Iran warns europe over backing Israel

[B. Max]

Anyway, let's assume for a second that Iran is behind the violence in Iraq...and that it does control Hizbullah's every move.

It's still a massive leap to go from there to "they are going to nuke us OMG!!!" In other words: whatever Iran's sins, it's still behaving like a rational actor. So why would they abandon that foreign policy rationality the second they got nukes?[

To that last sentence I'll add "...especially since they know that using nuclear weapons would result in their own destruction."

We don't have to assume anything. Iran created and controls Hezbollah. They are only rational if you consider a nation of thugs who are a state sponsor of terrorism to be rational.

Actually using nukes would not necessarily result in their destruction. The appeaser king, Clinton, changed American policy. The change stated that America would absorb a first nuke strike. What that means I don't know exactly. Does it mean one nuke, or does it mean ten at once. In the world of leftist appeaser fuzz it is at the very least scary.

[Black Dog]

We don't have to assume anything. Iran created and controls Hezbollah. They are only rational if you consider a nation of thugs who are a state sponsor of terrorism to be rational.

I don't think you know what rational means. What I see is a nation (Iran) using a proxy force (Hizbullah) to harrass and check its main regional rival (Israel). I'm not exactly sure what's not rational about it.

Actually using nukes would not necessarily result in their destruction. The appeaser king, Clinton, changed American policy. The change stated that America would absorb a first nuke strike. What that means I don't know exactly. Does it mean one nuke, or does it mean ten at once. In the world of leftist appeaser fuzz it is at the very least scary.

Can't be too hard to provide a cite for that. Because that sounds like horseshit to me.

Even if that were so, what does that have to do with iran, a nation which currently lacks ICBM capability.

[B. Max]

Can't be too hard to provide a cite for that. Because that sounds like horseshit to me.

Even if that were so, what does that have to do with iran, a nation which currently lacks ICBM capability.

Yeah you are like Clinton and would rather wait until the nukes are going off around the country. Which is why the left should never get their hands on the levers of power.

http://www.cuttingedge.org/news/n1216.cfm

[Black Dog]

Yeah you are like Clinton and would rather wait until the nukes are going off around the country. Which is why the left should never get their hands on the levers of power.

First, I don't read nutbar conspiracy sites.

The New World Order is coming! Are you ready? Once you understand what this New World Order really is, and how it is being gradually implemented, you will be able to see it progressing in your daily news!!

heh heh.

Now, from a real source (arms control association):

Printer Friendly

Clinton Issues New Guidelines on U.S. Nuclear Weapons Doctrine

Craig Cerniello

THE CLINTON a dministration quietly made a significant change in U.S. strategic nuclear doctrine in November by formally abandoning guidelines issued by the Reagan administration in 1981 that the United States must be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war. The new presidential decision directive (PDD), details of which were first reported in The Washington Post on December 7, operates from the premise that the primary role of nuclear weapons in the post-Cold War era is deterrence. In a December 23 interview, Robert Bell, senior director for defense policy and arms control at the National Security Council, provided additional information about the PDD and clarified some misperceptions in the press with respect to the Clinton administration's policy on "launch on warning" and the use of nuclear weapons against a chemical or biological weapons attack.

New Guidelines

Due to its highly classified nature, many specific details about the PDD have not been made public. Nevertheless, Bell confirmed that "We have made an important change in terms of strategic nuclear doctrine in reorienting our presidential guidance away from any sense that you could fight and win a protracted nuclear war to a strategic posture that focuses on deterrence."

The administration made the decision to rewrite the old nuclear guidelines early in 1997. At that time, General John Shalikashvili, then-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, explained to President Clinton that the United States could not reduce its nuclear arsenal to the level that was being discussed for START III (2,000 to 2,500 deployed strategic warheads) and carry out the objectives of the 1981 nuclear guidelines. Bell pointed out that this assumed that the goals of the old guidelines could ever have been realized—a skepticism that has been voiced by former Reagan administration officials. Hence, one key factor influencing the administration's decision to rewrite the old guidelines was that they were not compatible with the U.S. objective of achieving further strategic force reductions with the Russians.

Moreover, the administration viewed the 1981 guidelines as an anachronism of the Cold War. The notion that the United States still had to be prepared to fight and win a protracted nuclear war today seemed out of touch with reality given the fact that it has been six years since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In this connection, Bell said the 1981 directive "reads like a document you would expect to have been written at the height of the Cold War, not something that you would want operative today...."

...

Bell emphasized that "there is no change in this PDD with respect to U.S. policy on launch on warning and that policy is that we do not, not rely on it." In fact, Bell said "in this PDD we direct our military forces to continue to posture themselves in such a way as to not rely on launch on warning—to be able to absorb a nuclear strike and still have enough force surviving to constitute credible deterrence."

Bell pointed out that while the United States has always had the "technical capability" to implement a policy of launch on warning, it has chosen not to do so. "Our policy is to confirm that we are under nuclear attack with actual detonations before retaliating," he said.

...

One last thing: what kind of drugs are you smoking and where can I get some?

[B. Max]

One last thing: what kind of drugs are you smoking and where can I get some?

Why don't you try Clinton you seem to like the kind that he smokes.