Stability?

Question

Nuclear weapons have contributed to stability between the West and the former Soviet Union, and between India and Pakistan. Might they not serve a similar function between Iran and Israel?

Would an Iranian bomb really be such a disaster? History has surely proved that a balance of power creates peace, whereas imbalance causes war, as the more powerful side will inevitably seek to impose its will by force. Is not this the meaning of the current threats against Iran by the United States and Israel?

The author is Patrick Seale, a London based writer.

Answer 1

~Hell, if Bugs Moran and Al Capone had had nukes, we probably wouldn't even celebrate Valentine's Day anymore.

Answer 2

It's all one big power play by what will become the next nuclear capable nation on this globe. In my opinion, the only way to defuse the current situation will be for the United States to change its foreign policy and engage in direct one on one talks with Iran, which is in most liklelihood the main instigator of the initial attacks against Israel through Hezbollah and Hamas.

Failure to do so will cripple the global economy.

Times have changed. American policy has not. Either a lot more people are going to die, or America will step up to the podium and act as a responsible and honorable super power and defuse the situation and give concessions where needed.

Answer 3

Stability is not the word I would use, but the prevention of war between the West and the former Soviet Union was really achieved because of international concerns of what would have really happened if the missiles stationed in Cuba (soviet) or the missiles stationed and ready to be fired from Turkey (US missiles) to Soviet targets, were indeed fired.

There are military and political specialists who say that there is sufficient evidence as to prove that Iranians are somehow looking to achieve the same weapons level as Israel, but Iranians deny the accusation, arguing that they are only seeking generation of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. But if Iran really had this kind of weaponry, I think it would be a real danger, not only for Israel, but for its neighbors (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Kuwait and even Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states).

You say that history has surely proved that a balance of power creates peace, but when it gets to nuclear weapons, in my personal opinion, the only balance resides in diplomatic efforts and multilateral relations in order to achieve peace.

Answering your other question, I agree with you.

I think the real meaning of the threats by Israel and the US against Iran is obvious: these 2 countries are not and will never be willing to tolerate the presence of a nuclear-armed regime that could be dangerous for the fulfilling of their own international political and economic interests, such as Iran and North Korea.

Answer 4

I think if we demonstrated the impact of such a weapon lets say one in Iran and a couple of selected sites it would serve as a wake up call to the world. But unfortunately there are some problems with this. it is like using a 10 lb hammer to kill an ant, what would worry me about an Iran having nukes would be their willingness to use such a weapon not fully comprehending its costs

Answer 5

Mutually Assured Destruction worked between the US and Russia. And so far has worked between Pakistan and India.

I actually trust Israel with a bomb. But do you really want someone who thinks martyrdom gets you 72 virgins in Paradise loose with even a tactical nuke?

MAD only works when both sides understand that large cloud a nuke makes is bigger than many middle eastern cities. I'm not sure Iran's leaders can think that big.

If Iran gets the big bang, in fact I'll even go along with giving them one. I want them to KNOW if it gets used in any manner where they weren't attacked first, they WILL become a glass parking lot. That only Allah will get to hear their apology.

I'm very tired of people who can't play nice with others!

Answer 6

I think you got a lot of good answers here. I would not want to see all of that area nuked. Diplomatic answers first but I am afraid the radical group will not listen, and go ahead and fight till the end. They have said it and I believe it. Look at what happened to us on, Sept., 11th. We were surely caught off guard but had a lot of hints.
I think it will be an ugly and deadly war. Key word is, "I think".

Answer 7

You forget. Off the wall religious beliefs are mixed in vis-a-vis Israel & Iran so all bets are off. Our best hope is that they turn the whole worthless area into a radioactive slag heap and the problem thereby solves itself.

Answer 8

you have two psychos fighting each other. and you think you can make peace by giving them equivalent lethal weapons? isn't it better to remove any sharp object from them?
but i guess if Iraq would have had proper weapons for real, then US wouldn't stick their nose into others business. And there would be more peace on earth... so maybe you r right. if they blast each other, then it should be a proper BOOOOOM, not just some BooM...

Answer 9

Patrick... I STRONGLY SUGGEST you read the book "Seven days in May" which I would guess was written before your were born... Anyway, read the book and then see how far off the mark your observation really is.

Answer 10

Some people have their gun at home for protection, and some to kill and rob... Nukes are not for terrorist-harboring countries where people have bad economy and are easily corrupt, and would do anything for money. And we all know that terrorists have money, and can buy with it anything they want.

Answer 11

Stability is what our Government is designed to do for ordinary citizenry but Politicians and Military seems have their ways to destabilize them.