I certainly agree with that, then. montana Sorry, I just hate nuclear prolifeeration, and I really hate the tensions, which if cooler heads would previal we wouldnt have to deal with these issues. And I really dont like the dumbasses that come on here and say that it's ok -no big deal- if the nukes spread, which you were softly doing even though it was mostly hus and others.

You completely misunderstood me.

Hus seemed to state that nuclear weapons prevented a war between U.S. and U.S.S.R., which I disagreed with. Fear of destroying the world prevented a war between the two nations. Iran launching a nuclear weapon or two wouldn't destroy the world, so they might not be as hesitant to use them (although I generally think they wouldn't anyways). But I'm strongly against the spread of nuclear weapons. I see no use in a weapon that kills more citizens than soldiers.

Actually I agree with Hus in that the US and USSR is actually a comparable situation to Iran and Israel having nukes. Both involve certain destruction of large parts of both countries - the US/USSR didn't hold back for fear of destroying the world - they held back for fear of being destroyed.

Israel is actually vulnerable to even a small number of nukes due to it having such a high population density.


Mind you, I think the most stable situation is actually the current one on the nuclear front - Israel having the nukes is one of the things that keeps it from being invaded by hostile nations surrounding it and it would never ever be able to use them against a country that wasn't invading it (the lose of patronage of the US and the rest of the west would essentially sign its death warrant as a nation in my opinion).

The real worry isn't that they'll use their nukes.  It's that they will give them to people who will use them.  The Iranian national guard funds a LOT of terrorism.

Since someone stupidly let North Korea get nukes they'd even have a good excuse.

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

The real worry isn't what Iran would do with the nukes... but who Iran would give them too... either while still a country, or when their government gets overthrown.

Who knows what the ruling party would do... steal the nukes and sell them to terrorists, detonate them in iran as martyrs, fire them at Israel, Fire them at Europe...

Could do anything with them.

You have a good point Kasz. Iran is the least politically stable its been since the Islamic Revolution, the last thing you need in the middle of a revolution is extremists (who undoubtedly do exist in positions of power in Iran) being pushed to desperation and holding the trigger of nuclear weapons. Especially when they're next to a state they despise beyond all others.

im not from the US, so i dont get fox news. 

but which part are you saying is BS? if its the minefields, its commonly known that this was done during the iran iraq war. 

Wrong.

The only thing that matters is Iran's ADA. You can talk about the possibility of new purchases, but Iran is not known for capable pilots, nor savy ADA. I remember talking to a solider that was able to sum up Iran's ADA. Overall, it is not very good - better than some countries, but not very capable in terms of defending a massive attack by a top-tier airforce like America or Israel.

You can view Iran's ORBAT and inventory overview here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/airforce.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iran/weapons.htm

Iran's usage of children to clear minefields is pretty well documented. Google 'iran minefield children' and you get this:

http://www.matthiaskuentzel.de/contents/ahmadinejads-demons

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_use_of_children#Asia_and_the_Middle_East

Its not Fox news BS. It was reported by the Iranian newspapers. I'm very surprised you accused him of BS, yet never bothered looking to see if it was factual or disproven.