Well, I don't know.

I have a feeling that the Iranians probably have several 'undisclosed' nuclear sites--whether the press or the US State Department likes to admit it or not.

I believe the Iranians will pursue enrichment programs--and I feel confident that even now they are edging closer to producing domestic HEU (highly enriched uranium.)

I don't like the idea of an Iran HEU or possibly weapons grade uranium in its possession, but we must ask ourselves what we are prepared to do about it.

Are we prepared to go to war over it? I think the Israelis probably are--but the U.S.? I don't know--our plate's a little full right now.

What can happen with a nuclear armed Iran? Probably not much. Israel would still possess an arsenal potent enough to destroy Iran all by itself--so direct nuclear confrontation would not be in Iran's interests. However, this would be a form of deterrent provided the Iranian leadership were rational enough to fear nuclear retaliation.

What about proliferation? A more complex and possibly more dangerous question. Iran could provide countries or radical groups with nuclear expertise and materials to initiate their own weapons programs. This is possible, and is a real danger (and represents the basis for REAL concern for Israel and the USA.) However, in order for Iran to become a real nuclear power, on par with say even Pakistan or India, then Iran would have to vastly expand its nuclear infrastrcture. It is difficult to hide such a general nationwide expansion--warning signs would no doubt be spotted well in advance.

Iran is persuing ballistic missile technology--isn't that dangerous? Yes, but who isn't pursuing it? Just because a county has the technical knowhow to build an IRBM does not necessarily imply it has the capability to build nuclear tipped ICBM's. Still, even if it did have one a two, it would still need to field dozens or hundreds to become a credible world threat. To do that, Iran would have to possess a mature nuclear and ballisitc missile infrastructure with advanced lightweight nuclear weapons designs and large and complex missiles. It has neither.

Iran's nuclear ambitions are a concern, but I don't necessarily agree with the rabid fear the subject generates. They haven't even tested a nuke yet. Come to think of it, neither has North Korea, so how do we know they aren't bluffing as well.

It should be the policy of any country in the possession of a mature nuclear deterrent to make public that a nuclear attack on them would cause instant nuclear retaliation. It is the only true way to deter nuclear attack by nuclear nations.

As for terrorist organizations--it would seem unlikely that such an organization could possess the materials necessary to construct more than one or two bombs. While the loss of a couple of cities would certainly constitute a national or world catasrophe (I'm sure the residents of the destroyed cities would feel the same way,) it would not however be an "End of the World" event. Certainly the parties responsible would be hunted down, and the sponsoring countries would certainly risk the nuclear wrath of the nation attacked.

The way to beat terrorism is to genuinely address the grievences which nurturer it while simultaneously making public that terrorist attacks with nuclear weapons will cause retaliation against terrorist sponsoring countries. This puts terrorist sponsors on the spot to self-deterr their terrorist pupils. Once the greivences are addressed and terrorism is made costlier than negotiation--then terrorism will stop.

In My Humble Opinion,

Ty Moore

I dont know who this Solana is but I dont like the idea of living next to radioactive waste dump. I looked on a map of Iran but could not find the place Ghadir, if no one know where this place is how can anybody help.

Al Chime