[robowombat]

Establishmen knees are already knocking in Cambridge.

[gondramB]

"The nightmare this time A nuclear showdown with Iran could be this generation's Cuban missile crisis. Here are the reasons we must not let it come to that. By Graham Allison | March 12, 2006"

Is there any indication that Iran has missiles that could reach here? That was the big thing about the Cuban crisis.. This is bad and disruptive but not the same.

That said, we have a better case for war with Iran than we had for Iraq.

[gondramB]

"The nightmare this time A nuclear showdown with Iran could be this generation's Cuban missile crisis. Here are the reasons we must not let it come to that. By Graham Allison | March 12, 2006"

Is there any indication that Iran has missiles that could reach here? That was the big thing about the Cuban crisis.. This is bad and disruptive but not the same.

That said, we have a better case for war with Iran than we had for Iraq.

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Can we live with a nuclear Iran?

If we can't, we'd better start mending fences with our Gulf allies pronto.

But if mending fences is anathema to to many folks here, then I recommend finding a way to live with a nuclear-armed Iran.

[Lejes Rimul]

The only thing I disagree with is the repeated assertion that Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et al will all go nuclear after Iran does. They've been living with a nuclear Israel for 30+ years and haven't gotten together the means or motivation to go nuclear themselves. The only way they'll be doing so after Iran does is if Iran gives them the technology - I'm looking at you, Syria.

[Cicero]

Well, if Bush attacks Iran, the Boston Globe will be among the first to scream "Quagmire!"

And if Bush does nothing and the nukes begin to fly, the Boston globe will be among the first to scream "Bush's fault!"

After all, taking back congress and the White House for the Democrats is far more important than supporting our country's security and/or survival.

[martin_fierro]

As Senator John McCain has summed up the hard-line position, ''There is only one thing worse than the US exercising a military option, and that is a nuclear-armed Iran."

Yeah, a real rock-ribbed Republican that McCain.

At least he firmly grasps the obvious.

[Blueflag]

These 'experts' miss a distinct difference (or several).

1. Soviet missiles could 'destroy' the US; Iranians lack the lift vehicles and the warheads. Back in the 60s, putting Soviet warheads and missiles in Cuba made them no more or less dangerous than placing them in Siberia. The differences in flight time affected our military response and our false sense of security WRT missiles and bombers coming over the pole.

2. Missiles in Iran cannot destroy the US, but warheads in Achmed's Ryder truck can.

3. The Soviets were not intent on delivering warheads unless they had to. Achmed IS intent on getting them here and detonating them.

4. We would have been hard-pressed in the 60s to truly defeat the USSR (and vice versa) in a nuclear exchange, although both countries and much of the world would be wasteland for centuries. We *can* devastate Iran if need be via conventional, electronic, financial and yes nuclear means. **IF** we ever decided to go nuclear, AND wage war with other viable means, in the space of a less than a week, Iran would have no electrical power, no EMF capable electronics, no financial system, no military, no means to communicate within or outside its borders, on and on.

5. A nuclear action by the US WILL NOT happen unless we are attacked and blame can be laid. Period.

5a. 90 minutes after a verified attack, Iran would cease to exist.

5b. CNN international and Reuters would NOT be able to broadcast from the hot zones, but would of course be able to immediately interview 'dignitaries' opposed to and condemning US actions. They have previously drawn up target lists, just like the military does. ;-)

[GOPJ]

Within the twisted circular reasoning of a closed society, Iran might decide if Israel didn't exist there would be peace and prosperity in the ME. They are wrong in this assumption. Iran's problem is clinging to short sighted 14th century ideas that prop up corrupt Mullahs.

[JoeFromSidney]

Two points.

Nonproliferation served us well for about 50 years. Now the nuclear genie is out of the bottle. Kowledge of how to build bombs, and supplies of uranium and plutonium, aren't that hard to get. For instance, the sludge captured by a scrubber on a coal-powered electric plant is actually low-grade uranium ore. We may as well get used to a world in which loonies and tyrants have nukes.

In the case of Iraq, there was little opportunity for popular opposition to Hussein. In Iran, there is significant popular opposition to the mullahs. We might well do better to support the opposition, so that we end up with a nuclear-armed Iranian democracy rather than a nuclear-armed Islamic theocracy.

[ketelone]

''Look, the Pakistanis and the North Koreans got the bomb," a ''senior official" told The New York Times, ''and they didn't have Iran's money or engineering expertise."

Shhhh... dont tell anyone.. but THEY had help from the C-H-I-N-E-S-E!

It looks like China is quite intent to give nukes to anyone that opposes any of its rivals.

North Korea - US
Iran - US
Pakistan - India

China is acting like the wild drunk at a party.. it thinks its being cool, but its actually pissing a lot of people of. And these guys have a veto on the security council - yeesh.

[The Great RJ]

Sadly it is almost inevitable that Iran will have the bomb very soon and will demonstrate it in a very well publicized test. The US response should be a very public declaration that any use of nuclear weapons by Iran on Israel or the US or its allies or giving these weapons to terrorists for use against the US will result in a nuclear barrage from the US. Bush should make this announcement on the deck of a boomer submarine stating that he has ordered the targeting of Iran with nuclear missiles.