How worried should we be about a nuclear threat from Iran?

Jump to Last Post 1-27 of 27 discussions (70 posts)
  1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
    Ralph Deedsposted 11 years ago

    How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it? Some of the same hawks who helped talk us into invading Iraq are coming out of the woodwork and saying that a nuclear Iran is intolerable and something must be done to prevent it from happening.

    A timely and informative book review by Henry Kissinger appeared in today's NYTimes Book Review entitled "Mr. X." Those who are old enough will remember that "Mr.X" was George F. Kennan, the author of our policy of containment which was the foundation of our postwar foreign policy until relatively recently. Kissinger's long article reviewed a recently published biography by John Lewis Gaddis entitled "George F. Kennan, An American Life." Kissinger gave Gaddis's book a good review and added his own personal perspective on Kennan's contribution to American foreign policy. Kissinger's article on Kennan and Gaddis's biography are relevant today, as we are coping with Islamic terrorism, how to end the seemingly endless war in Afghanistan and a possibly nuclear Iran.

    Here's a link to Kissinger's article which is worth taking the time to read, in my opinion. I wish he had commented on what we should do about Iran. I suspect he would not support bombing Iran's nuclear facilities. However, he might want to keep them guessing.

    "The Age of Kennan" by Henry Kissinger … ?ref=books

    1. Shil1978 profile image89
      Shil1978posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It is difficult to say how immediate the Iranian nuclear threat is, or how serious it could turn out to be. Assuming Iran is going full steam with its nuclear weapons program (which it officially denies of course), they should be able to develop nuclear weapons within 2 to 8 years, depending on whom you listen to - whether the  International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), or the IAEA. There is still debate on whether Iran is actively pursuing nuclear weapons or just focusing on nuclear energy. I think there are many compelling reasons for Iran to seek to develop nuclear weapons, and for those reasons, I believe they in fact are developing nuclear weapons. The primary reason they'd seek to have nuclear weapons is as an insurance policy against any possible Israeli or Western military intervention.

      They've seen what happened in Iraq and what has happened more recently in Libya. In fact, what happened in Libya would almost certainly make them believe that having nuclear weapons is a must. If Iran has nuclear weapons, I don't see any country undertaking military action against them. That alone is an incentive for them to seek nuclear weapons. The second reason is of course the prospect of being the unquestioned regional hegemon - something that the Saudis (and other neighboring states) are loathe to consider.

      The question the West and the Israelis need to ask themselves is whether they can live with a nuclear Iran? Would it be an intolerable scenario? And if so, why? Some concerns may be a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with the Saudis and others seeking nuclear weapons themselves. Another concern could be a more aggressive posture taken by the Iranians militarily vis-a-vis countries neighboring it, also Israel. A third concern is the kind of people who'd be in charge of the Iranian nuclear weapons. Can they be trusted to be responsible with it? It is unlikely that Iranian nuclear weapons would be commanded by a civilian political leadership, rather by the military and the mullahs. Also, what kind of checks and balances would an Iranian nuclear program have?

      As far as what can be done, there are only two options - negotiations/diplomacy/sanctions and military measures. Diplomacy has been tried for the last many years without much success. The Iranians are master negotiators and no one knows whether they are buying time till they explode a test device. Sanctions by all accounts have not worked - especially since countries such as China and Russia haven't fully cooperated with the rest, and aren't likely to do so in the future. In fact, they have called for no further sanctions against Iran in recent days.

      That leaves only the military option, which isn't an easy option by any means for the West. It would be unpopular and would invite widespread public criticism. So, would the West leave Israel to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities as an interim measure to set back Iran's nuclear weapons by about 3 years or so to get some breathing space, before deciding on what to eventually do? Who knows? We can only guess at this point!!

    2. Jed Fisher profile image68
      Jed Fisherposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      We the People of the United States of America shouldn't give a crap one way or the other what goes on over there. We're getting along okay with Canada,  Mexico could use some help controlling its crime...but Iran? I don't care. The countries that neighbor Iran need to deal with Iran. And that does not America.

  2. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 11 years ago

    Sorry I don't read war criminals. Believe Iran has nuclear inspection going on as we speak. Israel has never had a nuclear inspection in history. Iran is entitled to nuclear power. All about the 'greater Israel' and control of Eurasian
    gas and oil mostly and the economic War against China.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I don't disagree with your take on the issue and on Kissinger. However, he knew Kennan and Acheson and the author personally and he has some interesting and timely things to say which are a bit of an antidote to the current crop of Iran hawks.

    2. MikeNV profile image68
      MikeNVposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Our biggest enemy is our own Government.  If the USA does something we are supposed to believe it is "Right" and if we don't agree with what they do we are somehow branded not patriotic.

      Bush Killed 4,000 US Soldiers and 100,000 Iraq Civilians for what?  During 911 he was photographed reading to school children.  Yesterday a report that a retired porn star was reading to Children was reported... and that is bad, but Bush is okay?

      Why have we given $140 Billion to Israel?

      It's just pathetic how Americans are manipulated.  People all over the world just want to live the best lives they can, but the "Leaders" are beholden to their Banker Owners... and War is very profitable to them.  Why wouldn't it be when they finance both sides of a conflict?

      I couldn't agree with what you said any more.

  3. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 11 years ago

    The threat isn't coming from Iran, in my opinion. Israel and the western powers are gearing up for war in the way that they always do. Spewing disinformation and distortion of facts to try and somehow give substance to their ludicrous claims. If Iran really wanted to "strike" they wouldn't even need a nuclear weapon to cause chaos. … hame-on-me

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Some in Israel also believe that the chances of Iran striking Israel with a nuclear weapon are nil. … p-1.393940

  4. Sally's Trove profile image79
    Sally's Troveposted 11 years ago

    The biggest threat the world has is when secular/religious interests operate to the benefit of themselves while at the same time to the detriment of the rest of the world. Those interests invade politics everywhere.

    Iran's nuclear interest is a drop in the bucket regarding world threats. Anthrax is easier to come by and easier to execute.

    Iran going forward with its nuclear program is a posture that this country seeks to cripple, not in the vein of doing anything good for the world, but in the spirit of dominating the world.

    For the record, I don't have an American flag on the wall in my home, nor a crucifix.

    Last night I watched the film "Angels and Demons." What I came away with was the understanding of the humility all must have in the face of what is hard to understand and what is even harder to believe.

  5. Sally's Trove profile image79
    Sally's Troveposted 11 years ago

    Oh, how worried should we be? We should be very worried about our judgments that are based on ideas we're told and not on those we've sorted out for ourselves.

  6. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 11 years ago

    I call it the demon seed. You get to commit evil to destroy evil, only where you decide what evil is, and you make a profit from it. And all unconscious and guilt-free. What a deal.

  7. mikelong profile image60
    mikelongposted 11 years ago

    The Iranian nuclear threat is as dangerous as Halliburton thought it was when the latter sold the former technology to advance said program... … mp;bih=512

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Wow! I wasn't aware of Halliburton's contribution to nuclear development in Iran.

      It seems to me that our successful policy of containment used successfully with the USSR and China should work with Iran and North Korea. Bombing Iran by the U.S. or Israel would be a big mistake.

  8. mikelong profile image60
    mikelongposted 11 years ago … &gl=us

    The pdf form of this article is more complete. You can find it here (3rd article): … mp;bih=528

  9. hassam profile image77
    hassamposted 11 years ago

    How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Israel ? What should we do about it? smile

  10. Greekgeek profile image80
    Greekgeekposted 11 years ago

    If Iran gets nuclear capacity, it's most likely to turn nukes on Israel. It would be much more difficult for it to get nuclear material to the U.S.: it would have to smuggle it, which is very difficult to do. It can't just press a button and send missiles flying all the way around the planet; it doesn't have a space program. Also, I suspect Iran's leaders are pragmatic enough to realize the U.S. would lash out with every weapon in its arsenal, if a nuclear attack happened on its soil, wheraes the U.S. would probably not commit to a ground war, only support, if Israel were the target. Israel is in a grim situation right now, with real reason to worry. Us? Not so much. At least, not directly.

    I would be more worried about Iran-funded terrorism on our soil. And yet not so worried. While the threat from terrorism is real, we are far more likely to be killed in auto accidents. There is a point at which the economic and psychological cost of an ongoing "war on terror "creates more terror and long-term hardship (and casualties; ask the families of soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan) than the damage actual terrorists inflict.

    Indirectly, we are all threatened by the risk of a major conflict breaking out in the Middle East. It is a powder keg. The Cold War hung over us for decades without anyone committing to World War III. Now we have to muddle through a few decades of tension in the Middle East and pray we can hang on until things start to stabilize, without a real blow-up. So far we've managed to dodge a real conflict...just...but it's a constant and distracting threat to the world's economy and stability, keeping us from focusing as much as we would like on other pressing issues. We can't ignore the threat of war in the Middle East by putting our heads in the sand. We have to keep doing what we can to defuse / mitigate the risks. Diplomacy and sanctions, negotiation and covert operations are more vital than ever right now, and are playing a major role behind the scenes, despite what Perry thinks.

    This is a serious situation. The thing I think a lot of people are forgetting: sometimes, as with a dangerous cancer, there is actually no answer, no guaranteed solution; you never give up on trying to solve the problem, but you don't lash out at the doctor who can't work miracles.

  11. profile image53
    skmoonwalkerposted 11 years ago

    huh.,.. just a hype n myth created by western n american media just like iraq's WMD's...they only destroyed Iraq in the name of so called WMD's... nothing cud b found there now they are on the same path to ruin another islamic country...

  12. Evan G Rogers profile image60
    Evan G Rogersposted 11 years ago

    Anyone who actually thinks we need to invade Iran is quite possibly the dumbest person on Earth.

    Let's all shut up for one minute and think REALLY hard about what happened 10 years ago.


    ... Ooops, no they don't.

    1. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      For those who do not believe that Iraq does not have nuclear weapons, Have I got something to sell you.

      Think about it. IT really is not that hard to make a Nuclear weapon once they were made. Russia and North Korea are selling Iraq all the parts for the reactors on Iraq, They sell Iraq there weapons. Do you think Russia or North Korea sold all that hardware but did not include the book " the Idiots Guide to Building Nuclear Weapons?"

      1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
        Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I think you intended to say Iran rather than Iraq. The consensus seems to be that Iran is several years away from producing a nuclear weapon. The question is what can be done to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon or what should be done if they do get one? Our traditional policy of containment which worked with the USSR and China was abandoned suddenly with very little discussion by Bush when he announced his "preemptive strike" policy and invaded Iraq. This turned out to have been a huge mistake. In my view, we should not repeat the same mistake in the case of Iran. Their government will evolve over time and eventually collapse as did the USSR and a number of other countries.

        1. American View profile image60
          American Viewposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Thanks Ralph, I did mean Iran. My point is we need to get past the what can we do to stop them, for they already have one. The question is a s you point out, what do we do now that they have one?

      2. Evan G Rogers profile image60
        Evan G Rogersposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I could easily make a nuke...

        ... but I don't have enough Uranium-235.

        The manhattan project, believe it or not, was mostly about trying to figure out how to use plutonium instead of Uranium. they didn't even bother testing the Uranium "thin man" model, they just made one and then went on to the plutonium "fat boy" model.

        Either way - Iraq didn't have either model in production. LOLOLOL

        Modern nuclear weapons are less about production and more about delivery. Flying a bomber over a country is a very dangerous delivery system. That's why ICBMs were worked on so hard.

  13. hassam profile image77
    hassamposted 11 years ago

    Rather Iraq had 'Weapons of mass destruction', now they are so war torn they don't even have money to feed their kids. It's amazing how the same tag when labeled at America is considered a 'conspiracy theory' when it has the weapons much sophisticated to create destruction on this planet.

    It's also amazing that the US only bothers about nations, having surplus oil resources, that they should be invaded and purged of their Nukes! I think that the US doesn't like acting as world police for free, there is a hefty lobbying involved to capture resources of other countries.

  14. mel22 profile image59
    mel22posted 11 years ago

    I'd say Israel has more to worry about than America, however it would hit a nerve with any Jewish American i'm sure. They have a full reactor working right now at what capacity i'm not sure but as long as inspectors are allowed there should be no problem unless they indicate something because after reading GreekGeeks statements it is true that with all the cross CIA operations going on all over the world that rogue elements could get hold of that technology In Iran and smuggle to American cities and let off small nukes taking out city qaurters at a time. The possibility is less than getting in automobile accident as she said but the remote possibility exists. I am I going to worry about.NO. Thats whatinspections are for. If anything Israel would be the one strike Facilities if they get too antsy like they did with Syria without U.N approval. Although i might be mistaken on that last part as the U.N may have already been sanctioning them for refusal of inspections.

  15. profile image0
    Longhunterposted 11 years ago

    How worried should we be about a nuclear threat from Iran? How serious and immediate is a nuclear threat from Iran? What should we do about it?

    How worried would you be if you had a neighbor who'd professed to hate you and want you dead then they got their hands on a weapon that could do just that?

    Maybe my question is a little over simplified but if I were in Israel's shoes, I'd take it seriously every time that pocket-size dictator in Iran opened his mouth, screaming that they wanted to wipe Israel off the world map.

    As for us being worried? No.

    Concerned? Watchful? Yes.

    Should we invade Iran? No. We shouldn't have gone into Iraq either. JMHO.

    As for what to do about it, an ally feels threatened. If that ally has creditable evidence Iran has a nuclear weapon and is threatening them with eminent danger, then let them do what they think must be done. Then we should support their decision. Again, JMHO.

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Just curious, why is it okay for Israel to have nuclear weapons and not Iran? Israel has been even more bellicose than some of its neighbors.

      1. profile image0
        Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I would say as a deterrent if nothing else. I haven't heard Israel threatening it's neighbors like Iran has, thus the reason why Iran shouldn't have nuclear weapons.

        If you ask the Saudis or any other country around Iran, they probably don't Iran having nuclear toys either.

      2. Shil1978 profile image89
        Shil1978posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        It is not okay for anyone to have nuclear weapons, but some countries do! That being the case and knowing that this situation can't be reversed, the next question to ask would be - would you want more countries to have nuclear weapons? Would that be better?

        If one were to look at fair play, then certainly Iran should have nuclear weapons, and so should Saudi Arabia, North Korea, and any and all countries that wish to have nuclear weapons.

        Because, by the logic of fair play, one cannot deny nuclear weapons to any country. Then there is the question of the people in charge of the nuclear weapons themselves. How many of those are likely to use nuclear weapons?

        1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
          Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          That's a good answer. I guess we have to accept reality since getting any country that already has nuclear weapons to renounce them would be quite difficult. That said, we should do what we can to avoid proliferation. I think it was a mistake for Bush to give India a green light for nuclear weapons. The question remains what is the best way to stop Iran, North Korea and other countries from developing these terrible weapons.

          1. profile image0
            Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Luckily, the countries that have nuclear weapons haven't used them except as a deterrent. (Yes, I'm well aware we dropped two on Japan.) That wouldn't be the case with Iran and the best source we have to go on that that is the case is their very own president, Ahmadinejad. Yes, he's the puppet figure head of the clerics but we can hear him/them loud and clear. They would love to drop a nuke on Israel, several, if possible.

            It would be a safer world if we didn't have nuclear weapons but they aren't going away. Best we can do is keep them out of the hands of two-bit thugs like the ones governing Iran.

  16. aware profile image65
    awareposted 11 years ago

    5115  active nuke weapons . Thats the fist we wield.  I aint worried about Iran.
    Im worried about us taking our gloves off.  We need to be honest and straight forward with the Iranian people  as to who  needs to be worried . They  can have nuke power  we can help them build  that.  But a weapon  if thats the aim. We can help them with that too. The hard way.

    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Nicely put, aware. I don't expect we'll be "taking of the gloves" any time soon, especially with our present leadership and I'm using the word "leadership" very loosely.

  17. barryrutherford profile image77
    barryrutherfordposted 11 years ago

    I feel more worried about a nuclear threat from the United States.

    Reason Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You need not worry, Barry. Last I checked, we don't have a beef with Australia.

  18. aware profile image65
    awareposted 11 years ago

    Just a FYI  .  The two bombs we dropped on japan did not hold a light to the fire bombing  9-10 march 1945.  we need to be honest and  upfront with ourselves about what war really is.
    its ugly!
    But i sure don't want the rusty army.
    we all need be worried as to our current state of disarray.
    I am sadly aware

    1. profile image0
      kimberlyslyricsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Buddy I love how your always the sound of reason big_smile

  19. aware profile image65
    awareposted 11 years ago

    we is the frog in my pocket .  fyi

    1. profile image0
      kimberlyslyricsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      nope sorry it was me hmm:

  20. donotfear profile image84
    donotfearposted 11 years ago

    The cold hard facts are real.  The elephant is in the living room already, haven't you noticed?  What I mean is yes, there is a real threat out there. 

    Now's not the time to let our guard down and look weak. I'm for building up the armed forces, stock-piling supplies and, yes, stocking ammunition and installing a hand pump on my well.

    1. profile image0
      kimberlyslyricsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I mean no disrespect but there is nuclear ready to go threats in countries we least expect.  Reality sooner than later is who's going to have the balls to gently push that ever so powerful red button first.  Iran, please, I say US no question.  gotta be leaders in all aspects besides Iran and us are hand in hand, on the same page, in agreement more than anyone will ever know then the mushroom and no one the wiser

      just a thought.............

    2. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Are you digging a fallout shelter in your back yard and stocking it with food and water?

  21. profile image0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 11 years ago


  22. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 11 years ago

    Nuclear weapons are terrible, I hate them. Strangely enough though, if you don't want the western powers or Israel to obliterate your nation and cause complete and utter devastation, you should develop some. It appears they're the best deterrent to war. The ones who are behaving like cavemen are the west and Israel, not Iran.

    1. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      For the grand prize, who's threatening who with nuclear annihilation?

      Would that be:

      A. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad


      B. Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

  23. Hollie Thomas profile image60
    Hollie Thomasposted 11 years ago


    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There is no evidence to suggest Iran even has a nuclear bomb, so how can they be threatening to use one.

    2. profile image0
      Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, SOOOOOOOORRY, Hollie. You don't win the Grand Prize but you're not going home empty handed.

      You'll get a signed, glow-in-the-dark copy of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's autobiography, "I'll Kill You: My Overwhelming Desire To Get My Ass Kicked By Israel," for your reading pleasure.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
        Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        That's really interesting , LH. Although, I have no idea how to decipher what your statement actually means, or indeed if it makes any sense at all. You asked who is threatening who with nuclear weapons. There is no evidence, even the inspectors can't find any, to support the claim that Iran has nuclear weapons. Logically, they cannot  be threatening with something they do not appear to have.

        Sorry, LH, you do not win the grand prize either. You offer no supporting evidence, refuse to comment on Israels lack of co-operation with oversight , primitive preoccupation with might and well, generally the fact that behave like a undisciplined brat.

        If you can offer evidence to the contrary, from a reliable source I might add, I'm more than prepared to discuss further. However, speculation and opinion  really doesn't interest me.

        1. profile image0
          Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          It was a joke, Hollie.

          Most of what I hear is Ahmadinejad screaming about how he wants to wipe out Israel and Israel talking about stopping him, which they certainly have the right to do.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
            Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Please provide the source where Ahmadinejad states he is going to wipe out Israel? If this was truly the case, the world would stand with Israel. It is not the case. Iran and Israel have not always been enemies. Netanyahu is the problem. He is a nutter, not only is he jeopardizing the very existence of  Israel, he is marching us all into WW111. Why, for his illegal settlers. He cares not for the ordinary people of Israel, America or the UK.

            1. profile image0
              Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this
              1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                What did Ahmadinejad really say? … and_Israel

                In most other pieces you quote, if any of it is indeed true, then you have at least to acknowledge MA threatens retaliation if Israel attack. Faced with such an attack, would not the US, UK and Israel also threaten retaliation?

                1. profile image0
                  Longhunterposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Come on, Hollie. Do you actually expect me to take something from Wikipedia as a source?

                  I would expect your country, my country, or any other country to retaliate if attacked. I expect my country to retaliate with nuclear weapons if we're hit with nuclear or biological weapons. I would also expect Israel, just a missile shot away from Iran, to be more than a little worried when Ahmadinejad states they want to wipe Israel out.

                  The stupid thing behind all this is if Iran hits Israel with a nuke, the place will be uninhabitable by anyone, including the Palestinians, for the next 50 years. Then Iran will get hit and a lot of people, people who probably can't stand their little pint-sized dictator and the clerics that prop him up, will get killed because they are in the wrong place at the wrong time. It's a loose-loose situation except in the mind of the little nutcase, Ahmadinejad, who thinks he'll bring about the arrival of the 12th Imam, whoever the hell that is.

                  All this BS makes me wonder if, once a person becomes a leader of any kind, are they automatically stripped of any common sense and a large portion of what intellect they may or may not have had when they took office?

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
                    Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    C'mon LH, do you honestly expect me to accept your sources as reliable? Ditto. Let's go raid Google scholar? "Wipe Israel out" is under dispute, you cannot accept this translation as a given, anymore than I can accept that the other academics version is a given? This, we both have to acknowledge, as we are not fluent in Arabic. Yes?  Until we have real, indisputable evidence that this is what AH actually said and meant, we cannot take that argument further.

                    Again, we're making assumptions here. We cannot assume that Iran will hit Israel with a nuke, there is no evidence that they have one. If your sources are to be believed, MA talks about retaliation if Israel strikes first.

                    I am skeptical about all leaders, I don't necessarily think they're mad, just puppets. Not independent and do not exercise free will. They're too constricted.

                  2. profile image0
                    kimberlyslyricsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    eye for an eye just make sure we're first

                    This is what we offer our babies

  24. profile image0
    nomadicasianposted 11 years ago

    It is official, Iran is developing nuclear weapon based on the latest U.N. report.To read the full text please click the link or paste it in your browser. … iver-them/

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No, it's not official. Here is the report, not some distorted interpretation of it.

    2. Hollie Thomas profile image60
      Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What a pile of BS, that's not what the report says at all. Unbelievable.

      1. profile image0
        nomadicasianposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I am sorry but it seems to me that a rabid supporter of Iran is here to deny all the accusations being hurled at Ahmadinejad's camp. Peace be with you lady Hollie Thomas of UK....

        1. Hollie Thomas profile image60
          Hollie Thomasposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I am not a rabid supporter of Iran. Is that the best you can come up with. I am a supporter of the truth. The link you posted was full of distortion, the one thing you are however, correct about is "accusations hurled at Ahmadinejad's camp" not facts as you claim to report. I have posted the link to the actual report. Pity you couldn't have done the same. Who is the rabid supporter?

  25. Wayne Brown profile image82
    Wayne Brownposted 11 years ago

    Ralph, if it is true that Iran has nukes, it bothers me greatly. At the same time, I think we have certain opportunities in this world. We had a pre-nuke Iran and now possibly a post-nuke Iran .The proposed solution in the pre-stage was to attempt talking them out of it and also apply a bit of commercial leverage through trade channels. Apparently that did not seldom does when one attempts to use logic on illogical minds.  Now, we have little choice but to deal with the scenario of a post-nuke Iran and calculate all the possibilities. Certainly there are countries in the Middle East far more in harms way than the threat we face here in America but that should not be a basis for letting down our guard.  The same applies to the half-torque who sits in power in Korea...we have to watch closely and we have to act if the situations reaches such a level.  In either case, the time for simply talking is over and the time for guarding our backs is a reality.

    i am not one to say that something must be done for the sake of doing something when the situation would have been far less complicated if we had taken greater steps when the threat was not yet in place.  Nuclear Chess is a game of insanity and even the insane sweat a bit with each move.  Human beings have an inner desire to live regardless of other factors.  So far, we have yet to see a leader of the world with nuclear capability will to severely damage the world to make a point. I hope that is a reality which continues.  On the other hand, the tactical nuclear weapon really brings the sweat to the brow.  WB

    1. Ralph Deeds profile image68
      Ralph Deedsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I must admit that I haven't seen the evidence on the status of Iran's nuclear weapons development. I'll try to look it up. I think we should take all possible steps short of bombing or attacking Iran to prevent them from producing a nuclear weapon if they have not already done so. If they have we should make it quite clear that they will suffer severe consequences if they use the weapon or attack Israel. Someone suggested that we should move naval forces closer to Iran to reinforce this position. This is worth considering.

      According to this report today from Bloomberg the United Nations report did not conclude that Iran had developed a nuclear weapon but that evidence indicates that they have WORKED ON developing nuclear weapons capability. I haven't seen anything saying that they have a nuclear weapon. Estimates I've seen vary on how long it's likely to be before they have a weapon. Iran is still denying that they are working on a nuclear weapon. … -raad.html

      Nov. 14 -- As concerns mounted over a possible military confrontation between Israel and Iran, several leading Arab commentators argued that such worries were overblown.


      "This was so even as the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded last week that Iran appeared to have worked on developing a nuclear bomb and as media in Israel reported that the country's leaders may be nearing a decision to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Wrote columnist Rachid Hassan, in the Amman-based Ad-Dustour daily: "We are certain this war will not take place in the near future.”

    2. profile image0
      kimberlyslyricsposted 11 years agoin reply to this


  26. knolyourself profile image60
    knolyourselfposted 11 years ago

    ""If the (super) committee fails to approve a plan by a majority vote of its 12 members, or either house of Congress votes the plan down, automatic budget cuts of roughly $1.2 trillion would be imposed on domestic discretionary and military spending, to take effect in January 2013." Entitlements or war? Is that a question?

  27. profile image0
    kimberlyslyricsposted 11 years ago

    I can't help but wish I had secret access to nuclear weapon locations, even the ones no one ever reveals, I recon there is no country in a state of threat [edit] no leaders of government with buttons that are a threat, how scary, the when and who first, I hope It is so far ahead of time they become antique and useless.  Bare facts are we will see a nucleur in our lifetime, it's just how I feel and the media with it's fear factor will ensure it.  What kind of people are we?


This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at:

Show Details
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the or domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)