Even if Iran had a few nukes ready to launch, I wouldn't be too worried for America, I'd be worried for Iran's closer neighbors.

Let the rest of Eurasia worry about Iran, if they get out of control they'll be taken care of by someone else.

58% of British people think Sherlock Holmes is a real person.

In other words. 71% isn't particularly high for something that's close to being the case.

Additionally pretty much any historian who has studied the issue will tell you the use of Nuclear weapons was actually the best option to end the war.

All of the other options would of ended with more deaths... and possibly Japan being split like Korea and Germany.  Both situations likely would of made the "Japanese Micracle" unworkable... and Japan would of ended up much like the Vietnam and Korea.

Actually the "desperate radical faction" already would have control of the Nukes.  It's just a matter of making them desperate.  That's the REAL problem.

It's not like Israel where somhow the government would have to destablize and one of those really right wing parties would have to be on control.

One of those "radical rightwing" factions is already in control... and all it would take is that faction falling.

Which is as you know something that's been suggested will happen for the last 10 years or so.

So not only are you right... your even more right then Khan lets on.

Say, it's 5 years from now.  The Young revolutionaries who've hated you for 10-15 years are rioting, and now they outnumber you... it's just you and your right wing guard left...

You and your regime surely are going to be put to death.

Why WOULDN'T you fire a couple nukes at Israel and Europe?

If your a psychotic dicator why wouldn't you want to leave a lasting mark and a legacy to be remembered forever?

It's the same reason Japan is so antsy about North Korea having Nukes.  If the Great Leader on his deathbed decides he doesn't care about his son, he just very well may decide to devestate japan to be remembered... since that's largely what he cares about the most.

Thanks Kasz, I'm feeling the love

MontanaHatchet said: Thanks Kasz, I'm feeling the love

Yeah, i mean you only have to look so far as the fixed election... which was fixed by the rightwing revolutionary guard to keep a more "moderate" version of the party out.

In many ways it seems like they're already drawing their lines in the sand.    Everyone knows another revolution attempt is coming... but they don't know when.

Getting Nuclear Weapons of course really complicates this because of all the stuff talked about that could happen during a revolution, either the weapons being fired or given to extremists, or even just accidently going off.

They may end up trying to use Nukes as blackmail to try and prevent a popular revolution.

That's silly Kasz.. that like saying Bush invaded Iraq just to have a legacy.. but to answer your question: their believe in the Islam prevents them from doing that.. killing innocent people prevents them from going to paradise..

If you know... Bush was a bloodthirsty dictator who was going to be put to death.

Also, so... what about the suicide bombers then fund?  Wouldn't that count as "killing innocent people."

This is the revolutionary guard here... they don't have the strictist adherence to islam.  They've actually already assisted in the firing of missles into Israel in an attempt to kill Israeli citizens. 

Nukes help keep the peace, generally. You don't attack a nation with nuclear weapons, and nuclear-armed nations (who are also generally the strongest in the world in conventional capabilities, too), haven't openly fought each other at all so far ever since Nagasaki, except India and Pakistan.

More advantages than disadvantages, as long as they are kept away from completely unstable regimes (who wouldn't be able to fund them in the first place, likely enough)