Hi Mac

You wrote:

>>Agreed, although I think that luck was a major factor in our survival during the Cold War.>>

See my previous article:

You owe your life to Stanislav Yevgrafovich Petrov
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14044

See also:

The World Was Never Closer To Nuclear War Than On Jan. 25, 1995
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-world-has-never-been-closer-to-nuclear-war-than-it-was-during-this-1995-event-2012-8

>>Boris Yeltsin was alerted, and immediately given the Cheget, the “nuclear briefcase” that connects senior officials while they decide whether or not to launch Russia’s nuclear weapons. Nuclear submarine commanders were ordered to full battle alert and told to stand by.>>

I think the most likely scenario for nuclear war is an accident involving Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Steven,

I really can't find any significant points of disagreement with your analysis of the situation.

"In some ways Australia's position is not dissimilar to Israel's."

You might be surprised--- I agree completely with that assessment, although there are significant differences. I've never put much faith in the "Great and Powerful Friend" doctrine which is a fantasy that seems to have infected most of the Australian population. In the final analysis Australia, like Israel, could find itself very much alone.

"I find it hard to believe that Australian governments have not considered the possibility of developing nukes should the alliance with the US falter while Indonesia's military power grows."

I hope so. Many years ago I read an article where the author claimed that the reason that the Menzies government allowed the British to conduct nuclear tests in Australia was because of a promise that they would transfer some nuclear weapons technology to Australia. Apparently, like so many times before, the British conned the colonials and no such transfer occurred.

"Given the proliferation of nuclear weaponry I think nuclear wars in the future are inevitable."

I wouldn't say "inevitable" but alarmingly close to 100%, one possible difference between the current situation and the Cold War period is that nuclear exchanges might be confined to particular regions, rather than global.

Some perspective-

Iran became involved in the "nuclear industry" way back during the Shah's reign when the USA convinced him that he should buy their nuclear power plants to diversify their energy dependence and the stations were built by the US and France.

As well as meeting its own domestic requirements, Iran is a major exporter of electrical power to neighbouring States and its a significant part of its economy.

Once you get to more than two nuclear power plants it becomes more economical if you refine your own fuel.

Whether that fuel is used for power generation or weapons is a matter for the agreed inspections and not the subject of propaganda and vague allegations and the process should be given a chance.

Also for the record, Israel was once an ally of Iran (because they were both non-Arab States) and they developed missile systems together.

The Kennedy Cuban Missile crisis stand-off was more a PR stunt than a real threat. The problem was actually solved diplomatically behind the scenes when the USA agreed to remove its own missile bases from Turkey. The world came much closer to nuclear war during the Reagan years during unannounced NATO exercises on the Russian border and again during a bird migration.

Sorry - that should have said Iran has Russian-built plants.

The "French Connection" was that Iran and France are joint shareholders in an enrichment facility called Eurodif, which makes enriched uranium for light water reactors.

All this is looking a lot like the pre-WMD days leading up the the invasion of Iraq - and hasn't that worked out so very nicely for the world?

Well Ive got to say this is the biggest load of propaganda based crap I've read in some time.
No insult intended.

Really - you are trying to convince us that its a great idea to bomb a nuclear facilities??

What you are suggesting is nothing short of complete madness.

Maybe you should go over to Iraq and check out all the deformed kids born after being poisoned with all the depleted uranium from the gulf wars.

All this talk of Iran's nuclear ambitions is political posturing with an agenda.

Some people say that Iran has had nuclear weapons for years but it doesn't have the delivery systems.

You make out like Iran will nuke Israel as soon as it is able to and I think this is all bs.

Israel has a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

If Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel its almost a guaranteed certainty that Iran would be turned into glass - meaning its not in their interest to do so no matter how much they'd like to.

So stop trying to spread lies.

-And its only fair that Iran does try to get nuclear weapons, (whether its a good idea or not) since the Saudi's already have nukes on order from Pakistan and have been funding Pakistan's nuclear program.

I don't care about any sort of crap that comes out of the US or Israel on this matter.

Its just going to be biased rhetoric.

The US is the only nation to actually have used nukes on another country and both it and Israel should shut the hell up rather than try to impress us that it has some moral authority on the matter...