All fair points, Teribus.

Ok, let's start at the beginning. "No problem" referred to the fact I was still waiting for an explanation as to what you considered to be the most effective form of protest; thus, 'no problem I'm sure you won't waiting months for a reply as I had to'. But in fairness to you you ahve posted your reply above (civil disobedience, the Gandhi way). It certainly sounds good, and I'd be inclined to agree. But it'd mean large numbers of people who'd have to be willing to consign themselves to jail and allow their livelihoods to be destroyed in order to wrest democracy back from the oligarchs. Marching and demos are at the less extreme end, so of colurse they are less effective in that sense; but if no-one protested our 'leaders' could at least say no-one minded the war, there'd be no voice of dissent. Civil disobedience may yet come, but there's a time and place. First, it would need mass support to be effective: as with Gandhi's example - he didn't bring India to a stanstill alone. There are further points to be made here. 1) The mass of Indians might have been willing to risk their lives and livelihoods in order to secure an independent India, but would they have made the same sacrifice for say, the people of Uganda? Because that's what the anti-war message asks. It's actually very difficult to find people who see 'the brotherhood of man' as including people far, far away from them. Most people don't give much of a damn about the arabs in Iraq, or the victims in Rwanda, and are willing to accept whatever world order prevails as long as it doesn't hardship them directly. Indeed, your own approach to countries like Iran etc., are along these lines. For it seems it would be quite alright for hundreds of thousands of Iranians to die and their country reduced to rubble and their lives to nothing, in order to stop their government getting a nuclear weapon (even if they succeed in producing Uranium, they won't have enough to make more than a few bombs. Far more powerful countries like China only have a few hundred).

Now apply the same approach to the USA. Let's suppose the Iranians decided the only way to stop the White House neo-cons from attacking any more countries or disrupting any more democracies was to destroy as much of the country as possible. Bush's 'pre-emptive strike'. So thyey manage to fly in and unleash some of their firepower on the big cities, anywhere there are nuclear facilities (e.g Long Island) and if millions of people die in the process, well, that's too bad. At least the US will be so busy bandaging its wounds it won't even have to time to think of attacking anywhere for a while, and the world might see a short era of peace and quiet. (Now whether that'd be the actual outcome is irrelevant here, as we're just supposing the reasoning of the Iranian govt). My question here is, how many attacks would be allowed to happen and how many Americans would be allowed to die before Americans rose up in outrage and epected the world to do the same? Why should it be any different for a place like Iran or Iraq, unless of course, from a western perspective, their lives simply aren't worth as much.

That's why you are unlikely to get mass civil disobedience in protest at our treatment of these long-suffering people.

Phew! Right, second point 2) India, despite popular myth, did not achieve independence through Gandhi alone. there was a very active war of independence going on at the same time under the leadership of Subhandra Bose. Today he's regarded as a hero on the same level as Gandhi in India.

Next. Iraqi death estimates. The Lancet report estimated something in the region of 600,000 deaths a year ago, as a result of, and since, the invasion of Iraq. Of course it is an estimate. In such war conditions, one cannot neatly stack up all the bodies and count them. It is in the interest of both the US forces and the Iraq government to downplay the figures, as to do otherwise would be to admit things are not as rosy as they look. US soldier casualties are also downplayed - 'killed in a helicopter crash' often turns out to mean "shot down by 'insurgents' " on closer inspection etc., Then there was the journalist fired for showing the coffins of US soldiers being flown home. This is standard practice in any war, and I am not surprised to hear people saying 'Did 600,000 really die?' now. Basic services in Iraq are almost non-existant, meaning people have little access to electricity and clean water, which they did have under Saddam.

Now you are quite correct in saying Saddam wouldn't tolerate Iran having nuclear capability (which he wanted for himself). So of course the west would rush to Iran's defence if he attacked, just as they did with Kuwait....actually, no, they wouldn't, because in the west, Iran is the bad guy. They even helped Saddam to attack Iran for years, so little wonder Iran might feel the need to do whatever necessary to ensure ITS own security. Or is that a luxury only allowed to the countries we approve of?

Yes, despite what you think, I am quite well aware that hundreds of above-ground nuclear tests were carried out from the late 1950s until they were banned. they contributed aboput 7% to the level of background radiation, and their contribution is currently estimated to have dropped to about 1% of the background level of radiation (the rest from natural sources and events like Chernobyl etc.,).

But while such activities might be linked to an increased incidenece of leukemia etc., (and this is not acceptable) there is a world of difference between that and actually intentionally dropping those devices on heavily populated cities in order to kill as many civilians as you can. That's what the USA did, and remains the ONLY counry to have done so, despite all their misgivings about other countries. The Italians have a phrase "Chi la fa, la pensa' which translates as 'the thief thinks everyone's stealing from him'.

Perhaps it's a good time to add a reminder. The victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not just the 250,000 + who died in the immediate blast and aftermath, but also thousands who died prematurly in later years, and all those who remained unmarried thanks to the fact no-one - afraid of genetic defects and put off by the ugly scars - wanted to marry nuclear victims. Thus all those people were deprived of a normal married life and the joy of having kids etc., Is there any memorial in all the USA dedicated to the memory of the vcitims of this particular holocaust, inscribed 'lest we forget'? Maybe there is - does anyone know of one?

Now you might say the US is just trying to stop the dangerous proliferation of nuclear weapons, but this wouldn't be entirely true either. India - a country that has long-running tensions with Pakistan over Kashmir, and as likely a candidiate as any to use nucelar weapons - was allowed to acquire them. Pakistan itself wasn't strongly discouarged from nuclear-arming by the US while it was a valued ally against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Yet we now know one of Pakistan's top scientists shared soem of that know-how around. It's not really about stopping countries from acquiring the bomb, but about stopping countries that are not western allies or western aligned from acquiring it. That's just rank hypocrisy of the highest order and needs no serious consideration.

You touch on this yourself while asking what would the rest of the world do if the US simply scrapped its weapons. fair question, and of cousre the answer is that we don't know. It'd be such an unprecented step that no-one could guess what'd happen. If the US was also to pull its troops out of all the places it has them posted and publicly commit itself to purely peaceful, economic and diplomatic means of foreign policy and trasnparent 'world policing', shake hands with Iran; the world might breathe a collective sigh of relief. Israel would be obliged to make a fair settlement with the Palestinians. Iran might consider 'perhaps we don't need a bomb after all' Al Qaeda would be deserted in droves after an interval of a few years. Then of course other countries might take advantage of what looked like 'softness' to step up attacks or chance their arm. So here it is: thanks to our own nature, fear and suspicion of each other, we're locked into a cycle of mutual mistrust and ever-escalating military budgets. You know those movies where the whole earth unites to fight the invading aliens? Would never happen. Some earthlings would collude in surpressing their fellow-earth brethern in order to enjoy a slightly priviliged advantage in the new order. You'll always find people like that.

Your last list of points are your fairest and most convincing however. If indeed the things you accuse Iran of are true, it does seem likely they are hoping to acquire nuclear bomb technology. I read of the IAEA report on the nuclear blueprint story in the newspapers the day after my last posting.
It's just with all the sexing up of the Iraq dossier that these days it's hard to know what to believe. The US has been making a case for attacking Iran for some time, just as they did with Iraq. We know most of the Iraq case was pure nonsense, but now it's too late and thousands have been shot down like dogs in pursuit of the dollar thanks to our swallowing those lies. So you might forgive us if we approach these latest claims with caution.

There could be a number of explanations for the points you mentioned. If I was Iran and I had a nuclear programme, knowing how I was regarded by a belligerent superpower with troops next door and a fleet of aircraft carriers just off my shoreline, I might be quiet about my programme as well. Even if it were a peaceful programme, I would feel sure it'd be interpreted as an excuse to attack me. Plus I'm not sure that Iran has been as secretive as you say. Following the story over the last few years, Iran's presidnet has made a number of public announcements as to the progress of Iran's nuclear programme. But I don't know if these stories are covered by the media where you live.

The Iranians might not plan to build a bomb but leave themselves the option of doing so if they wish. Even if they do plan to build a bomb, there's no certainty they would actually use it except in case of survival - i.e if attacked first. That's their right, if it's the only way for them to ensure they are not destroyed like their neighbour then why shouldn't they take that route? In which case building a bomb is a race against time. When the US invaded Afghanistan there was much talk of 'nuking the country'. Now, thankfully that hasn't happened, though it's nearly as bad. You must also remember that much sabre-rattling takes place on the international stage. If the Iranians even succeed in making the world believe they have bombs, they have a good chance of being left alone, no-one wanting to risk a nuclear confrontation with a country desperate for survival. If so, mission accomplished, and Iran joins the elite club of countries that get to live unmolested.

BTW, are the USA/ Russia/UK/ France etc., nuclear facilities open to IAEA inspection? And why should only NPT countries be considered? That leaves nuclear countries like Israel out of the loop, and if nuclear non-proliferation is to work, all countries with nucelar programmes need to transparent. Then of course Mordechai Vanunu would know all about that.