Mr Khan said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Mr Khan said:
MontanaHatchet said:
Mr Khan said:
Like Iran with one or two nukes would be dangerous. I mean, certainly a bad situation, but Iran i think is cognizant enough to realize that *using* a nuke would be ruinous.
Israel with nukes is at least as dangerous as Iran with them, yet no-one seems to complain.
|
This is not true and you know it.
|
Why, exactly? What makes Israeli conduct in foreign affairs better than Iran? What has one done that the other has restrained itself from? Both have made threats against the other to take disturbingly drastic action, just that Ahmadinejad's language is somewhat more apocalyptic.
The only difference is the chance that Iran's regime could destabilize, and then do something stupid, but as long as they're thinking clearly, they're not going to use nukes.
|
Oh, come on. Israel has had nuclear weapons for many decades now, and haven't used them once. And do you really think any western nation would support Israel if they used nuclear weapons? Iran wouldn't care, they already have their enemies set in stone. Israel can't take that risk. And the government of Israel isn't some impulsive dictatorship that just launches nukes as it sees fit. You could make a case of Iran not launching nuclear weapons, but claiming that Israel is just as dangerous with its nuclear weapons as Iran is pathetic exaggeration.
|
Exactly. That Israel has not used them should indicate that Iran probably won't, either. Both countries are conscious of the outside world, despite their relative assertiveness. The only danger of Iran going nuclear is similar to the danger of nuclear Pakistan, if a more desperately radical faction were able to seize control of the nukes, then use them.
|
Exactly. Iran has the danger of radicals gaining control over the nuclear weapons, or falling to a dangerous government. Israel does not. So by your points, you agree with me that Israel is not as dangerous with nuclear arms as Iran.
Thank you.
Essay Pro