Iranians with Nukes?

[TRIPWIRE]

March 7, 2006
Iranians with Nukes?
Written by David M. Hickerson
Originally Posted at tripwire.hickersonfamily.net/2006_0307.html

---

As if there wasn't enough trouble brewing around the globe between the Iraq and, nearly forgotten, Afganistan conflicts, plus North Korea's horrible attitude, now we also have the loonatic Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad that seems bent on aquiring nuclear weapons and threatening to blow Israel away.

I respect the idea of aquiring peaceful nuclear technology, and I honestly understand why a country might want to have a piece of the pie that many other nations are enjoying--the apparent ability to kill millions in a single strike. I totally agree that Iran's government has the right, regardless of treaties they have ratified, to attempt to get nuclear weapons, but I also firmly believe that the world as a whole has the right to bomb them to the stone age as a result.

There is the argument that there is no "smoking gun," I guess indicating that we can't prove that the Iranians are indeed involved in a clandestine nuclear program. After hearing such an argument, I'm surprised to read and hear about the extesnive uranium hexafluoride gas centrifuges the country aparently posesses, and the underground facilities they have built. Then, even more curious, is their unabashed pride in their long range missiles that could easily reach Israel, and with some work could go as far as Germany, as well as their work to fit a nuclear-capable tip on one. Well, I guess I'm not sure what a smoking gun is... is it when we see a mushroom cloud?

Iran has supported terrorism since at least 1983--it is reported that more Americans have been killed by Iran-backed terroists than any other terrorist organization, save Al Qaeda. Even if they don't bomb Israel, or another country, directly, why should we assume that the weapons will be shielded from terrorist access? They've already publically stated that they will financially support Hamas now that the U.S., among others, are refusing aid to the palestinians. I'm a bit extreme in my opinion, I suppose, but I'd argue that support for Hamas makes them the enemy by default.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not a fan of U.S. military involvement in yet another part of the world. I wasn't "for" the conflict in Iraq when it started, but I think that comes from the fact that I was one of those "crazy folk" that didn't believe Iraq had an operational program to build and maintain weapons of mass destruction. Iran, on the other hand, seems as if it is only half-heartedly trying to hide what it is doing, and the attitude of the country's leaders appears to implicate them in an overall plan of death and destruction, starting with the people of Israel for whom they have so much contempt.

What do we do about it? I think that's the big question now, and I think many would suggest doing nothing at all and waiting for obvious evidence, such as a detonation over a major city, before attempting to act against the threat. I can't be so easy-going about it, though. I think that much of the equipment being constructed has one purpose, and it isn't civilian power generation.

Sure, a civilian nuclear power program is fine and good, but the Iranian government needs to be open about it or risk it being turned to rubble.

References:
1. "Iran and the Bomb" (Fox News)
2. www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
3. www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/iran/nuke.htm

[schmoe]

the only solution i see if they don't comply is military force. what else is next in this world?

but on that note, i find the whole argument of nuclear arms a bit odd. meaning who is allowed to them and who isn't allowed.

we are allowed, but we are the only country to use them in battle. so what right does the US have for complaining about some terrorist group having them? the history lessons of World War II isn't over yet. sure we may not make our threats public, but what need to have them? being the world's super power must give the reason to continue hypocricacy.

what makes India worth having a nuclear program? especially with tensions that are known between them and Muslims. maybe not on a huge scale as Palenstine and Israel, but there have been conflictions with the two groups. but yet we allow some poverty stricken land of hindus to develop Hindus? kind of like giving the freedom to somebody that may never develop something to its full potential.

i just don't know how i feel about it all. i mean if Iran has emperical evidence of planned use against Israel or its enemies, legally what can anyone really do? they have ties with terrorist groups. so did America. and nobody can tell me in a war against terrorists, that America doesn't have ties with other groups to thrwart the one terrorist group we're going after.

but waiting is a simple, but yet troublesome solution. wait to see many die at the hands of waitin for real proof, not speculation?

hell, if Iran eventually is allowed to have nukes, let Israel, and we'll see if fire from heaven comes down, or if it'll be a holy cold war.

[David Hickerson]

schmoe said:

if Iran eventually is allowed to have nukes, let Israel

I personally suspect that Israel already has access to nuclear weapons.