nukes

Compare and Contrast

Today, there were articles abound fluffing the effectiveness of dialog with North Korea over its nuclear rights (spoilers not withstanding). I still don't understand why our mighty military didn't invade when our "intelligence" was actually right on North Korea -- long-range missiles launched into the sea of Japan on July 5, 2006 and a successful nuclear test on October 9, 2006. But then, nothing like this is expected to make sense in a state of "lead by dolt".

Don't think Iran isn't paying close attention. I'll bet anything that they move up the date of their anticipated April nuclear announcement. After all, this could be reason three driving them toward their nuclear goals: not only do you not get attacked when you actually do have a nuclear capability, but you get free stuff to boot.

When Two Reasons are More Than Enough

These two reasons are more than enough for Iran's leaders to think they need nukes.

  1. According to its Prime Minister, Israel has nukes, and is a sworn enemy of Iran.
  2. According to the US Secretary of Defense, "they would see it in the first instance as a deterrent. They are surrounded by powers with nuclear weapons: Pakistan to their east, the Russians to the north, the Israelis to the west and us in the Persian Gulf."
Any questions? Didn't think so.
Syndicate content