Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Shah of Iran nuclear: Good ! Other Iranian nuclear: bad

Here's some old-school propaganda about the wisdom of allowing Iran to go nuclear. 
Those of you who are at least 40 years old might remember when the Shah was our boy, and Iran, for all practical purposes, was our colony. 
Yes....It was good for Iran to go nuclear.  Not any more. 


CenTexTim said...

Not totally disagreeing, but there was one small difference. The shah was, as you point out, our vassal. We had some degree of control over how the plants were operated and what he did with the spent control rods. The deranged theocrats currently running Iran, not so much.

Similarly, who do you worry about having nuclear weapons more - North or South Korea?

Don't get me wrong. I would prefer that neither of the Koreas, nor Iran, nor any other unstable country (Pakistan comes to mind) have nuclear weapons. But there are differences between countries: some good - some bad.

Hot Sam said...

I heard the same thing from an Iranian student - one the government actually trusted to go to school in the US, aka an engineer and a spy.

Agree with Tim. I don't disagree with you but he was a dictator we could trust, he was opposing the Soviet Union, and there is a huge difference between fuel rods and enriched uranium. If building atomic weapons was easy, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE, Egypt, Jordan, Syria, Niger, and others would already have them. You could find the plans for a basic weapon on the internet. The science is elementary.

I plan to be the first person on my block to own one. And I know exactly where I'd use it.

CenTexTim said...

Careful, Nick, the DHS is listening.

Hot Sam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.