Hmmmmmm. Nope, no threat here.
Or is there?
I wonder how big of a Chihuahua it would take to detonate a nuclear device in New York or Los Angeles. Obama is an idiot.
The Soviet Union was restrained by the principle of mutual deterrence. The ruler of Iran wants, as his stated intention, to start a world war to bring in the 12th Imam or Mahdi.
A nuke in his hands, given the missile range of Iran's weapons could hit our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, also Israel, southern Europe and with a little extra power, Moscow, and China.
True he could not hit the USA in North America directly. He could, however, send a suicide mission on a container ship into a harbor.
Obama is a nut case, as is the article.
Yeah, Steve Chapman ... Let’s measure the worldwide impact if Iran drops one, just one, on Israel.
Idiot.
This author is a lightweight. Clearly current Iranian leadership would have no qualms about sharing nuclear technology with terrorist organizations who would love to make New York a wasteland.
I always love the liberals. They love to sucker punch President Bush when he cannot respond due to diplomatic realities.
In this case, I think the unspoken reality is that the west doesn’t want Israel to be given a need to unleash their nuclear arsenal. The whole Middle East could go up in flames along with our oil supplies.
I add the point about oil strictly for those readers who see no particular problem with the prospect of a radioactive Middle East. I would also point out that even though we don’t get the majority of our oil from the Middle East, market prices would make major swings with even marginal disruptions of world supply.
I sort of remember a few guys with airline tickets and boxcutters doing as much or more damage as Imperial Japan
This is why we need a real conservative, to stand up to what could be the quadrilateral of evil!
Jesus, can these old farts get thier heads in the 21st century and the threats of TODAY?
Asymmetric warfare...Iran does have organization, planning, and political will.
I’ll take a nuclear deterent against a strong adversary, as was the case with the U.S.S.R., than the risk associated with Iran’s handing a nuke off to some nutcase.
Threats are a combination the enemies ability and intent. Like the lethality of electricity is a combination of volts and amps. The Soviets were all volts. The Iranians are mostly amps.
The Soviets adhered to MAD. They well understood that one nuke would end it all for them, even if they could end us too.
The Iranians are not jobs, believe Allah will shield them, and well understand that we have a paralysis of the will when it comes to nuking cities full of people.
Had we nuked their bomb program two years ago, we likely could have set a precedent that would have prevented nut-job nukes for the next 20 years. But now, especially with an Obama POTUS, the Iranians have many reasons to think that they can build 100 bombs and intimidate us.
What will happen when the Vatican is nuked with a terrorist bomb? Will we strike Mecca? Of course not. They know it and we know it.
Which is more likely to kill a few hundred thousand Americans as a result?
So which is really more dangerous in terms of actual death and destruction?
What a fool.
There was a line in a movies that struck me once. It went something like this:
“I’m not afraid of the guy who wants 1000 nukes. I’m afraid of the guy who wants ONE.”
The author is wrong, but presuming the author is right, or at least believes he is right, will he write a story today castigating Obama for claiming that Iran is a “grave threat”?
After all, Obama is on both sides of this issue.
Was Obama right when he said Iran is a tiny threat or a day later when he said they were a “grave threat”?
Sent this email to Chapman:
Mr. Chapman:
Your latest essay’s reasoning on Mythmaking is seriously flawed because it sets up a straw man scenario.
Threats shouldn’t be assessed simply by population size or military capability vis-a-vis the superpowers like China, the US, Japan or Russia. Do you really think these governments are not concerned by the potential for harm that rogue states like Iran can cause?
Why then are these and other governments all so worried about Iran and N. Korea? Why are you not as worried?
Let me give you an analogy that you can easily relate to:
Would you be more worried for your safety If you are confronted in the subway by two professional robbers with guns or by a single madman who thinks it is God’s will that he kill you and that his murderous act will send him to paradise.
The professional robbers have guns that they believe will protect them from retaliation so they have no reason to kill you.
The religious lunatic on the other hand not only finds sainthood by killing you, he sins against his religion if he fails to do so.
Why can’t liberals see this deadly and dangerous distinction?
You gotta believe that Iran is more afrain of our tens of thousands of nukes than we are of its two or three.
Just nuke them, ride our the criticism and anger of the Euro-weenies and then we have re-established ourselves as a credible threat to be listened to.
It's a little more than a dogbite, as the 283 dead Marines in Lebanon or the 17 dead sailors on the Cole can attest. And there was essentially no reply to either one, at least that anyone has cared to talk about.
The real problem here is that Chapman and other analysts of his leaning are attempting to reduce the problem to one of conventional military lineup. Not even the Cold War was like that. And to a great degree the current system of international state-sponsored terror evolved as a means of making war safely under a nuclear umbrella, which is precisely what Iran is after. The issue isn't nuking Tel Aviv (at least not as a first resort), it's providing nuclear cover for a conventional push by Iran's proxies and allies.
Stating that Iran isn't as dangerous as the Soviet Union is correct but entirely beside the point, as irrelevant as comparing it to a Chihuahua. It is neither, it is what it is, and needs to be considered in that light and in that light alone.