ISS: Teheran could have nukes in '09

[sara..... 371]

Well we aren't going to war with Iran anytime soon, so a nuclear armed Tehran is something we're going to have to get used to.

That'll probably disappoint some of the psycho warmongers on here. Have to settle for getting their vicarious sexual thrills from 24.

seems to me we went to war with a country not to long ago because we THOUGHT they had nuclear war capabilities, and we never touched the country that we KNEW had them

maybe im stupid but seems we never touch the countries that arm them self......i think if Iran has it then they are pretty safe from us attacking them.................

Well... I didn't (ever) believe the guff about WMD in Iraq, and I don't think the administration did either - but they sold it on the basis of immediate threat because they knew that was the only way they could justify it.

The only political point of having nuclear weapons is as a means of deterrent.

yup agreed

[almaty 19]

Let Israel take care of Israel...

.and america take care of america for a change...

israel seems to do very well defending itself....

[almaty 19]

Let Israel take care of Israel...

.and america take care of america for a change...

israel seems to do very well defending itself....

[almaty 19]

Let Israel take care of Israel...

.and america take care of america for a change...

israel seems to do very well defending itself....

[The_Dude 1,142]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

I completely agree that we should not drag ourselves into yet another war. But you know the right loves them some Israel. Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-Israel, but i'm a Libertarian..... don't believe in foreign aid, or wars of hegemony. I know, it's a crazy concept. BTW, Pakistan keeps devolving further and further out of control. I think they seem to be more of a threat at this point.

[mRx 16]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

[alienlovechild 75]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

I'll buy that except I wonder if Israel can take a first strike and then retaliate. I remember reading somewhere that Israel is basically finished if an enemy can hit them with three nukes in three parts of the country. Iran's far bigger and not so easy to take out.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

I wouldn't mind Israel going without U.S. aid. It's not a Consitutional issue but the U.S. has made a lot of agreements in the past.

"What the Constitution does, and all that it does, is to confer on the President certain powers capable of affecting our foreign relations, and certain other powers of the same general kind on the Senate, and still other such powers on Congress; but which of these organs shall have the decisive and final voice in determining the course of the American nation is left for events to resolve"

http://fpc.state.gov/fpc/6172.htm

Security & Defense

July 23, 1952 — Agreement relating to mutual defense assistance.

October 23, 1975 — Agreement regarding payment for tooling costs of accelerated production of M-60A1 tanks.

April 6, 1979 — Agreement concerning construction of air base facilities.

April 6, 1979 — Agreement concerning funding of air base facilities.

December 10, 1982 — General security of information agreement.

November 29, 1983 — Agreement creating the Joint Political Military Group and Joint Security Assistance Program.

December 14, 1987 — Memorandum of Agreement concerning the principles governing mutual cooperation in research and development, scientist and engineer exchange, and procurement and logistic support of defense equipment, with annexes and attachment.

April 21, 1988 — Memorandum of Agreement regarding joint political, security and economic cooperation.

May 24, 1988 — Mutual logistic support agreement.

April 1989 — Memorandum of Agreement between the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization and Israel’s Defense Ministry to develop a $35 million computer facility as part of the Arrow missile program.

September 8, 1989 — Memorandum of Understanding regarding transfers of materials, supplies and equipment for cooperative research and development programs.

January 22, 1991 — Agreement on the status of United States personnel.

June 1991 — Agreement pertaining to the Arrow Continuation Experiments (ACES), the second stage of the joint U.S.-Israel Arrow missile program.

October 18, 1991 — Memorandum of Understanding for a loan of a multi-sensor integrate system for the purpose of test and evaluation.

November 28, 1991 — Agreement on cooperation to combat illicit narcotics trafficking and abuse.

April 30, 1996 — Counterterrorism cooperation accord to enhance capabilities to deter, prevent, respond to and investigate international terrorist acts or threats of international terrorist acts against Israel or the United States.

July 18, 1996 — Memorandum of Agreement concerning the tactical high energy laser (THEL) advanced concept technology demonstration (ACTD).

April 30, 1996 — Counterterrorism cooperation accord

September 3, 1996 — Agreement for technology research and development projects.

January 28, 1998 — Treaty on mutual assistance in criminal matters.

February 10, 1998 — Acquisition and cross-servicing agreement with annexes.

January 16, 2009 — Memorandum of Understanding Between The United States and Israel Regarding Prevention of the Supply of Arms and Related Materiel to Terrorist Groups

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsourc...srael/MOUs.html

[Yoink 7]

I am not advocating war for the sake of ME stability... however... nuclear blasts are a game changer... and you can bet the USA will lead a coalition with EU blessing to rout Iran and prehaps a greater war on terror to include Pakistan and Syria

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

A nuclear war in the MENA would not be a "local conflict". Everyone has investments and alliances in that region.

[mRx 16]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

A nuclear war in the MENA would not be a "local conflict". Everyone has investments and alliances in that region.

But that doesn't mean that we need to involve ourselves. I understand that some powerful politicians and war-makers have investments and alliances in that region, but that doesn't confer that everyone has investments and alliances there. The Constitution, Congress, and our President are in place for the defense of the American People, not for their friends or investments in other countries.

[Peikko 1,575]

So, from your perspective the US is no longer a member of the UN? Good to know.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

A nuclear war in the MENA would not be a "local conflict". Everyone has investments and alliances in that region.

But that doesn't mean that we need to involve ourselves. I understand that some powerful politicians and war-makers have investments and alliances in that region, but that doesn't confer that everyone has investments and alliances there. The Constitution, Congress, and our President are in place for the defense of the American People, not for their friends or investments in other countries.

It doesn't no, but isolationism shouldn't be promoted for its own sake.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

If Iran pursued a nuclear program with the intent of destroying, or "wiping out" Israel, then it would be the sole responsibility of Israel to defend themselves in any way they see fit.

This doesn't concern the US at all, and shouldn't. While we should definetely diplomatically discourage such action, protecting the sovereignty of other nations is nowhere allowed in the US Constitution, and therefore shouldn't be funded by the USA. Why meddle in international issues that don't concern us?

When it comes to a nuclear war in the MENA I think there is precedent for intervention, given that it would likely lead to world war. It doesn't mean of course that we should be gung ho for yet another protracted war with another country on someone else's behalf.

I think you got that backwards. World wars are due to entangling alliances and intervening with issues that don't concern us. Without those alliances, there would be no world war, only local conflicts.

And what do you think the effects of a local nuclear conflict would be?

[Yoink 7]

Local nuclear conflict is an oxymoronic statemate.

What was the result of a nuke being used from one nation to another over 60 years ago... A cold war, spawned mini-wars all over the world...

So in todays world a nuke from one country to another will be localized?

I don't know whether to laugh, shake my head, or pray people like you don't make decisions

[mRx 16]

So, from your perspective the US is no longer a member of the UN? Good to know.

The Constitution doesn't allow relinquishing Congressional duties to international bodies such as the U.N. Basically, a president cannot use a U.N. resolution to usurp the Constitution, and pull the US into a conflict. The stated purpose of US military forces is to support and defend the US constitution, not a U.N. resolution.

So, no it's not a perspective.