Seamus Kennedy - 06 Dec 06 - 02:15 AM

If Kendall doesn't call you simplistic, I certainly will.

Your contention that - "if everybody has nukes, no one will use them, even the rogue nations like Iran and North Korea, for fear of being nuked immediately in return." - is based on what? Experience from the "Cold War"? The situation that you believe would be the case was not established during the long period of the "Cold War" until the "Mutually Assured Destruction" theory became reality through the developement of second and third strike capability, prior to that the theory was he who struck first won.

By all means let's take a look at "the nature of alliances and treaties", in today's world - adequately summed in the words Rwanda and Darfur, that is how far the world's alliances and treaties will allow a situation to slide, so please Seamus don't go holding your breath on concerted action being taken with regard to the odd bomb being tossed about, particularly if they are tossed in one given direction first.

"So, let 'em all have nuclear power for electricity and bombs and God knows what else, but have no doubt that the first nation to use a nuke would be nuked right back." By who Seamus?

Now think what would happen if Iranian nuclear devices were smuggled into Israel and placed in Tel Aviv and Haifa, by Hezbollah or Hamas terrorists. The devices go off, massive loss of life, sufficient to paralyse the State of Israel. Outright condemnation throughout the world, who's to blame? Who gets "nuked right back" Seamus? What would be the reaction of the Major powers if anybody even suggested "nuking Iran right back"? As to the consequences for those living in the area, perhaps you could tell me how concerned the bordering Arab states, Iraq and Iran have been for the well being and prosperity of the Israeli and Palestinian people over the last fifty years. Hell those governing Iran could not give two hoots for the Iranian people, let alone a bunch of strangers 1000 kilometers away. If you find this too far fetched Seamus, take a look at the recent (Post WW II) history of the only two locations hit by the weapons you are talking about. Now tell me that some bunch of religious nuts aren't capable of drawing their own conclusions and buying into the idea that this would be a price to pay in order to wipe the stain of shame that is the existance of the State of Israel from the face of the Arab world.

What I believe (My opinion only) the reaction to the initial attack would be is as follows:

USA & UK - would opt for action to be taken against Iran.

France, Russia & China - would oppose such action being taken irrespective of what proof of Iran's involvement exists, in order to de-escalate the situation as further confrontation over the issue would wipe out the middle-east as an oil producing region - Not important to the UK or to the USA, vitally important to the Chinese and to the French and Russians with regard to investment.

The Rest - would learn to live with and readily accept a world community without a place called Israel (shrug of the shoulders, "Ah well, too bad, never mind eh?) and get on with things. Once the radiation levels had subsided sufficiently, the arabs could scratch around find some "displaced Palestinians" (those not displaced by the explosions that is) and park them on the now glowing site that once was theirs so many decades ago. World money derived from guilt would flow into the newly created country of Palestine and all would be sweetness and light - Or would it?