Maybe only Poland said yes. Maybe there aren't suitable sites in those countries. A few hundred miles probably doesn't make a difference to an ICBM.

But yeah, I think the people who are unconditionally damning America here live in willful ignorance of Russia's new and dangerous ambitions.

Heh, my post about how people blame everything on the US was mocking that attitude. Not actually blaming everything on the US. I thought it'd be clear when I used the word scape-goat but I guess not.

"Actively positioning them in a hostile manner is something completely different. "

Remind me, what is the purpose of nuclear submarines patrolling the world, carrying multiple ICBMs?

Alright, Denzel. I'll remind you. They're an active deterrent.

There's nothing hostile about nuclear missile submarines hiding themselves in the waters around the world.

There's a distinct ring of hostility when you -threaten- to place nuclear missiles in a forward position in response to something you don't like.

I mean, really. Instead of sailing around to random places, you want the submarines to stay in port? I'll guess you also want the ICBM missile silos to be completely un-crewed until a threat appears which might require a nuclear response.

Ok. Lets get that done. But, on second though, Russia is rattling their nuclear saber, so I suppose that the nuclear weapons need to remain staffed and ready.

Russian missiles on their own territory are also "active deterrent".

The history of military technology is the history of development of shields and spears. After NATO developed a new shield, it is much cheaper to bypass it than to develop new spear that can penetrate that shield.

I must remind you that NEVER in the history of military equipment has development of shields surpassed the development of spears. Arms kill, no matter how protected you feel in your armor.

Which brings me back to the question of negotiations with present and potential enemies. I doubt US will ever again have such incompetent negotiator as G.W.B. and his aides :P

BTW, there can be no winner in a nuclear war, and everybody who has a finger on the red button is well aware of that. There has NEVER been a war between two nuclear powers. Even India & Pakistan stopped any kind of real fighting when they both acquired nuclear weapons.
That's why Iran needs to get nukes ASAP. They were directly threatened by US president. Those threats will stop after Iran becomes a nuclear power. Before you start rambling about their "wish" to end the existence of Israel, let me remind you that the state of Iran never initiated war against any foreign country in its modern history (past hundred-or-so years). And the fact that Israel itself has more than enough nuclear warheads to deter any kind off attack by Iran.

You miss the point, Denzel. Russian missiles on their own territory, if that was all there was to it, yes, is active deterrent. Russians threatening to, or in fact placing missiles due to an event they don't like, is hostile.

You're wrong on your second point, as well. Development of protections -has- rendered armies unstoppable due to their near-invulnerability to the weapons of the area and time. These spans of time are always limited when they happen, and they are not absolute, but the development of defenses has surpassed weaponry on a number of occasions. So sayeth the US Army Colonel in my military history class.

I'll give you that Bush is an idiot, but I appreciate having him in the office for one major reason. Through all the Clinton years, we suffered numerous terrorist attacks directed by bin Hidin', and the response was always the same- "We will find those responsible and we will bring them to justice" and nothing much ever happened. I think Osama bin Hidin' was very surprised when the whole of the US military came after his sorry ass after 9/11. Beyond that, Bush can go to hell.

You know, Denzel, you're right so often it makes me wonder how you can start at a correct point and wander so far off track so quickly. There can be no winner in a nuclear war, true. But the last country in the world that needs a nuclear bomb is Iran. They'll make one, they'll put it in a truck, and they'll drive it over to Israel. Boom. Uncounted dead, a small wasteland left in its wake, and even if you could go into the wasteland, there's no evidence left over to find out who made and sent the bomb. Congratulations, they just pulled off a nuclear strike that can't be retaliated against.

You seem to mock "bin Hidin" a lot. A man who manages to evade tho whole of US armed forces and intelligence for at least 7 years deserves a little more respect, I guess. Tito managed to fu*k German Wehrmacht and SS for 4 years in mountains and woods of Yugoslavia, and was considered one of the great guerrilla leaders. I'm sure Bin Laden will have his rightful place in history, two generations later, too. If he is still alive at all. Which I doubt, lately. Just as I doubt he had anything to do with 9/11. It would be interesting to see THAT case in court of justice. Real court of justice, not the mockery US have set up in Guantanamo.

As a citizen of the ONLY country that ever used nuclear device against human beings (twice), you really shouldn't be deciding who does and who does not need to have a bomb.

Russia is overreacting? Neither intents on either side is benevolent, but come on... Setting up missile defense in Poland? That's like Cuba... and don't give me the "it's defensive" stuff, because it's not. It directly acts to negate the deterrent of mutually assured destruction. It doesn't matter that it currently can only stop a few warheads, because it will almost certainly be improved if it's given the chance. Also in the event of a nuclear war, I think you'd find nobody would be emptying 10000 warheads at a time... it would likely be a few tactically placed warheads...

Uh... there have been many points in history where defensive capabilities have outgrown offensive capabilities, albeit not permanently. Full plate armour completely negated the sword and spear, and was still quite effective against axes. Heavily fortified cities with an active port could withstand any siege. Then gunpowder came along... but that still gave a huge advantage to nations with such fortified cities and access to extensive armouries.

It's been discussed before but I don't really think Iran would detonate it's nukes... It needs them for political influence in the Middle East. Nobody messes with someone with nuclear weapons. They don't hate Israel that much that they would take their own country down just to kill a lot of Jewish people. I find it unlikely that they could pull off a nuclear attack on Israel and not have it traced back to them or not expect retaliation. If history has taught us anything it's that you won't get Jewish people out of their Holy Land by trying to kill a lot of them.

Iran needs nuclear weapons, becuase unbelievably it will bring stability to the region.

America will stop threating them and making them feel vunerable, and when someone feels threatened they strike out. Isreal wont be able to keep doing what it wants through fear of retaliation, everyones a winner, well except maybe israel and america but they have had it there own way for far to long and its got us no where.

Your right Trim. After Iran blows Israel off the face of the planet we will finally have stability.

well technically yes, but iran wouldnt ever attack israel as they have to much to lose if they did, its a deterant and why shouldnt they have nuclear weapons who are we to stop them, america has them, israel has them why not iran?

North Korea has them. South Africa has them. Brazil can have them in a couple of months, if they just wish so... Hell, even Belarusia has them, they only gave them to Russia for safekeeping.

Blowing Israel off the face of the planet is not an option for any Muslim. Israel just happens to be sitting right on top of Jerusalem, and it just cannot be blown away.

Thats a very interesting point. But I don't think they would have the slightest compulsion were they to wipe us out. So in the end we would lose.

They didn't kill all the hostages at the embassy 30 years ago, why would they want to drop a bomb on New York? Especially if they only had a couple of warheads.

Sure, they might want to target a carrier group of your 7th Fleet, if it started showing off in Persian Gulf. Back to the negotiations point.....

@Marchosias - in your orig post you wrote..

Israel is colonizing it (The West Bank), creating a buffer zone between them and their enemies.

Colonizing an area doesn't create a buffer zone. Leaving it empty creates a buffer zone.

Denzel... bin Hidin' doesn't deserve any kind of respect or anything like it. He deserves a bullet in the brain, and thats pushing it. Burning alive maybe would start to pay for the people who burned alive in the WTC.

Straight from bin Hidin's Wiki page:
"In the 2004 Osama bin Laden video, bin Laden abandoned his denials without retracting past statements. In it he stated he had personally directed the 19 hijackers."

So, yeah, he's responsible for 9/11.

And you're only partially right about not being able to speak about who shouldn't have nuclear weapons. You're right that we used them twice, but that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't give every nation on Earth the right to have them. The only conceivable scenario for a US nuclear launch would be in response to an incoming nuclear attack. You can't say the same for every other country on the planet.

Maniac: Yes, it does. You want to stop them from getting to your metropolitan areas, so you offer them some heavily defended urban areas. Think tactically, not strategically.

either everyone has nuclear weapons or no one does simple as

My concern with Iran nuking Israel is that they said they would. Who am I to assume they are lying?

"In it he stated he had personally directed the 19 hijackers"

I was wondering, how do you explain the FACT that at least 10 of the 19 were still alive after 9/11?
How do you explain the FACT that what hit Pentagon that day definitely wasn't a Boeing?
Have you seen any of the Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, or Titanic movie lately? Anything can be filmed, including mr. Bin Laden's statements.
I agree that anyone who is responsible for the deaths on 9/11 deserves to be punished severely, but, former CIA-associate mr. Bin Laden should not be considered responsible for that, until proven differently in the court of law. Or so your beloved Constitution says.
You could also say that he was responsible for J.F.K. assassination, while it is more probable that the same organization is behind both events.

As for the nuclear weapons, anyone who CAN produce them or buy them has the RIGHT to have them. The stronger always rule, always have been, and always will. Go ahead and bomb Iran, if you believe you are the stronger ones.
US has the protocol to retaliate on a strategical level only in case of incoming strategical attack, true, but US armed forces would have used tactical nuclear warheads against masses of Warsaw pact soldiers on European soil, if there was such an attack. Just like Israel would use them against Syrian army on Golan, or Egyptian army on Sinai, if they figured out they cannot stop the assault by conventional means. Which is highly improbable, but not impossible.

Centurian: Would you actually bomb Israel if you were Ahmadinejad?

Centurian: I tried to remember when was it that any Iranian official said they would bomb Israel if they had a bomb... Could you find a quote, please? All I remember is their stubborn insistence that they want nuclear power to produce electricity.

I disagree with the either everyone has nuclear weapons or no one does statement. I think as few people as possible should have them in fact, but at the same time if one power has nuclear arms other powers must as well.

In the framework of the cold war, if either Russia or the US had nuclear weapons or another significant advantage it would be counter-productive to world peace if the other didn't get it. As we've moved beyond the cold war the deterrant mentality should only be held in regards to stable major powers. A theocratic semi-republic of 70,000,000 people with an uneducated electorate doesn't qualify as a stable major power.

IMO, the powers that should have access to nuclear deterrants at the moment are the US, China, India and Russia. I think the EU should have some nuclear weight as well, but not to the degree as the other four powers. I think they're the powers that are worth risking nuclear war to prevent a war between is actually worth it. A full scale China-India or Russia-Europe/US war would be truly devastating.

Iran on the other hand is a smallish power, not in a 'hot' zone of real tactical advantage. There isn't any of the tactical value like Poland or Ukraine which would be a salami-tactics gateway to Europe. It isn't worth risking a nuclear war over.

That was a really bad sentence near the end of the third paragraph.

*I think that they're the only powers worth risking nuclear war to mantain a considerably better chance at peace. A full scale China-India or Russia-Europe/US war would be truly devastating.

Wow. So Denzel73 is a 9-11 conspiracy nut. I hope you kissed your credibility goodbye before she left, Denny.

either everyone has nuclear weapons or no one does simple as

Oh trim with her(?) genius comments, why dont you go and play in traffic?
Yes, lets give every retarded warmongering dick a ICBM with additional warheads, at least it would solve large parts of the problems in Africa and Middle East. HURRDURR

retarded warmongering dick like bush?

Denzel: I'll have to second Invictus' condemnation of your credibility... ordinarily I wouldn't then respond to you, but I simply must correct you. Again. Our beloved constitution does so state that law shall rule, and that no citizen shall be considered guilty before proven so in a court of law.

It says nothing about foreign terrorists and murderers. The bastard is going to die, if he hasn't already, because we won't ever give up. I'm honestly shocked he didn't learn the lesson of Pearl Harbor.

As for Ahmadinejad's wanting to wipe Israel off the map... here you go.

"Our dear Imam [Khomeini] said that the occupying regime (Israel) must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine... Israel has declared armed struggle against Islamic countries and its destruction is a must for all governments and nations of Islam."

There you go. He thinks wiping Israel off the map is "wise". He also condemned all Muslim leaders who accept the existence of Israel as "acknowledging a surrender and defeat of the Islamic world."

As for your morality of survival, you're right. We all must do what we must to survive. Being a nuclear power does not ensure Iranian survival. In fact, Iranian survival isn't even in question. The only reason they're in danger is the fact that they are attempting to make nuclear weapons. In other words, if Iran achieves nuclear power status, Israel must destroy that capability in order to survive. Welcome to World War 3.

Trim... while you and I both agree that Bush is a waste of space, no US leader would ever consider releasing nuclear weapons on another group of people unless we were first attacked with nuclear weapons. Unlike -your- favorite Muslim tyrants.