Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (13964)	11/21/2004 10:38:30 PM
From: Michael Watkins	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

> is developing nuclear weapons, which Iranian leaders have said they will use to destroy Israel. < Actually that's not quite what he said -- Rafsanjani said that nuclear weapons would stop American colonization, and said that the impact of nuclear weapons on Israel would be greater than that on Iran simply because Israel was smaller. Rafsanjani might in fact be a start raving lunatic, or he may not be - but the essence of what he said is simple fact - if both Israel and Iran have nukes, a stalemate will ensure. Israel today is believed to have 100 - 200 nukes including submarine launchable weapons, plus the US has how many thousands? Including, no doubt, quite a few trained on Tehran. Tell me how Iran will manage to survive retaliation for a pre-emptive attack? The situation is not at all unlike what the US and Soviet Union endured for decades. Its simply ludicrous to extrapolate the jawboning Iran is doing into making an attack on Israel a certainty. Iran has as much to lose at any nation. However, such an argument is highly effective at inflaming public opinion in order to gain support for an attack or invasion. If that is your goal, go for it.