S
shumoon
Guest
I'm all for Iran having nukes. I don't see it as a threat. It will make the Mid-East a safer place. The conventional wisdom is that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, then the U.S. will not invade it. So that would be the absence of war, which sounds pretty good to me. Iran's Constitution prohibits the republic from starting war. It has abided by this law since the Constitution was drafted circa 1979.
That 27-year track record of non-aggression is far more comforting than the U.S. record in the same time: wars, invasions, bombings and other military interventions in Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. Coupled with the fact that U.S. officials have recently actually publicly considered first-strike use of nuclear weapons makes me far more comfortable with the thought of Iran with the Bomb than the U.S. starting yet another war while possessing nukes.
That 27-year track record of non-aggression is far more comforting than the U.S. record in the same time: wars, invasions, bombings and other military interventions in Grenada, Panama, Iraq (twice), former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. Coupled with the fact that U.S. officials have recently actually publicly considered first-strike use of nuclear weapons makes me far more comfortable with the thought of Iran with the Bomb than the U.S. starting yet another war while possessing nukes.