[Rictor]

tell that to Bush who's doing his best to provoke a nuclear confrontation.

Traditionally, the way to deter people from seeking to develop nuclear weapons has been to assure them that you will not attack them, not the ****ing opposite.

As I said, Iran is pinned on the Est and West by US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Israel right in the neighborhood and more than willing to throw down. Every sane person on earth would be seeking a nuclear detterent in that situtation.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Clave
http://www.cdi.org/issues/nukef&f/database/

A few hundred warheads compared to a few thousand in the US....

Not that it matters - even half a dozen nukes exploding will have serious implications for the entire planet.  You can't just nuke a country and expect the dust to stay in one place.  To use a volcano comparison, the dust from Krakatoa in the Indian Ocean travelled as far as New York.  If you throw radioactive material high enough into the atmosphere, it will circle the entire globe - then everyone gets to share a stupid death....

Incidentally, why in the hell the UK & France would choose to have 185 & 350 nukes respectively is beyond me.

[01010]

184 isn't enough and 186 is overkill.

[Rictor]

Oooh, those cheese eating surrender monkeys have you totally outclassed when it comes to nukes. And here I though you were a world power.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Rictor
Oooh, those cheese eating surrender monkeys have you totally outclassed when it comes to nukes. And here I though you were a world power.

Guess that's why we're always arse-kissing the Americans, then.........

[Kosh]

Originally posted by ionia23
I don't see what the big hoo-ha is.  If Iran wants to build deterrences, be my guest.  They're certainly entitled to.

Though deterrences from what....

In their view, US imperialism.

[Rictor]

How is it "in their view".
How many countries are actively under occupation? Two, just in the Middle East, several more worldwide. US military bases all over the Persian Gulf.

The US percieved Iraq, on the other side of the world and with no offensive capability or will, as a present and clear threat, while Iran is supposed to ignore the openly hostile military forces station all alongs its borders?

C'mon, thats absurd.

[jdjtcagle]

Rictor check your PMs

[Corsair]

"In summary I still believe that the development of the H-bomb is a calamity. I still believe that it was necessary to make a pause before the decision and to consider this irrevocable step most carefully. I still believe that the possibility of an agreement with Russia not to develop the bomb should have been explored. But once the decision was made to go ahead with the program, and once there was a sound technical program, I cooperated with it to the best of my ability. I did and still do this because it seems to me that once one is engaged in a race, on clearly must endeavor to win it. But one can try to forestall the race itself."
- Hans Bethe, on the construction of the hydrogen bomb, 1954.

I agree with him.

[Rictor]

Actually, there is some historical evidence that Stalin tried to cut a deal to abandon the A bomb project, in return for the West decreasing the military build-up on the German border, but I don't know how authetic that info is.

And clearly, no one side won, like the guy predicted, rather bother sides agreed to move towards disarmament (excluding the two ass-hats in charge of the US and Russia at the moment). No one side can win a nuclear war, thats the whole point of MAD.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Rictor
Oooh, those cheese eating surrender monkeys have you totally outclassed when it comes to nukes. And here I though you were a world power.

They probably have more cause as recently as 10 years ago they still needed to check they worked. For all we know until then all a french nuke did was hit the ground and shout "zut alors!" loudly.

[vyper]

[q]until then all a french nuke did was hit the ground and shout "zut alors!" loudly. [/q]

[Gank]

Originally posted by karajorma
They probably have more cause as recently as 10 years ago they still needed to check they worked. For all we know until then all a french nuke did was hit the ground and shout "zut alors!" loudly.

Whereas the UK only had to check theirs 12 years ago?

[Clave]

Quantities of warheads are not 'that' important, what matters is delivery systems, and the combination of a nuclear-powered sub with high speed multi-warhead missiles pretty much guarantees success....

Anyway, I thought Iran was a 'friend' to the West, or was that Iraq? or Afghanistan? ah well, times change...

[Black Wolf]

Iran was, under the Shah, who's since been booted and had islamic law put in place.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Gank
Whereas the UK only had to check theirs 12 years ago?

13 actually

I assume you'd noticed that despite having less than double the number of nukes they needed 4 times the tests to confirm that they work.