Possibly the biggest nuclear danger in the world today is Israel having a nuclear arsenal and Iran not. One wonders why little Israel was ever allowed to go miiitarily nuclear really upsetting the Middle East power-balance.

The question is, can Israel be power-balanced somehow, because if it is true that Iran ia well into developing atomic weaponry, and Israel does let go even one nuclear deep pemetration warhead on Iranian underground nuclear works, even not quite completed, the massive fallout added to that of the Israeli warhead could cause untold human destruction much wider than Iran itself?

There is another danger that both Russia and China might be prepared to sell or give atomic warheads to Iran, using Bismarck's principle of power-matching between Israel and Iran, similar to the quest for peace in the late 19th century. We might guess that better relations between India and Pakistan might have been achieved this way. For example, pressure from the UN could no doubt have stopped either one going nuclear, but maybe it was better to let their powers be matched, with watchful glances from UN powers, of course.

Israel's atomic capabilities, though possibly keeping some sort of peace in the Middle-East, must also still be fuelling much of the Islamic hatred and terrorism still threatening our existence today.

Given that not only America but the UK and of course our little Johnny apparently believe in the rule of force, a top dog replacing UN functions, except for housekeeping, I would rate the probability as increasing.
The Americans have been upgrading the stockpile not only to better weapons but to ones which can be used on the battlefield. Deeply penetrating, busting bunkers (and perhaps less ionising radiation for the field of battle ? ) or small enough to be locally superior but not having much radiation, air blasts?
Given this dog eat dog chase for supremacy the inevitable is likely in the shorter term, certain in the longer. This of course is the rationale for the apparent hypocrisy of the US on the stance taken by Iran though holding their tongue on Israel, as does the UK one of the suppliers of atomic know how to Israel. (is not Israel in violation of the UN?) The nuclear shield and deep funk holes in the US will of course aid domination. The rattle can be used without necessarily wide spread destruction or perhaps just a demonstration on some unloved site.
Does Australia have plans for a nuclear shield? Do we already have deep well stocked funk holes-for those that matter at least?

It is truly a sad situation, and, although the pressing matter of fanatical Iran wanting the pinnacle of western military technology (which is hypocritical to the core, people who claim to hate us but want all our gadgets and toys) will no doubt come to a head this year, I believe it will only get worse.

I think it's disgusting that the western world haven't united to threaten Russia about selling nuclear technology (which they also stole from the U.S just after WWII). Truly, everything can be blamed on them, as it is they who helped the Chinese develop them, and it just goes on.

The west needs to unite on this issue, threatening all out invasion, even the dropping of nuclear weapons on nations that try to procur them, especially Islamic nations.

I have no problem, as although technically it is hypocritical to take this position, when one looks at the context of Muslims with nuclear weapons - given how unstable their governments are, it's unnacceptable.

I honestly think the west should tell Pakistan to give them up or be attacked, and, as for Iran, they should be bombed as well. What decent people they are, I mean, not only would Iran not even have electricity if not for the west, but they have built their plants in built up areas with civilian populations.

This will make Israel or the U.S look bad when they attack them, just as the rabid Chomsky said that the US bombs schools. Well, yes, but if that's where the weapons are, those civilian deaths are on the enemy's hands not ours.

Muslims simply aren't ready for them, and if that sounds bad, so be it. Their cultures are largely barbaric, their customs cruel, their politics fragmented, violent, and intensely racist & tribalistic

I grew up in Europe about 4 hours drive by tank from the Iron Curtain. Despite marching against cruise missiles and neutron bombs we didn't expect to get old. Incredible was the relief when we saw people on the wall in 1989. The real fear had been a technical glitch in automatic launch systems. We didn't really expect any of the leaders to order a pre emptive strike.

Things have changed since. More countries have bombs, but all of these have fewer bombs. As with all technology it cannot be uninvented and eventually it will spread throughout the world. In the cold war dropping one bomb would result in launching all bombs. I don't think that is still the case. If Tel Aviv and Tehran are nuked would that cause the US, USSR, Brits or French to use their nukes? I don't think so. If NY is nuked by terrorists and the US retalliates would that cause everyone else to join in a nuclear frenzy? I doubt it.

The world has survived many individual bomb tests. Hiroshima and Nagasaki 60 years on are thriving cities and not desolate wastelands. Yes the risk of limited nuclear war has gone up but the risk of all out nuclear war making the world uninhabitable has gone down.

Just read an article from Google called "The Nine Paths of Global Citizenship" edited by Doug McGill. Though it does give impressions concerning the Paths to Reason, Faith, Democracy. Humanity, Ecology, Free Trade, Feminism, Corporatism, and Perennialism, it seems Reason and Faith are the pair to which the rest are linked.

It is so interesting that McGill chooses Socrates as the patron saint of reason, and Albert Schweitzer the Patron Saint of Faith.

But the chosen pair are so far apart in history that Socrates should be the choice. Why, because though he never ever wrote a word, his talks or teachings came from deep within, as quoted by Plutarch. And so fitting regarding our political and globally social problems of today, because Socrates talked about one world, as we might talk about globalisation and one system of democratic thought.

It is also critical that among his Socratic reasoners, McGill chooses Immanuel Kant, who in opposition to his later German contemporary, Wilhem Hegel, chose peaceful negotiation as a social cleanser while Hegel chose war as the cleanser of the soul.

Part Two
As the above Socratic theorem leans much towards democracy, it is so important that McGill chooses an American, Woodrow Wilson, said by some to be the original founder of the idea of the League of Nations. However, McGill who groups Socratic reasoners together when he brings in Woodrow Wilson as the founder of the League of Nations, fails to mention Immanuel Kant, who was grouped earlier among McGill's Socratic reasoners.

Indeed, . Immanuel Kant is so important historically, being well known as the one so disgusted with Napoleon breaking the Enlightenment code of Liberty Equality and Fraternity, that he wrote a thesis on a Perpetual Peace achieved through a Federation of Nations, the idea from which both the League of Nations and the United Nations were devised according to most historians..

Further, in relation to the above, in his Path to Democracy, McGill quotes Jonathen Schell, who argues in his “Unconquerable World” that the string of non-violent revolutions that occurred in the late 20th century in the Soviet Union, Poland, Czechoslovakia, South Africa, South Korea and other countries is evidence that America’s present very active military dominance as the way to democratise problem nations like Iraq, goes against the grain of the obvious successes of modern people power.

Finally, it also must be emphasised, that the strength of such people power, as proven, is not generally related to the ballot, but similar to the 1688 Glorious Revolution in Britain, which behind the scenes was strongly influenced by the English philosopher John Locke, still a very popular historical figure in the US of A.