Another Super Power?

[RockHardCore]

Would it really be a bad thing if Iran had nuclear weapons and could be a super power that could balance out the United States. Right now the Bu$hes just think they could go barn storming in anywhere they want to and do whatever they want to.

And here is the harsh reality - we might really have trouble winning elections (or getting the Supreme Court to appoint our candidate President. That is the new method isn't it?). So wouldn't our only hope for some balance come from an outside power that had the nuts to stand up to Repugs?

[DavidDvorkin]

1. Even with the bomb, Iran would scarcely be a superpower

Moreover, if the world is to have superpowers, I'd rather they were of a different sort than Iran.

I'm not happy with China's rise. I'd much rather see the EU be the next #1.

[CJCRANE]

2. It will take

several years before there is even a chance that Iran could build one nuke, let alone an arsenal.

Israel, Pakistan, India have got hundreds.

[liberalpragmatist]

3. Because the Cold War Made America Act so Enlightened?

Certainly, the Cold War spurred the U.S. towards doing some great things, like the Marshall Plan, etc. But it also contributed to the Vietnam War and several proxy wars that left millions dead. And it wasn't as if the Soviets were particularly enlightened either. They, of course, were worse in many ways and far worse abusers of human rights.

I would like to see some of America's power constrained by greater respect for international law and a larger role from Europe. But while I am a multilateralist, and while I think there are many bad things that America has done, I find it naive that many DU'ers assume that other country's actions are always purely altruistic and done only in reaction to American policy; all countries act in their own self-interest and they'll often abuse their powers in ways that democracies cannot.

[JerBu]

4. Are you serious

I think I would rather NOT have a country who has publicly declared thier intent to destroy another country, have a nuke.

A better solution would be to bomb every weapons facility in Iran, twice, the moment the date for meeting UN requirements passes.

[MyNameGoesHere]

5. yeah yeah

bomb bomb Pffftttttt so the fuck what? Go now please.

[JerBu]

9. Hmm

Yes bomb. That is the means we have at our disposal to protect our allies in the Middle East from a very dangerous regime in Iran. The other option is of course appeasement. Tell them we want them to stop, but don't back it up with any real threat. Let them continue to develop thier weapons production to a point where we are noone is able to prevent them from destroying ISreal.

That is of cours,e except Isreal.

We are lucky that Isreal is not helpless and is capable of looking after it's interests. If the UN or the EU, or the US do not act, Isreal most certainly will. They are the ones who will have the missiles pointed at them, and they will take care of the problem.

[muesa]

7. But

Israel has nukes.

Did the US or the USSR nuke each other? Or India and Pakistan?

[muesa]

6. "National States" as differentiated from "Political Movements"

appear to be constrained in the use of nuclear weapons by "Mutually Assured Destruction."

There hasn't been any nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan. (Or the US and the USSR during the Cold War).

[Bitter Cup]

8. China and soon India already come close

China has the land mass, the army, the population X10 and will soon have the economy. Plus they have a world view that does not align with our own...oh and a 2000+ year history of Empire building. I suspect they are already playing the game...we just can't figure out all the rules yet.

India is a couple decades behind China in many ways but could quickly match us industrially and then who knows what they could do.

Our time at the top will be judged historically to be very short.

And I don't know how to judge that yet.