just a handful of our nukes could turn their country into a glass parking lot. So in the long run whats the difference between 10 or 8500?

They could counter Bush with Ahmadinejad, but that's as crazy as they could go. Santorum is way crazier than Bush.

...like onions.

I thought it would take longer for someone to notice.

I take the threat of Iran very seriously and this precise reporting that you posted calls for, nay..., DEMANDS that we bomb them into radioactive slag!

Oh, Hell...

sometime ago? It has all the traits of a satiric "Onion' article.

This one has to be in the top five great articles along with Baby Bush's inaugural address that eerily predicted EVERYTHING he would do.

I can't remember what the other three are.

Greatest article ever. Cannot be topped.

http://www.theonion.com/articles/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros,464/

it looks easy to dissect, but once you cut it open, it makes you cry.

our nuclear arsenal along with Russia (SORT treaty). Current deployed warheads is 1,968. If we are reducing the number of warheads why would we be building new ones, esp since we signed a treaty with Russia to reduce the number of our warheads.

No amount of diplomatic efforts will deter Iran from building as many nukes as they can and then using them as quickly as possible to incinerate Israel.

After this happens of course, people will shed tears for Israel. But, that won't help the Isaelis much once they are dead.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

Israel has some missile subs too, so no matter how successful a first strike on Israel would be, Israel could still do as much or more damage.

Also, as someone from the CFR recently pointed out, why would Iran nuke Israel when they support Palestinians politically?

Do people often commit genocide on their allies to make a broader political point?

I'm glad we have fewer warheads than the article said, but that is still more than enough to wipe any other country off the map, including Iran.