US fears Israel would not advise it in advance if it strikes Iran

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

Yes but by that rationale, Sky, the USA is the only nation who owns 'offensive' nuclear weapons - by the historical record.

Not even the Soviet Union has ever threatened nuclear holocaust against another nation for mere reasons of hate, or just becasue that nation was there. The Cold War was basing on a mutual deterrancy. You cannot compare Iran'S policy to that of the USSR, the US, Britain, France, Israel, Brasil, India.

The problem with all nuclear weapons is, if any one nation is dumb enough to use them against another nation that has them - both nations are toast, as well as probably the rest of the planet as automatic MAD retaliatory systems kick in.

China, Rzussia and the US would not go at each others throats over a hyrophobic dog like Iran. You can truist in that. Also, as I repeatedly said, the bigger danger is not Iran dropping the bomb on Israel, although that is absolkutely possible - they said so often eough mand who am I or who are you to tell the world the Iranians do not mean what they say? They are relgious nutzheads, and thus by defintion: irrational. The bigger thgreats are nuclear proilioferation to terror ghroups, the Wets become vuklnerable to nuclöear blackmal by such terror groupos of the Iranian MRBMs, and the risky nature of a nuclear artms range between Iran, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt in an environment as instabile, unpredictable, emotionally hysteric and simply: ionsane, oime the the ME is. The cold war took place in a reölatively stable, raitonal context (and even hewre we sometimes were close to lose control, and inat least one case simpy were lucky that we survrivbed it). a new cold war in the ME is - unacceptable. It makes the cold war of the past look like a friendly gathering under the christmas tree.

I think most governments (yes even the Iranian dictatorship) understand this. Even your cynical mind must be able to see the irony here. Israel was neither forthcoming nor transparent when it developed its own nuclear arsenal.

And it never threatened anybody to wipe him off the earth'S face, and is not seen by the Arabic regimes as a thrat to their very own existence. If they are not better than the IUranians, then I wonder why the Arbaa nations see this difference? Nobody has raised his own hjuclearf program to coutner Israel. But with Iran, SA, Turky and Egypt have left no doubt in the past years that they would seek nuclear reactions to that.

You are welcome for my 'good heart' and 'kindness' as much as you want to belittle me over it, the point was, bombing nuclear facilities risks dispersing radioactive materials into the environment equaling or even surpassing Chernobyl, rendering large areas of land uninhabitable for human beings for centuries, of course, who cares if it's not on your land right?

Right. Better them than us, since we did not make the deicison to threaten our neighbours with exticntion, and do not support terrorism. You see, I believe in thjat people are responisble for the choiuces they make. Even the Iranians. My country poayed a porice for tzhe deciisons the people made 80 years ago. So will the Iranians. I have no intetion to leave them any other cheap alternative.

Equalling Chernobyl, you say? Well, Fukushima surpasses Chernobyl, they now say. But Japan is still there. Iran has smaller radioactive material stockpiles, and as I said on various occasions: we do talk aboiut nuclear bunker busting of those critical installations only that cannot be reached by conventional ammo. If any radioactive contamination makes it difficult to enter the bombed sites to try saving plutonium or critical technology and installation - the better!

I am not fond of the Iranian regime, nor of extremist Islamist anti Iraeli sentiments, but then Israeli regime actions since the end of their last war have hardly been whiter than white either. I would personally find it more agreeable if a nation who didn't have nuclear weapons was making these investigations and demands for a Iran not to develop nuclear weapons, at least it would come from a position of righteousness rather than seeming like the school bully with the biggest stick in the playground.

Then yoiu have slept since many years. Practically all European natiosn for example, nhuke-owners and not, have said that loiud and clear, and supported the IAEA. Since years. Since over one deacde. And they sqaid time and again they would not tolerate or accept a nuzclear Iran. Have you been on a 5 year expedition to the outer planets to miss that? I even quoted a 10 book pages' list of diplomatic exchanges some days ago, four dozen exchanges within a timeframe of just 18 months, 2007 and 2008.