Login   |   Free Registration
Site Members
Today's Regions
Editor's Critiques
Active Discussions
Today's Highlights
Nov 23 2014
 by Bill B. May


Iran: Nuclear Talks May Focus On An


With a deadline approaching for a nuclear deal, an Iranian official said Sunday that the discussion may soon have to shift from trying to reach an agreement to extending negotiations past the target date.
Are we Americans willing to put up with a nuclear Iran?   That is the question each of us should be asking. 
What are the implications if we do accept a nuclear Iran?   The fall-out (pun intended) will be a huge escalation of the nuclear arms in the region.  Israel, one of the nuclear nations already existing, will begin to spend lots of money on increasing its nuclear arsenal in order to assure Iran of its destruction should it ever use a nuclear weapon against Israel.  It will also spend lots of money on missile defense.  Other countries not aligned with Iran will also develop nuclear weapons, like Saudi Arabia, again for mutually-assured destruction purposes (MAD).  Of course, the nuclear capability of a country like Iran could extend world-wide.  With cargo ships visiting the ports of the world, no port city would be safe from a nuclear attack.  Airliners, likewise, ply the world.
The other big threat is ElectroMagnetic Pulse weapons.  In this case, a nuclear weapon only needs to be detonated far above a region with little accuracy and beyond many missile defense systems.  The resulting electromagnetic pulse destroys virtually all electronics unless "hardened", a very expensive proposition.  Such an event would bring America to its knees, just like the recently surfaced threat using cyber warfare to destroy our power systems or water systems.  We would have to learn to cope with an environment of rural America of the 1930s or worse.   We would all be growing our victory gardens to survive as transportation would come to a standstill.  Cisterns and hand pumped wells would be essential for our survival, again.  
The concept of MAD works if both parties want to survive a war.  The damage is so bad from a nuclear war that neither party wins in the end.  Life as we know it and progress as we've developed it would no longer exist.  So reasonable leaders of warring nations decide that winning is not worth the resulting damage.  Most dictatorial leaders of the past would decide not to engage in such a war because the spoils given to the victor would be minimal.  
However, we are living in a world where a certain segment thinks that suicide is a perfectly valid strategy.  Their belief system is that suicide takes them to another world where their devotion to Muhammad will be rewarded.   MAD means nothing to these people.   The sooner it happens, the quicker they get to nirvana. 
This brings us to the question of whether liberty would allow for an unprovoked attack on a country like Iran. Are threats to our well-being a violation of our liberty?  If a bully continues to threaten our life or well-being, then some action must be taken as those threats are a violation of our liberty.  Some other party is violating our happiness through the threat of force.   I've come to the conclusion that a valid threat to world peace is justification for taking action (a view probably not agreed to by other Libertarians).  If Iran threatens to obliterate Israel, as it has done, then liberty would justify taking some actions against Iran.  I say that if Iran is not willing to stop its nuclear weapons program and if it still threatens the free world, then we are obligated to stop Iran. 
We must tell our representatives that a nuclear threat from a rogue nation like Iran is not acceptable and is justified from liberty considerations. A firm response to Iran's actions might well bring some reasonableness to their position.  They do understand force.


The Invasion That Dare Not Say Its Name

Trudy Rubin says:  It's time for President Obama to start using the I-word when referring to Russia's assault on Ukraine. I mean invasion.


Black Skin Privilege And Ferguson

David Horowitz and John Perazzo write how any black gets a free pass when it comes to the media or pundits or politicians.   Whites on the other hand get an automatic conviction, guilty or not.  This is a long story but it has much truth in it. 

Ferguson Grand Jury Fails To Reach Decision

On Darren Wilson Indictment

The Ferguson, Mo., grand jury considering the indictment of Officer Darren Wilson, who killed teenager Michael Brown during an altercation in August, left the justice center in St. Louis on Friday without reaching a decision
Will that non-decision avoid violence? 


We post many more articles than highlighted on this page.   Some are highly ranked but don't meet my notion of deserving special attention, perhaps because they were covered recently.   I invite you to peruse all the posted articles, or maybe just the liberal onesor the conservative ones
Bill B. May brings you a new book, The Caveman Explores Politics and Economics, explaining the intricacies of economics. Learn how politics and economics interact to negatively impact society. Politicians react to deficits by raising tax rates to cover spending. They also print money to supposedly boost the economy. Find out why these methods don't work and why opposite measures should be the course of action. Become an informed citizen and read this book.
Buy here. Available from all major ebook resellers.