BG School: Should N. Korea's arms programs evoke a hardline response?

[Elvis]

This is the 2005, FBI, Foreign Economic Collection and Industrial Espionage report.

Look up "Examples of Foreign Technology Acquisition Efforts—Listed By Suspected End-User Country."

Various countries are mentioned.

Also, look up 'Israel China US', in Google and you'll get plenty of info. So yea, this stuff happens.

I was just disputing the notion that we 'sold' N.Korea nuclear secrets. That's how I interpreted the original post.

From Middle East Forum (I know, but read anyway - sources listed):

In 1994, U.S. media reports accused Israel of unauthorized transfer of technology associated with the Lavi jet fighter to China.[9] While Israel Aircraft Industries developed the light combat aircraft as an Israeli venture, it relied on U.S. financial support and technology transfers for such key components as the engines. The cancellation of the project in August 1987 resulted in military industry layoffs. The Israeli government looked to Chinese demand for technology to upgrade its F-10 fighters as an opportunity.

In October 1999, President Bill Clinton formally opposed a deal for the Phalcon airborne early warning and surveillance systems on the grounds that the technology that Israel hoped to sell to China undermined U.S. security interests in the Asia-Pacific, especially across the Taiwan straits.[10] In July 2000, and in the wake of months of U.S. threats and intimidation, Prime Minister Ehud Barak announced the deal's cancellation.[11] That the crisis escalated despite Clinton's appreciation over progress in the peace process underlined the seriousness of U.S. concerns.

In December 2004, controversy over Sino-Israeli military ties again erupted when the Bush administration objected to the Israeli government's decision to repair and upgrade the Harpy unmanned aerial vehicle that Israel had sold to China in the 1990s.[12] This time, the Pentagon threatened to terminate or exclude Israel's participation in the F-35 joint strike fighter program.[13] Israeli media even spoke of a U.S. "boycott" of senior defense ministry officials who were dealing with China.[14] In July 2005, Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz canceled his trip to the United States following U.S. demands for a written apology for Israel's security exports to China.[15]

In August 2005, Amos Yaron, a senior Israeli defense ministry official, resigned over the controversy surrounding arms transfers to China. Yaron was shunned by the Pentagon for months, and U.S. authorities held him responsible for misleading Washington and mishandling the affair.[16] Reflecting on the affair, influential Israeli columnist Ze'ev Schiff observed how much the once close relationship between the U.S. and Israeli militaries had deteriorated. Because "no suitable person who was acceptable to the Americans was found in the Defense Ministry," Mofaz had "to ask people from outside the Defense Ministry to head the negotiating teams" with the United States.[17]

While the Israeli ministry of defense and the Pentagon signed a memorandum of understanding in August 2005 to clarify cooperation and "to consult on possible threats to U.S. and Israeli defense interests,"[18] the repeated disputes took their toll on both the substance and image of Israel's credibility as the chief U.S. strategic ally in the Middle East. Much of the criticism came not only from the U.S. mainstream but also from officials otherwise friendly toward Israel. Nearly a dozen U.S. official reports accused Israel of various improprieties, and most of them pertained to its dealings with China.[19]

Perhaps the most devastating of these was the report of the Select Committee on U.S. National Security and Military/Commercial Concerns with the People's Republic of China, (popularly known as the Cox Report after House Policy Committee chairman Christopher Cox [Republican, Calif.]). The declassified portion explicitly identified Israel as one of the suppliers of high-tech weapons to China and charged that Israel "has provided both weapons and technology to the PRC [Peoples' Republic of China], most notably to assist the PRC in developing its F-10 fighter and airborne early warning aircraft."[20]

Sources:

Spoiler: show

[9] The Jerusalem Post, Dec. 29, 1994. For a detailed and somewhat personal account of the Lavi controversy between Israel and the United States, see Dov S. Zakheim, Flight of Lavi: Inside a US-Israeli Crisis (Brassey's, 1996).
[10] Shichor, "Mountain out of Molehills."
[11] The Jerusalem Post, July 14, 2000; Ha'aretz (Tel Aviv), Dec. 28, 2001.
[12] Yitzhak Shichor, "The U.S. Factor in Israel's Military Relations with China," China Brief (Jamestown), May 24, 2005. By 1999, Israel supplied about 100 UAVs to China.
[13] Ha'aretz (English online edition), Apr. 16, 2005; The Jerusalem Post, Apr. 17, 2005.
[14] Ha'aretz, June 15, 2005.
[15] Ha'aretz, July 27, 2005.
[16] Ha'aretz, Sept. 1, 2005.
[17] Ha'aretz, July 29, 2005.
[18] U.S. Department of Defense, news release, Aug. 16, 2005.
[19] National Security: Perspectives on Worldwide Threats and Implications for U.S. Forces, report to the chairman, Senate and House Committees on Armed Forces, Apr. 1992; Economic Espionage: The Threat to U.S. Industry, testimony before the Subcommittee on Economy and Commercial Law, Committee on Judiciary, House of Representatives, Apr. 29, 1992; Military Sales to Israel and Egypt: DOD Needs Stronger Control over U.S.-Financed Procurement, report to the chairman, Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, Export Financing and Related Programs, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, July 1993; U.S.-Israel Arrow/ACES Program: Cost, Technical, Proliferation, and Management Concerns, report to the chairman, Committee on Appropriations, Aug. 1993; Foreign Military Aid to Israel; Diversion of U.S. Funds and Circumventing of U.S. Program Restrictions, testimony before Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigation, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Oct. 27, 1993; National Security: Impact of China's Military Modernization in the Pacific Region, report to congressional committees, June 1995; Defense Industrial Security: Weaknesses in U.S. Security Arrangements with Foreign-owned Defense Contractors, report to the congressional requesters, Feb. 1996; Economic Espionage: Information on Threat from U.S. Allies, testimony before the Select Committee on Intelligence, U.S. Senate, Feb. 28, 1996; China: U.S. and the European Union Arms Sales since 1989 Embargo, testimony before the Joint Economic Committee, Apr. 28, 1998; China: Military Imports from the United States and the European Union since 1989 Embargo, report to the chairman, Joint Economic Committee, U.S. Senate, June 1998; Cox Report.
[20] Cox Report.

On specific countries, from the Federation of American Scientists:

Japan

The Japanese have mounted a comprehensive economic espionage and economic intelligence collection effort directed against the United States. Because Japan has a very small government intelligence organization, most intelligence is collected by Japanese companies in coordination with the Japanese Ministry of International Trade and Industry (MITI). Major Japanese multinational corporations such as Mitsubishi, Hitachi, and Matsushita have large corporate intelligence organizations that collect political and economic intelligence. The quasi-official Japanese External Trade Organization (JETRO) has also been used as an intelligence asset, collecting information and even supporting espionage activities. The Japanese have used HUMINT sources within U.S. corporations, have bribed corporate employees to purchase proprietary data, and have used Japanese graduate students to collect information from universities and research institutes. Japanese corporations have also made use of the Freedom of Information Act to obtain invaluable information from the United States Government. Within Japan, the Japanese government is believed to monitor all telecommunications traffic from U.S. corporations located in Japan.[10] It is believed that 85 to 90 percent of intelligence collected by the Japanese government and Japanese industry is economic intelligence, much of it based on proprietary data.[11]

France

The French General Directorate of External Security (DGSE) has targeted U.S. economic and proprietary data since at least 1964. The top priorities of the DGSE are combating terrorism and collecting economic intelligence. Service 7 of the DGSE has successfully conducted technical operations against telecommunications systems throughout the world and has gathered significant data through these activities.[12] Reportedly, the DGSE targeted Loral Space Systems and Hughes Aircraft for information on telecommunications satellite technology, Lockheed Missile and Space Company for data on the MILSTAR military communications satellite system, TRW for military telecommunications technologies, and GTE Telecommunications Products for microwave technologies.[13]

South Korea

The South Korean government and South Korean businesses have also conducted operations directed at collecting U.S. economic and proprietary data. South Korea has centered its collection efforts on computer systems, aerospace technologies, and nuclear technologies. According to the Defense Intelligence Agency, South Korean activities have included stealing information from computerized databases maintained by U.S. government agencies and the U.S. companies.[14]

Germany

Germany has been accused of using computer intrusion techniques and SIGINT to gather information on foreign competitors to be passed on to German companies.[15] There are no indications of a HUMINT effort against United States corporations, however, it is likely that German trade officers are collecting economic intelligence through open-source analysis. The German Federal Intelligence Service (BND) is alleged to have created a classified, computer intelligence facility outside Frankfurt designed to permit intelligence officers to enter data networks and databases from countries around the world. This program, code named Project RAHAB, is alleged to have accessed computers in Russia, the United States, Japan, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom.[16]

Israel

Israel has an active program to gather proprietary information within the United States. These collection activities are primarily directed at obtaining information on military systems, and advanced computing applications that can be used in Israel's sizable armaments industry. Two primary activities have conducted espionage activities within the United States: the Central Institute for Intelligence and Special Activities (MOSSAD) and the Scientific Affairs Liaison Bureau of the Defense Ministry (LAKAM). The Israelis use classic HUMINT techniques, SIGINT, and computer intrusion to gain economic and proprietary information.[17]

Sources:

Spoiler: show

10 - Peter Schweizer, Friendly Spies: How America's Allies are Using Economic Espionage to Steal Our Secrets, New York: The Atlantic Monthly Press, 1993, pp. 18-19.

11 - Arion N. Patakos, "Counter-Competitor Intelligence: Keeping Company Secrets Secret," The OPSEC Journal, Fall 1993, p. 39.

12 - Jeffrey T. Richelson, Foreign Intelligence Organizations, Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1988, pp. 159161.

13 - "Telecommunications, Satellites Said to be Targeted for Espionage by France," Common Carrier Week, May 17, 1993.

14 - Neil Munro, "South Korea Said to Eye U.S. Technology," Washington Technology, May 19, 1994, p. 1.

15 - Samuel D. Porteous, "Economic Espionage: Issues Arising from Increased Government Involvement with the Private Sector," Intelligence and National Security, 9:4, October 1994, pp. 735-752.

16 - Wayne Madsen, "Intelligence Agency Threats to Computer Security," International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence, 6:4, Winter 1993. pp. 413-488.

17 - ibid.

[Vile23]

I would think Iran would more of a threat currently then N Korea. Nothing worse then having an irate muslim country on the brink of revolution obtaining nuclear weapons. Didn't achmedijad (sp?) say something along the line about blasting Israel off the face of the earth ?

[Khajit]

Gasp! A country wishes that a militant racist nation founded upon the oppression and eviction of people not of their race/religion with a ridiculously bad human right record, with rampart institutionalized discrimination that South Africans consider even worse than apartheid which is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and has a large superpower(USA) allied with it to the point that many call it subservient wishes that said nation(Israel) would go away.
I have no idea why the native people of the middle east would have any problem with any nation that also has a history of and continues to bomb/torture/kill civilians and carry out terror attacks/war vs them on a regular basis

[Kuya]

I would think Iran would more of a threat currently then N Korea. Nothing worse then having an irate muslim country on the brink of revolution obtaining nuclear weapons. Didn't achmedijad (sp?) say something along the line about blasting Israel off the face of the earth ?

Irate muslim country? That sounds like you think muslims are more prone to use nukes or something. Which says more about you really. And Iran is no more at the brink of revolution than Pakistan or India. Or the United States for that matter.

1. Ahmedinejad is not the supreme ruler of Iran, that is Khamenei. So Ahmedinejad wouldn't have the authority to launch a nuke.

2. Ahmedinejad never said that.

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word "Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime. This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

[foopy]

Irate muslim country? That sounds like you think muslims are more prone to use nukes or something. Which says more about you really. And Iran is no more at the brink of revolution than Pakistan or India. Or the United States for that matter.

i don't see it as "muslims are crazy". its "extremist are crazy", be it muslim or christian. it just happens that in christian countries - like US - there is a much greater separation of church and state. where iran is led, as you pointed out, by the religious leader khamenei.

to paraphrase christopher hitchens: crazy religious nuts want to bring on armageddon. nukes would help hasten that along.

[Khajit]

Except they aren't any crazier than any other country/region out there. They just had a group with grievances against the US , wasn't busy with civil wars etc , and which actually had the resources to do what the entire region is now painted as.
They look at you guys in the USA as the religious nutcases or at least approaching that territory.

[foopy]

Except they aren't any crazier than any other country/region out there. They just had a group with grievances against the US , wasn't busy with civil wars etc , and which actually had the resources to do what the entire region is now painted as.
They look at you guys in the USA as the religious nutcases or at least approaching that territory.

i'll be the first to admit i don't know enough about iran, so please excuse the perception i have of iran, fed by to me by the US media.

with that said, i still have a hard time believing they aren't crazier.

i'll pose a simple assumption i've made:

in america, pat robertson is on the fringe, and doesn't control nukes.
in iran, pat robertson is the "supreme leader".

this isn't about muslims vs christians. its about the leadership, and the nukes they command, basing their decisions and policies on logic and reason vs basing it on bronze age writings foretelling armageddon.

[willriker]

I do agree with Iran being a bigger threat than NK, at this time. Who knows about what might be in the future though, and therefore NK is still a threat that someone will need to deal with in the future. Both, of these countries shouldnt have nuclear weapons.

Irate muslim country? That sounds like you think muslims are more prone to use nukes or something. Which says more about you really.

I think you are glossing over the word Irate. He was not making a glossed over statement which would incicate that all muslim countries are more prone to using nuclear weapons. He was saying that an irate muslim nation would be more prone to using them than a content/mearly upset muslim nation. You could also swap out muslim for... oh i dont know... how about pigmy, and it will still work the same way. An irate pigmy nation would be more prone to using a nuclear weapon than a pigmy nation that is not irate.

There is no doubt in my mind, that any country with nuclear capabilities will use those weapons when the appropriate buttons got pushed. pun intended. :O After all, you dont buy a gun unless you are prepared to use it. All that remains is the set of circumstances which would warrant that responce. As with anything else, the set of circumstances required to have that sort of reaction varies from person to person, group to group, nation to nation.

That being said, i do not think that it is out of order to believe that Iran is one pissed off country. Wrongfully, or rightfully, so does not matter. And i do believe, that if they had the weapons, it would take less of a puss for them to use it than other muslim nations.

[Kuya]

i don't see it as "muslims are crazy". its "extremist are crazy", be it muslim or christian. it just happens that in christian countries - like US - there is a much greater separation of church and state. where iran is led, as you pointed out, by the religious leader khamenei.

to paraphrase christopher hitchens: crazy religious nuts want to bring on armageddon. nukes would help hasten that along.

Your post is a nonsensical mishmash of concepts that need not be related.

Extremist is an ambiguous term often employed by people without specification, often aimed more towards things they do not like rather than things that may actually deserve the label. Your example of the US having separation of church and State (not enough, according to some people) and relating it to the fact that a majority of its populace may be christian is a misatribution.

If you did not intend to imply that the separation of church and state is inherent in christian ideology, as opposed to islam, and that religious states are more "extremist", then your post was horribly worded. Not to mention it ignores the existence of muslim majority States that do not possess theocracies. Such as Turkey, for example.

People often point out Ahmedinejad as a justification for an idea that an Iran with nukes would use it irrationally because he is a hardliner. Ignoring the fact that he is not the supreme leader. When people can't do that, they try to imply that the fact that the supreme leader is a cleric means that he will use nukes irrationally. As if the Iranian republic did not have multiple factions and interests in constant struggle for influence, like in any State in existence.

Take note people, Neosutra's "religions is crazy and leads to violence" is easily used to justify the US's geopolitical aspirations. Note how it is used to imply that, because Iran is a theocracy, it will act irrationally in posession of nukes. A stupid argument, but that doesn't stop them from using it.

[Kuya]

I find the fact that Iran, a country since essentially its birth as a modern State has not engaged in aggresive war, is being judged by citizens of a country (the US) that constantly engages in aggressive war, to be a threat, funny.

[Kuya]

i'll be the first to admit i don't know enough about iran, so please excuse the perception i have of iran, fed by to me by the US media.

with that said, i still have a hard time believing they aren't crazier.

i'll pose a simple assumption i've made:

in america, pat robertson is on the fringe, and doesn't control nukes.
in iran, pat robertson is the "supreme leader".

this isn't about muslims vs christians. its about the leadership, and the nukes they command, basing their decisions and policies on logic and reason vs basing it on bronze age writings foretelling armageddon.

Do you even know who Khamenei is to be equating him to Pat Robertson?

I do agree with Iran being a bigger threat than NK, at this time. Who knows about what might be in the future though, and therefore NK is still a threat that someone will need to deal with in the future. Both, of these countries shouldnt have nuclear weapons.



I think you are glossing over the word Irate. He was not making a glossed over statement which would incicate that all muslim countries are more prone to using nuclear weapons. He was saying that an irate muslim nation would be more prone to using them than a content/mearly upset muslim nation. You could also swap out muslim for... oh i dont know... how about pigmy, and it will still work the same way. An irate pigmy nation would be more prone to using a nuclear weapon than a pigmy nation that is not irate.

There is no doubt in my mind, that any country with nuclear capabilities will use those weapons when the appropriate buttons got pushed. pun intended. :O After all, you dont buy a gun unless you are prepared to use it. All that remains is the set of circumstances which would warrant that responce. As with anything else, the set of circumstances required to have that sort of reaction varies from person to person, group to group, nation to nation.

That being said, i do not think that it is out of order to believe that Iran is one pissed off country. Wrongfully, or rightfully, so does not matter. And i do believe, that if they had the weapons, it would take less of a puss for them to use it than other muslim nations.

Ummm. What? Your point that Iran would be more likely to use nukes is based on some assumed imagenary number in your head where a country will or will not use nukes?

I'm going to ignore you now.

[Khajit]

i'll be the first to admit i don't know enough about iran, so please excuse the perception i have of iran, fed by to me by the US media.

with that said, i still have a hard time believing they aren't crazier.

i'll pose a simple assumption i've made:

in america, pat robertson is on the fringe, and doesn't control nukes.
in iran, pat robertson is the "supreme leader".

this isn't about muslims vs christians. its about the leadership, and the nukes they command, basing their decisions and policies on logic and reason vs basing it on bronze age writings foretelling armageddon.

Bush's support for christian organizations was well known and he certainly didn't hide his religion nor the support he received from religious groups. Now from their POV he's a warmongering ultrachristian "supreme leader" that frequently liked to reference god whom controls nukes with a father that gave wmd's to a volatile aggressive nation(Iraq) that resulted in the deaths of an estimated 1 million people of their country for the sole purpose of making that war happen. Yes that's right, The US gave Saddam the chemical weapons not only knowing that he was going to use them but specifically so that he would use them against anything they didn't like.
While it is true that they aren't perfect as shown by the current leaders refusing to lose power after losing an election the mere fact that they lost the election shows that blanketing the entire country as "crazy" for having a "crazy leader" that they CLEARLY didn't want if you followed any of the protests and controversy is showing your opinion as extremely uninformed at minimum.
TLDR: you seem to have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

[willriker]

I find the fact that Iran, a country since essentially its birth as a modern State has not engaged in aggresive war, is being judged by citizens of a country (the US) that constantly engages in aggressive war, to be a threat, funny.

Thats precisely the reason why I (in the USA) am concerned with Iran having a Nuclear Weapon. A country that is that much of a noob at conducting an offencive is that much more likely to resort to using the ultimate weapon in its arsenal... aka nukes.

The USA has developed methods of conducting wars without melting entire desert cities into a glass bead. The USA might conduct wars on faulty intellegence. The USA might conduct wars based on greed. But, it will take a heck of a lot to get the USA to deploy a Nuclear Weapon. Especialy after witnessing the destruction that the weapon causes. I would argue that the United States of America would need to face a threat much larger than Iran would before reoting to nuclear weaponry.

It is that disparity that alarms people.

[Kuya]

Thats precisely the reason why I (in the USA) am concerned with Iran having a Nuclear Weapon. A country that is that much of a noob at conducting an offencive is that much more likely to resort to using the ultimate weapon in its arsenal... aka nukes.

The USA has developed methods of conducting wars without melting entire desert cities into a glass bead. The USA might conduct wars on faulty intellegence. The USA might conduct wars based on greed. But, it will take a heck of a lot to get the USA to deploy a Nuclear Weapon. Especialy after witnessing the destruction that the weapon causes. I would argue that the United States of America would need to face a threat much larger than Iran would before reoting to nuclear weaponry.

It is that disparity that alarms people.

Sure, whatever then.

[Khajit]

Thats precisely the reason why I (in the USA) am concerned with Iran having a Nuclear Weapon. A country that is that much of a noob at conducting an offencive is that much more likely to resort to using the ultimate weapon in its arsenal... aka nukes.

The USA has developed methods of conducting wars without melting entire desert cities into a glass bead. The USA might conduct wars on faulty intellegence. The USA might conduct wars based on greed. But, it will take a heck of a lot to get the USA to deploy a Nuclear Weapon. Especialy after witnessing the destruction that the weapon causes. I would argue that the United States of America would need to face a threat much larger than Iran would before reoting to nuclear weaponry.

It is that disparity that alarms people.

SO because they dont have experience at nuking people they must be destroyed?
That's teh stupidest shit i've ever heard.
What's more dangerous? A nation that knows better than to launch a nuke(as the first shot) and get destroyed which has never attacked anyone or a nation that repeatedly and constantly has war with others under false pretenses with large numbers of collateral dmage?

[Kuya]

I am worried that this other country is going to be irresponsible with nukes because they have not yet had the experience with nukes that my country has had to demonstrate that it can handle nukes, which is why i think that they can't handle nukes based on the fact that they have not had experience with nukes and i don't think they should have that experience.

[willriker]

heheh ok judging by the replies, i guess i did not do a good job at explaining what i meant. I did not mean that because a country has never used a nuclear weapon, they should not have them. That is silly. If i gave you that impression from reading what i wrote, i apologize.

[Kuya]

heheh ok judging by the replies, i guess i did not do a good job at explaining what i meant. I did not mean that because a country has never used a nuclear weapon, they should not have them. That is silly. If i gave you that impression from reading what i wrote, i apologize.

Ok then, but let me pre-empt just in case any other poster decides to post something akin to how Iran is going to blow something up, etc, etc:

Before someone else decides to post more stupid shit, please remember that your stupid opinions remain very stupid because the US does not allow or disallow countries to have nukes based on an imagenary scale of how sane or how experienced they are, but rather, the US permits the possession of nukes based on whether they are valuable allies or not. In the case of Pakistan and India, their purpose is to counter China. And Israel is one of America's geostrategic points in the Middle East.

No. Other. Reason.

[willriker]

Ok then, but let me pre-empt just in case any other poster decides to post something akin to how Iran is going to blow something up, etc, etc:

Before someone else decides to post more stupid shit, please remember that your stupid opinions remain very stupid because the US does not allow or disallow countries to have nukes based on an imagenary scale of how sane or how experienced they are, but rather, the US permits the possession of nukes based on whether they are valuable allies or not. In the case of Pakistan and India, their purpose is to counter China. And Israel is one of America's geostrategic points in the Middle East.

No. Other. Reason.

Lets say Iran gains a Nuclear Weapon.

Lets say that day comes when Iran eventualy goes to war with someone, anyone (Defensive or Offencive).

Do you think that Iran, with the military it has, is more or less likely to use nuclear weapons than Isael, the USA, Russia and so on? Im not trying to play games or anything, its an honest question.

Judging by how easily Israel was able to fly across Irans borders and bomb facilities, not long ago, i would argue that Iran is more likely to do so. It does not have an enormous territory to defend. It does not have an enormous military. Every occupied city would be a devistating loss. I would say that Iran would use a nuke in a second when faced against an equal conventional threat.

I really dont see how you cannot acnowledge that if USA were to attack Iran, Iran would be very tempted to detonate a Nuke. However if Iran attacked the USA, The USA would be much less tempted to use a nuke. Recognizing that disparity is one of the core concepts to understand why many countries in the world do not want Iran to gain a nuclear weapon. I mean you can swap out USA with England and the comparison still holds. There are other factors as well.

I really do not understand why you want Iran to be able to gain a nuclear weapon. Is it because they have never engaged in an offencive war? Is it because you dont think they would ever be tempted to use it? I mean its not like they are spending all this money to hang it on the wall as a trophy.

[Kuya]

I don't care whether Iran has a nuke or not, I only care about who is the aggresor and who is promoting lies. At this moment, that is Israel and the US. Many countries have nukes, so why should i care if a country gets a nuke when that country is no different than every other country with a nuke?

As for your post, it misses a lot of points. The US does not want Iran to have nukes ( i don't care why you don't want them to have it) because it would make it harder to ignore Iran's demands or destroy Iran's government (which the US hawks have been looking to do). Israel does not want Iran to have nukes, because it would give Iran more say in the region, Israel, like most nations, want a monopoly on influence and force in the region. Iran wants nukes so it can prevent an Israeli or US attack and use a nuke as a bargaining chip (assuming they really want a nuke, which i think they do).

The point of nukes is deterrence and negotiation, which is what Iran and everyother nation wants it for. They want to avoid being attacked by a superior force with a threat of nukes or prevent another country from gaining an advantage vis a vis a nuke.

If Iran has nukes, the US or Israel cannot attack withotu risking a nuclear strike, which is what Iran wants. To avoid being attacked by superior military power. Unless the US or Israel are stupid, they won't explicitly attack a nuke weilding nation. Much like the US had to negotiate with Russia and North Korea.