In article ,
Pat Flannery wrote:
After I get vaporised, whatever the fate of the rest of Earth's history
is like is pretty moot as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly. Which means that if you're the Maximum Leader of Flanneristan,
and you expect that reversing your "reclaim those lost provinces even if
the US objects" policy would lead to your being deposed and executed, then
deterrence is useless against you. Going head-to-head with the US,
despite the risk of starting a nuclear war, is your smartest move. It
might work, and the alternative is certain death.

Changing that "might" to "probably won't" would be a big, big improvement.

I could almost picture North Korea being whacko enough do do something
like this, but not Iran.

I actually am inclined to agree with this... today. The current Iranian
government probably *can* be deterred.

However, that wasn't always the case. In particular, even though he was
theoretically the US's buddy, the Shah was a dangerous man, who wanted to
re-establish the Persian Empire and wasn't above taking some big chances
to do it. Despite the odious nature of the regime that replaced him, I'm
not sorry to see him gone. However, there are more like him around, and
ten years from now, one of them might be in charge again.

And note that I said "(and its neighbors)". That general area is not
noted for its stability. Given the lead times, establishing a missile-
interceptor base is more about tomorrow's politics than today's.

which leaves us with Crazy Islam standing in the line-up of the usual
suspects.

Right beside Crazy Imperialist -- both the Shah and Saddam Hussein being
recent examples of would-be Mideast Hitlers whose motives had little or
nothing to do with Islam.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |