Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbuna
I just can't see the region ever being stable and I'm worried ten fold if it becomes the subject of a nuclear arms race.
|
That'S the point, beside proliferation. An arms race in nukes in a highly instabile region, driven by centuries-old hostilities, religious hysteria, plenty of hot-boiling hate and general irrationality. Allow Iran nuclear wepaons, and you will have your nuclear arms race, for SA will rect. Egypt will. Turkey will. In the longer run Syria will join. Maybe Libya will start new, too.
Welcome to Cuba holidays every damn day of the year.
Nuclear arms race, and proliferation - that are exactly the reasons why I am so totally unforgiving over iranian nuclear weapons. I have said that time and again - the direct military strike at Israel or the West are not my primary concerns, although I have an eye on them. None of these countries can be allowed to own them, for it will always start that arms race, because the others will react. That is over conflicts that have little to do with Israel, or the "Palestinian problem". Take Israel and Palestine away,
and you would have the same conflicts and the same situation. Compared to that, the cold war 1.0 will have been a very rational, stable affair. And even there we have had accidents, and events were we simply were lucky that no nuclear war broke out. The risk in the ME would be multiplied by many factors. Allowing nukes down there simply is no option. I already start to sweat when thinking of Pakistan.