an attacker would need for that is some nuclear matterial, alot of explosives and some support from the weather for larger scale effects...

Well we can't take the agencies seriously that's for sure..But That religious extremism....It's a a think that should bother us all...I'm not talking about muslim extremism i also talk about the christian one...Let us not forget that the US of A cabinet mainly consists of Christian extremists.....Now about the nukes or bios...I don't know but if they are to strike the US even with bios the damage would be highly concentrated in my opinion always.Well iwould go for bios if i were a terro.. :D