Doug Henwood wrote: > I suspect they're right on the facts - that Iran is trying to develop > a nuclear weapon, and that their denials aren't credible. But I don't > care. It's fanciful to think that Israel or the US will ever give up > nuclear weapons. It's true that in an ideal world no one would have > nukes, but that's impossible; there doesn't even exist a bottle to > stick that genie back into. So second-best is that all those > countries that want them can have them.
Let us assume they can have them, if they want them. But how they will go about doing that without inviting immediate action by UNSC. (Btw, when India tested nuclear device in May 1998, Iran voted against India, as did the US, China and Russia. And India is not even a signatory to the NPT. Both India and Pakistan were subjected to economic sanctions by the UNSC.)Is it a viable option to have nukes after 9/11? > >Cuba acceded to NPT as late as September 2002. Cuba also ratified > >Tlatelolco Treaty. Why Cuba doesn't try to acquire a bomb? > Because the US would go bonkers and destroy the country. Castro's > rational and knows that. Cuba did it after 9/11. Would the US go bonkers and destroy Iran, if Iran withdraws from the NPT? Ulhas
