[Lillie_Steins]

Ynet has an interesting story titled "Giuliani suggests 'carrot and stick' policy against Iran"

On the one hand, he (Giuliani) expresses his willingness to negotiate directly with the Iranians, but on the other hand, he warns that if the dialogue does not bear fruit and the efforts to stop Tehran's nuclear program fail, he would be in favor of destroying Iran's nuclear facilities.

Read more at:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...438144,00.html

[9mm_fan]

One should negotiate from a position of strength and the willingness to use it.
Note the success Nixon had with Maoist China, and remember only tough people get respect because only tough people deserve it.

Was it so much strength or just fear and opportunity in China of Soviet encirclement and, ultimately, domination? They had their little war over an island, then the Koreans and Vietnamese were pro Soviet, in fact the latter attacking Maoists in Cambodia. Wasn't it mostly just timing?

[Slonopotam845]

There is already a quasi nuclear arms race in the middle east. Which is why not negotiating is worse than negotiating. If we do then we know what they know we know about them. That's more valuable than pretending each other doesn't exist except at the end of a gun.

I've said for years, there's crazy, there's stupid and there's stupid crazy. Iran is crazy. But they have a plan and an agenda. It would be useful to know more about that, what their expectations are. Given they will be a major political player in the region, we have to consider what it is they want. We can't simply approach the problem from the perspective of arming everyone and hoping for the best.

It may or may not be a foregone conclusion that Iran will be a nuclear state. They will achieve that in the next 2 years with another 1-2 years before they can weaponize The Bomb. But they will discover that being a nuclear state is somewhat like being a slave to it too. These systems are devilishly complex and expensive to maintain. Which is why North Korea, Pakistan, China and India have, relatively speaking, small arsenals even though they have sunk decades and billions of dollars into these programs.

There have been in the past several countries which started and abandoned nuclear programs for this reason. Argentina and Brazil both ended their programs as they understood that even 'success' was hard to define. They would be trapped into a strategic posture that required these weapons. South Africa built 6 or 7 bombs and partially completed 2 more before they ended their program as it was understood that they couldn't be employed in the manner that they originally intended, strategically. North Korea at best has 6 bombs and no real way to deliver them, as we understand it.

This isn't to say that building nukes makes you a rational actor. It's simply a matter of strategic intent versus capability. The Ayatollahs may claim that they are prepared to absorb multiple retaliatory strikes but this is not a rational sane statement. It would mean the end of Iran and possibly the end of Shiite Islam. That they are not prepared to do. So - Iran needs to stake out a strategic posture with nukes that doesn't commit them to a plan they can't afford and can't maintain. If they can't do that then they may very well be forced to abandon their plans or at the least curtail them severely.

In the meantime, we'll have to figure out how to handle all those other second line states that may go nuclear: Malaysia, Indonesia and Nigeria, primarily.

[NeroASERCH]

We have a nuclear armed middle-east. Israel has nukes.

Only because we have a genocidal Middle East... and Israel is not genocidal.

[Peptobismol]

If you want to say that being genocidal is an attribute of all other Middle Eastern nations, that would be an additional motivation to what is natural of having a neighbor with nukes.

I wouldn't say "all other", "most other" will do. But I agree with your point nonetheless. But you do see the consequence of this don't you? If by genocidal state we also imply a margin of "insanity" it mitigates a lot of that ole time game theory... no more Mr. MAD to tend your fences and keep you sheepishly cleaning your silos. Since it depends on Rational Actors.

No. When you fuel your missiles, they will make use of that fuel in short order. And there is the dilemma of proliferation to failing states.

[PhillipHer]

Yes, but Israel hasnt gone around threatining its neighbors saying "We will nuyke you out of existence", while the other nuke contender in the middle-east(Iran), has already threatened to blwo Israel out of existence(they dont even have nukes yet!). Imagine what they will do with nukes. Also iran doesnt have good realtions with alot of middle-eastern countries(alot of arab coutnries like UAE, Saudi arabia, etc, in particular view iran as the biggest threat to the stability of the region)

Actually Pakistan (which had it's bomb bought by S.A.) has also threatened Israel. But you are completely right in the gist of what you are saying. We threatened no one, there is no possibility of first strikes just to see how many people we can kill and so on... it's not even a useful thing except keeping the warmongers back. Can you imagine if Mubarak builds up a Nuclear facility and has missiles and his regime is over thrown by the Moslem Brotherhood... what kind of situation we will face in the Middle East? Can you imagine if Iran attacks Israel with WMDs... it will be the end of life in the whole region, pretty much for ever. We are a stable modern state, always have been, whether the administration is Leftist or Rightist will scarcely change our national options or motivate nuclear aggression of any kind. Even if the right wing, religious, Kach where in power they would act exactly like Likud regarding nuclear power.

[Lt_Apple]

"it will be the end of life in the whole region, pretty much for ever. "

Let's not exaggerate.
There are plenty of people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki right now. The first Ground Zero is a tourist site.

Those where Atomic Bombs... whats sort of yields? and what sort of rad half life?