"Iran is so powerful today that no country would dare attack it, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Sunday during an annual army parade.Oddly enough, I think that President Ahmadinejad has a point: although I wouldn't describe efforts at slowing down the spread of nuclear weapons as "treason."
" 'Iran's army is so mighty today that no enemy can have a foul thought of invading Iran's territory,' the Iranian leader said, according to state media.
" 'Of course, Iran is a friend and brother of regional and independent nations and it wants peace, progress and security for all countries,' Ahmadinejad said.
"During the event near the mausoleum of the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini -- who ushered the Islamic Revolution into Iran more than 30 years ago -- several models of Iran's medium- and long-range missiles, including the Shahab 3, were on display...."
"...The United States and its allies should abandon policies designed to dominate the oil-rich nations of the Middle East, Ahmadinejad said, adding that reliance on arms was a sign of a country without culture.
"Iran, he said, is prepared to do all it can to counter nuclear weapons.
" 'One of the greatest treasons by those that monopolize nuclear weapons is to equalize nukes with nuclear energy,' Ahmadinejad said. 'The way to produce weapons is totally different than nuclear energy. And they know these very well, but they plan to talk about both these things in their own monopolized way.' "
Wouldn't it be Nice, If Nukes Didn't Exist?Here in America, a noticeable number of people apparently think that technology makes people do things: not the other way around. Search for things like "gun laws," "gun lobby" or "gun crime," and you may see what I mean. (December 23, 2007)
It's an attractive idea: just destroy all the guns and ban gunpowder, and everything would be hunky dory. I'm quite sure that, in a 'ban firearms' scenario, "gun crimes" would disappear.
But, depending on what America's 'right sort' got scared of first, soon we'd have to ban crossbows, swords, knives, steel, iron, bronze - you get the idea. (April 6, 2010)
Iran a Threat? Yes, ObviouslyI think that Iran's current leadership is a serious threat to anybody within range of its missiles. By now that includes a disturbing fraction of Eurasia and Africa. (August 4, 2009) And the Ayatollahs haven't missed too many opportunities, in my view, to make it quite clear that they believe people should agree with them: or die.
Dealing With New Technology: Been There, Done ThatOn the other hand, I'm fairly sure that nuclear energy - reactors and weapons systems - is a genie that won't go back into the bottle. We'd better get used to living in a world where people can, with a certain amount of effort, use - or misuse - enormous amounts of energy.
Humanity has been through this sort of thing before. There was a time when arrows were the latest thing in super-weapons. What's different about today's situation is that things tend to move faster: and more of 'the masses' have a clue about what's going on.
Ignorance may be bliss: But I'd rather live now, than in any of the 'good old days' I've heard about. Certainly not the ones I remember. "Happy Days" wasn't.
One advantage we've got, that people a thousand or ten thousand years ago didn't have, is that there are well upwards of 6,000,000,000 of us. A fair percentage of that number have access to Internet connections. Which gives them access to quite a bit of raw information - some of it reliable, some more fiction than fact. They - we - can also communicate with each other. Fast.
Welcome to the Information AgeAll national leaders may not have caught on yet, that they're not the only people who have viable ideas: but I think there's there's a vague sense developing, that this isn't the 19th century any more.
That's a pretty good start.
Individual Nations Can Deal With IranI don't have answers: not in any detail. But, in general: I think the sort of situation represented by Iran and Korea is one that individual nations can deal with.
But That May Not be a Good IdeaWhich is a bit of a problem. I said, "can deal with," not "should deal with." In my view, the United Nations is a sort of practical joke: and a screwball prototype of what humanity may develop. In a century, or a millennium. My guess is that it'll take even longer: but I've been wrong before.
We've seen, recently, what a coalition of nations can achieve. Provided that there's one or two nations in the group with leaders who are willing to take charge. Not dictate: direct.
I realize that's a radical idea: nations cooperating with each other without a U.N. agency running the whole affair. But I think it's better than the 'solo' option.
I'm not necessarily talking about America 'going it alone,' mind you. A few years ago, Russian leaders made it fairly clear that they weren't too noble and self-sacrificing to use nuclear weapons against a threat. (January 25, 2008)
Personally, I'd rather see the 'Iranian nuclear weapons' issue settled without parts of Iran becoming radioactive ash. But today's heirs of the Czars and commissars may decide to be more proactive.
- "Obama Limits Nuclear Weapons: That's Nice"
(April 6, 2010)
- "The CIA, the BBC, Iran, and an Iranian Scientist"
(March 31, 2010)
- "Iran, Twitter, and the Responsibilities of Proper British Gentlemen"
(December 29, 2009)
- And jolly old England isn't alone
- "American Military Tests Antimissile System: Smart Move, I Think"
(December 19, 2009)
- "Russian Submarines Near America: There's Probably a Reason"
(August 4, 2009)
- "Iran's Need(?) for Power, the Natanz Underground Uranium Enrichment Site, and the IAEA"
(December 5, 2009)
- "Iran, Islam, "Arrogant Powers" and 'Certain Expansionist Superpowers,' and Common Sense"
(May 30, 2009)
- "Unintended Consequences? The West May be Getting Over Hiroshima"
(January 25, 2008)
- "Ballistic Missiles in Cuba = Anti-Missile System in Europe?"
(October 26, 2007)
- "Ahmadinejad: Iran too 'mighty' to attack"
CNN (April 18, 2010)