Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiFirst We Got The Bomb And That Was Good
Well, Ok, fine. There is no good reason North Korea should test or build or own nuclear weapons. It is a foolishness as preposterous as to allow the public to carry loaded concealed weapons in our national parks. But of course the motivation is the same and explains the nukes as nicely as the Smith and Wessons: We are afraid. Very afraid.
Oh, yes, and just a touch crazy, too, of course. Kim Jong Il and his dad Kim Il-sung before him ("Great Leader" and "Dear Leader" respectively) do not inspire the confidence we have come to expect from our conventionally coifed and suited Western presidents and prime ministers. We prefer the dull and somnolent, the plodding, cautious, reflective and slow-speaking. Donald Rumsfeld looked about right. And his calm assurances that we must and should bull ahead on the course he recommended was very reassuring. Wrong, of course. But comforting.
So let's just agree that there is more than one way to be a crazy player in the great game of geopolitics, shall we? But the Chairman of the National Defense Commission of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (among several other titles) is often described as a "saber-rattler", and to return to an earlier point, no good will come of such a man rattling nuclear missiles instead of old ceremonial swords.
But what country should have nuclear weapons? Oh, yes, of course-we should. Because we do. We invented them. We have more of them than anybody else. We only keep the things around to deter other nations from using theirs. Such as Russia and other states once part of the Soviet Union, who have theirs, they say only to keep us from using ours. Not that we ever would. Use them, I mean. That would be unthinkable.
My mother used to threaten to "tear off your arm and beat you over the head with the bloody stump", a frightening enough prospect to a young boy and a grievous overreaction to my own undoubtedly bad behavior. (I argued of course that she was misrepresenting which part of the appendage she might strike me with, the "stump" being still attached to my body, a distinction that only further infuriated the woman.) But it was all talk, we both knew it, and it therefore had no deterrent value whatsoever. So it is with nuclear weapons. In any event mom never acted on her threat and I believe the practice has now been banned in all states except Texas.
President Obama said "North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community." Yes. Precisely. With all the finesse of an eight-year-old amusing himself at mother's expense, Kim seeks to provoke by his bad behavior. Shortly after the bomb test he lobbed another missile or two a hundred kilometers or so into the Sea of Japan, just to show he had a delivery system of a sort too. (A recent long-range missile test also went with the fishes, which should ease tensions somewhat in Seattle and San Francisco.}
The United Nations Security Council "condemned" the test. It will now work on a "Resolution." Well, I guess you have to do something. Or do you? If all our agitation changes nothing, why raise our own blood pressure so precipitously?
Agreeing that we need to better understand what fears and instabilities and regional imbalances and personal nuttiness have set Great Leader on this course, and that every reasonable effort ought be made to convince him to redirect his energies toward peaceful and productive purposes, I still do not understand the high level of international agitation.
North Korea, of course, was once a part of the boy president George W. Bush's "Axis Of Evil", but let's not think any more about our own ludicrous and unbalanced leaders, shall we?
Let's just look for a moment at the history of nuclear weapons on planet Earth. There are thousands of them loose in our world. The United States has ten or eleven thousand, Russia a similar number. France and China own about four hundred each, Israel and England a couple hundred. Pakistan (now there's a stable, solid, well-run nation for you-no axis of evil there) has raised a dozen or two. So, all together, more than twenty thousand atomic bombs. North Korea is testing some. Iran might well want a few. All for deterrent purposes only, of course.
Of course. Agreed. Wouldn't have it any other way. Only one nation has ever used a nuclear weapon in war. Twice. On civilians. You know-women, children, housepets, museums, churches, ginkgo trees and koi. Taught those Jap bastards quite a lesson, didn't we? And how does that fact go down around the world? All is not always as it seems from the point of view put forth in our own newsreels and textbooks and history classes and churches.
Last month a week to ten days was given over to beating the small news of the dreaded swine flu (quickly re-introduced as H1N1-2009 strain to make the pig-butchers happier). This week North Korea scares us half to death. At least there was plenty of gasoline available over the holiday weekend. Keep driving. See the USA in your Chevrolet (or Toyota or Hyundai.) Later or sooner the unraveling climate will come to the attention of the public and the news analysts perhaps, and we'll see what a real problem looks like.
Come back with me to 1965, and Tom Lehrer's introduction to his song "Who's Next?": "One of the big news items of the past year concerned the fact that China, which we call "Red China," exploded a nuclear bomb, which we called a device. Then Indonesia announced that it was going to have one soon, and proliferation became the word of the day. Here's a song about that." Get out your old vinyl LP.
There's more wisdom and proportion in the old math professor's song than I've heard all week from Congress, the White House, the press or the troubled undercurrent of fear and ignorance that underlies most of what we think and what we have allowed ourselves to become.
Tuesday morning the BBC people revealed that Twitter may be ruined by SPAM. Now there's a bit of unalloyed good news at last-one blight destroying another.
24 Comments so far
Show All"there is no good reason North Korea should test or build or own nuclear weapons"?of course there is, lol. they've seen the aggressive actions or global maneuvering the united states of america has made practice for decades and they don't want to be taken advantage of in any way shape or form.
we've not only stockpiled nuclear weapons but have used them and or atrocious weapons in countries other than our own to put us at an advantage, damn the risk to innocencents - right?
so, yeah, they very likely (and this is an educated assumption) are very concerned and might want to be able to protect themselves.
within how many countries is the united states military situated? how many tens of thousands strong are our military personnel where most people would agree they're in close proximity to north korea? are our weapons able to reach north korea from where they're based, or able to reach them within a very short period if our commander-in-chief (which ever one's in office at the time) wants to lob a missile? wouldn't you agree we could seem to pose a threat to them?
when we used a nuclear bunker bomb to blow up an iraqi palace in the hope of only being "likely" to get a suspected "hiding" sadam hussein and, instead blew up a whole lot of other people, many of which were innocent citizens, was the united states call on that any more sane...any less casual?
no one will ever convince me it was.
when the u.s. contended that others don't have the right to stockpile and use nuclear weapons, yet we've done so in recent years, we've created a very big mess in which we've played a horrible part in and have no fair say in condemning others when they, too, take up arms of the same nature we use.
we still have cluster bombs, have used them, have not sworn to never use them again..."weapons of mass destruction", indeed. we should be afraid of our own practices and clean up our own act before trying to police the rest of the world, a deed which is not our population's assigned responsibility, nor would most american citizens agree to it.
my mom used to use the term "too big for your britches"...i'd put that phrase to use to describe many countries' leadership, including our own.
The term "or I'll yank off your arm and beat you with the bloody end" was used often enough when a kid asked why? But making the point that the 'stump' would be the 'part left behind' after the 'yanking'; would only earn the threat, 'oh yea, well I'll just poke out your eyes and you can't see anything to be such a smarty pants with there Mr' (or words to that effect)----
Mr. Coopers parents and mine must have attended similar 'parenting classes'---
I like your style Mr. Cooper, and have postulated (not with the humor you have) that the best way to end the "nuc race" is to give everyone , one (at least), in that manner, no one will have the threat over anyone else without swift, and absolute 'mutual nuking' and the prospects of such a condition would be a major deterrent to it happening.
When the US Congress made it a violation to trade 'repeating arms' to western Plaines tribes--in the 19th century-it simply gave birth to a large number of "white guys getting killed with 'bow and arrow' or 'muzzle loaders' just for their repeating rifles. Once everyone had the same 'fire power' things balanced out--Even though 'nucs' can't be compared to 'repeating rifles'--the principle is the same.
I think that the US is at a major disadvantage in this respect. There are thousands of 'nucs' out there, and one thing is certain; the US is the only nation so far to have used them; and they did so on a civilian population---intentionally targeting them.
The world is not ignorant of that fact. And they are fearful of the Americans---for very good cause.
Those Americans are some very dangerous people.
Good luck america, you really need it.
Chris,
I'm glad someone is being honest and seeing a larger view of reality. And I'm sorry to hear you're being attacked by those little black flies or midges, as we used to call them. My wife and I left Maine for northern California (San Francisco and later, Santa Rosa) in 1973 and it was like moving to paradise because there are almost no bugs here. There are no tiny midges taking big, painful bites out of your skin in the Spring and no mosquitoes, deer flies or horse flies to draw blood (and skin, in the case of deerflies and horseflies) from you during the Summer.
I agree with you that we need to understand the reality behind reality if we want to save ourselves from ourselves. After all, who is ultimately responsible for what we do? In a fight for survival, I'll bet on honesty and imagination over brute strength and ignorance any day.
By the way, did you ever forgive your mother for threatening to "tear off your arm and beat you over the head with the bloody stump", and did you ever forgive yourself for your "undoubtedly bad behavior"?
How we define ourselves and the world around us forms our intent, which in turn, forms our reality. For example, "we're basically bad" and "we can't trust ourselves" are disempowering, fear creating beliefs that are supported by religious thought, while "life is a matter of survival of the fittest" is a predatory concept backed by scientific thought. Deeply held cultural beliefs like these underlie much of human thought and behavior and help form many of our societies and institutions. They serve as the root cause for who we are and what we do. Isn't it time we stop being afraid of core beliefs and their big, booming voices? Isn't it time to pull the curtain of reality aside and take a look behind it? Like Dorothy, Cowardly Lion, Tinman and Scarecrow in The Wizard of OZ, all we'll find are some simple little ideas that have been magnified into big ones, so big we dare not question or challenge them.
We create our own reality from what we choose to believe. Isn't it time to take responsibility for what we choose to believe, who we choose to be and what we choose to do?
Regards,
Pete
http://realtalkworld.com
"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
The very first comment by TheLorax, was for me the most relevant, and one which is totally ignored by our media. Rather than talk about the realities of Iran's atomic programme, every news report or column inch seems to be intent on promoting extreme, negative propaganda. Sure, there are abuses in Iran, and the country is ruled by the theocracy (NOT MR. AHMADINEJAD!), but they are not hell bent on mass suicide. The US in particular, undoubtably encouraged by the Zionist lobby, have gone against the thinking of the UN, IAEA, and even it's own intelligence agencies, in order to whip up hysteria in relation to Iran's supposed race for nuclear weapon(s).
I was in Iran about a month ago, to visit relations on my wife's side, and whilst I was there, CNN and the BBC showed pictures of anti Obama demonstrations in Tehran. Where was I at the time, Oh yes - Tehran! Very surprising then, that there was no evidence of anti Obam, anti US or anti Israel literature or graffiti or demonstrations. The truth of the matter is, that the US,UK and Israel have to portray Iran as a country full of extremist Shia, the women dressed from head to toe in black, and legions of Revolutionary Guard patrolling the streets, waiting to arrest people on sight, and throw them into Evin prison.
Iran is a country of seventy million people, mostly friendly, they do not wish to attack any other country, but they are worried about the possible actions of the US/Israel.
"Man" is the author of this article a clown; being seriously or grotesquely mistaken on at least two counts.
QUOTE: "My mother used to threaten to .... ... But it was all talk, we both knew it, and it therefore had no deterrent value whatsoever. So it is with nuclear weapons. ..."
WRONG! Everyone, apparently with the exception of the author of this article at CD, knows that the U.S. does [not] attack countries that are strongly armed, and definitely no countries that are nuclear-armed.
Among many people who state this in fully reality-based terms is John Stockwell, a former CIA agent with 13 years of service, who served in Angola and possibly other countries, and who has testified (for the public anyway, but I think also the U.S. Congress) about extremely black, dark, evil CIA covert ops history.
I posted resource links for a video with him testifying and I believe it's from his 1987 lecture, while the other resource is a two-part or -page article entitled "THE SECRET WARS OF THE CIA", and the latter is his 1987 lecture or transcript of it. These links are one of the posts I made for the following article and to quickly or immediately jump to the correct post readers can simply do a Web page serach for "America's Third World War", which is the first part of the title for the video with John Stockwell.
http://www.commondreams.org/video/2009/05/25
BACK TO THE ARTICLE AT CD (above):
The author also says, "President Obama said "North Korea is directly and recklessly challenging the international community." Yes. Precisely. With all the finesse of an eight-year-old amusing himself at mother's expense, Kim seeks to provoke by his bad behavior. ..."
Jackass author!
The U.S. and at least some of its allies have tested their weapons, including atomic or nuclear, by launching them, instead of only with underground tests!
Also, North Korea firing missiles, nuclear missiles, in the direction of Japan, but (and clearly) without striking Japan, which the North Korean government knows very well it must never do, unless the NK leaders want to bring Armaggedon upon themselves, which they certainly don't; well, if this proves to the rest of the world that NK really does have nuclear weapons, then the U.S. and its NATO allies are not likely to war on NK. So, these tests by NK help to deter U.S. and NATO aggression, armaggedon.
NK would [not] attack Japan! And for its nukes to really serve as deterrant measures, the nukes need to be tested in ways for the whole world to know about these.
The U.S. test-fires its WMD [for] the purpose of eventually using them; definitely not for reasons of deterrance.
"West Plots To Supplant United Nations With Global NATO",
by Rick Rozoff, Stop NATO, May 27 2009
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13759
EXCERPT:
Von Sponeck's Warning: Subverting The United Nations From Within
This past February Hans von Sponeck, former UN Assistant Secretary General and UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq, wrote a probing indictment called The United Nations and NATO for a Swiss Journal.
It it he warned that "The world of the 192 UN member states has come to a fork in the road. One way leads to a world focused on the well being of society, conflict resolution and peace, i.e. to a life of dignity and human security with social and economic progress for all, wherever they may be as stated in the United Nations Charter. Down the other road is where the nineteenth century 'Great Game' for power will be further played out, a course which, in the twenty-first century, will become more extensive and dangerously more aggressive than ever.
"This road supposedly leads to democracy, but in truth it is all about power, control and exploitation." [13]
..., he remarked of his former employer and its would-be replacement:
"A comparison of the mandates of the United Nations and of NATO shows clearly how opposed the purposes of these two institutions are. In the 63 years of its existence, the United Nations mandate has remained the same.
"The United Nations was created to promote and maintain worldwide peace. NATO exists to assure the self-interest of a group of 26 UN member countries." [14]
In a section of his article titled "21st century NATO incompatible with UN Charter," von Sponeck added, "In 1999, NATO acknowledged that it was seeking to orient itself according to a new fundamental strategic concept. From a narrow military defense alliance it was to become a broad based alliance for the protection of the vital resources" needs of its members. Besides the defense of member states' borders, it set itself new purposes such as assured access to energy sources and the right to intervene in 'movements of large numbers of persons' and in conflicts far from the boarders of NATO countries. The readiness of the new alliance to include other countries, particularly those that had previously been part of the Soviet Union, shows how the character of this military alliance has altered."
"[T]he United Nations monopoly of the use of force, especially as specified in Article 51 of the Charter, was no longer accepted according to the 1999 NATO doctrine.
"NATO's territorial scope, until then limited to the Euro-Atlantic region, was expanded by its member to encompass the whole world in keeping with a strategic context that was global in its sweep." [15]
In a following section named "UN-NATO-accord: incompatible with UN Charter," he exposed a clandestine accord signed between the secretaries general of NATO and the United Nations, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Ban Ki-moon, respectively, on September 23, 2008, which "took place without any reference to the United Nations Security Council.
"In the generally accepted agreement of stated purposes, one reads of a 'broader council' and 'operative cooperation, for example in 'peace keeping in the Balkans and in Afghanistan. Both secretaries general committed themselves to acting in common to meet threats and challenges.
"The UN/NATO accord is anything but neutral and will thus not remain without serious consequences." [16]
...
END OF EXCERPT
Even if people don't like the idea of a nuclear N.Korea or Iran, the fact is, the super powers give no respect to any country that does not have the means to defend itself with WMDs. We have been perceived as international 'bullies' since Ike left, and eventually every bully has his day of reckoning. For those not familiar of how we are perceived, I would highly recommend the web site 'watchingamerica.com'. Even our allies can have some harsh remarks about our actions.
Tom Lehrer's "That Was The Year That Was" is, I think, still available on CD -- over 40 years old, but still pertinent!
First we got the bomb, and that was good,
'Cause we love peace and motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay,
'Cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?
France got the bomb, but don't you grieve,
'Cause they're on our side (I believe!).
Then China got the bomb, but have no fears:
They can't wipe us out for at least five years.
Who's next?
Then Indonesia claimed that they
Were gonna get one any day.
South Africa wants two, that's right:
One for the black and one for the white.
Who's next?
Egypt's gonna get one too,
Just to use on you know who.
So Israel's getting tense,
Wants one in self defense.
"The Lord's our shepherd," says the psalm,
But just in case, we better get a bomb.
Who's next?
Luxembourg is next to go,
And (who knows?) maybe Monaco.
We'll try to stay serene and calm
When Alabama gets the bomb.
Who's next? Who's next? Who's next?
Who's next?
Bless you, DHamson! You resurrected the lyrics far faster than I could de-dustify the vinyl languishing in the bowels of my basement.
Lehrer's got great stuff.
Inventing and deploying super weapons only encourages your opponent to seek the same in self defense. In creating them by our own hands, we infact force others to eventually aim our own creations back at us. Self defense by this logic, is completely illogical.
Chris Cooper, you left it to us nostalgic plebians to provide the lyrics for that Lehrer classic:
(You other roots-in-the 60's, please help me out; my SS-eligible-memory doth fade... the new-key-lure club was smaller back then)
"First we got the bomb, but that was good... 'cause we love peace and....motherhood.
Then Russia got the bomb, but that's okay, 'cause the balance of power's maintained that way.
Who's next?
Then France got the bomb, but don't you grieve, 'cause they're on our side... I believe.
Who's next?
Egypt say it wa-hants one, too... just to use on you-know-who...
So, Israel's getting tense... wants one in self-defense...
'The Lord's our shepard' says the psalm... but just in case... we'd better get a bomb!
Who's next?
....
....
(Gosh, that's it for my late-afternoon, third Leinekugels-depleted memory banks, except for
Lehrer's closing phrase:
......when Alabama gets the bomb!
I transferred the LP to a tape many years ago and still listen to it. Glad to hear it's on CD. We need a TW3 revival. Truth so really comes with humor and the historical/contemporary relevance is eerie.
"We'll try to stay serene and calm, when Alabma gets the bomb!"
"The breakfast garbage you pour into the bay...they drink for lunch in San Jose!"
and, of course, that feminist Alma Mahler Gropius Werfel who "even tho you didn't use Ponds, you got Gustave, and Walter, you never did falter, you got Gustave, and Walter and Franz"
Not to mention:
"My mother used to threaten to "tear off your arm and beat you over the head with the bloody stump", a frightening enough prospect to a young boy and a grievous overreaction to my own undoubtedly bad behavior. (I argued of course that she was misrepresenting which part of the appendage she might strike me with, the "stump" being still attached to my body, a distinction that only further infuriated the woman.)"
That is just too funny!
"There is no good reason North Korea should test or build or own nuclear weapons. It is a foolishness as preposterous as to allow the public to carry loaded concealed weapons in our national parks."
I hope the author doesn't mind if I repeat this often and loudly!
Never ending insanity, I fear.
I am a nuclear veteran (Operation Redwing, Bikini Atoll, 1956) and have seen the horror of nuclear war at first hand. I have spent the last fifty plus years working for nuclear disarmament and world peace as I have seen the alternative.
I was overjoyed when the US and the CCCP signed the Mutual Arms Reduction Treaty. Russian teams observed as we disassembled and destroyed our warheads and concreted in our missile silos. US teams were in Russia doing the same thing. It looked like we would finally put the nuclear dragon to rest. We had the Peaceful Uses of Space Treaty, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. We had begun a new era of international cooperation. Then Bush, unilaterally and illegally (read the Constitution, if you can still find a copy) scrapped all this so the cold war (and its attendant profits) could resume.
Unfortunately, our Empire Builders of the last decades of the old and the first decade of the new century seem to thrive on war and confrontation. When all else fails, they can always count on stirring up North Korea.
Like Vietnam, We (the "West") divided up Korea. "They" got the North, "we" got the South.
North Korea is probably the last of the old order Communist states. It is rigid, paranoid, collective and poor. It was run for many years by one Stalinist style dictator.
South Korea has been a pseudo-democracy, filled with corruption and run by "elected" leaders, mainly put in power by us. We have profited greatly from South Korea.
Unbeknown to most people, the Korean war never ended. It is just in a state of truce. For many years, border incidents occurred which frequently cost some lives and increased tensions. Sort of like a school boy drawing a line in the dirt and "Double-dast-daring" the other kid to step across it. Then the other kid would dare the other one to step over the line to his side.
Sometimes that was as far as it would go, but sometimes there was a real dust-up.
Through a combination of sanctions plus a treaty to assist North Korea with its energy needs if it would abandon and dismantle its nuclear program, North Korea began to join the community of nations. Bush scrapped the treaty and left them on their own again, which no doubt gave great ammunition to the more fascist members of the government.
So, now we are back to square one, with North Korea having no reason to trust our word, or our actions. Should they break out again and head south, I suppose we would throw the entire might of our military into yet another war. If it goes nuclear, we can expect the consequences to arrive here within a few days, with its attendant cancers and deaths.
Of course, our "leaders" and the generals will all be safe in their filtered air bunkers while We the People of no particular importance wil be the ones suffering and dying.
China has been trying to moderate North Korea's actions, but in a confrontation, I have no idea whether they would stay neutral, or come in on the side of North Korea. The seeds of WW-III have been planted long ago and may be beginning to sprout.
As Einstein said many years ago, "I don't know what the weapons of World War Three will be, but World War Four will be fought with sticks and rocks."
Wrapped in self-importance and false pride, oh, what deceitful and dangerous games we play. Great piece, minitrue!
http://realtalkworld.com
"We are not human beings having a spiritual experience. We are spiritual beings having a human experience." - Pierre Teilhard de Chardin
I agree with you, kivals. And while it is obviously useless to sign petitions or contact your legislators, there is one petition that can change everything. It is the National Initiative. Almost 3 million people voted for Nader in 2000, and if every one of them signed it and convinced one other person to sign it as well, we would have the 6 million signatures we need to become a direct democracy, and Congress can go hang itself - which it deserves to do. We can even pass an initiative cutting their salaries!
I am making a phone call to my legislators: Support single payer or I will vote for someone who will.
When the people fear their government there is tyranny,
when the government fears the people there is liberty.
~ Thomas Jefferson
I would have supported Ralph Nader for a lot of his great ideas but he's done nothing but pop up suddenly when it's election time and run a one-man show. He needs to either join an existing party such as the Green Party and make it better or form a new party first. In Washington, no one's going to let Nader get away with his one-man show agenda. He faces Congress, the media, the courts, the monied lobbyists and corporations, you name it. The presidency is just one small element of the system. The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing when they distributed powers and responsibilities to seperate branches of government.
You obviously don't try to educate yourself. Nader.org has been publishing for years reports on issues that need to be addressed. As to him "popping up", read his web site. He has been virtually black listed by the media and by Congress. The Democrats have refused to allow him to testify before Congress after they impropberly labled him a 'spoiler' for his belief in a democratic America. During his campaign tour he contineually filled meeting houses and got standing ovations, but the media down played his messages. With the exception of Oklahoma, any person can get onto a ballot for election, even an independant. Ralph Nader is one of the true American statesmen of our time. He has never run a "one-man show agenda" in my opinion, but has worked tirelessly to promote the general welfare of the American people.
beforkids, thanks, you hit the nail on the head. Ralph has had my support from the beginning. People ned to wise up before it is too late. It may be too late already.
It is virtually always bad news for the bullies when the bullied develop the means to defend themselves.
i like that question youbetterwork...why bother being good?
well, first good is relative, as is implied in the title of this article...
my latest thoughts on bothering to be anything (faithfull, hopefull or good)is if one's actions help to avoid conflict it is helpfull. conflict causes stress. stress is not good..which isn't to say it is bad..just that it causes more conflict, which is not helpfull
No faith, no solutions, no hope...
It sounds witty and all, but why bother being a good person in the face of that?
Corporate capitalism creates a world in which the "good" are weeded out. It is looking more and more like a surefire path to human extinction.
Strange that Iran continues to be brought up whenever Nuclear Weapons are discussed. Iran isn't building any nuclear weapons and has every right to persue nuclear power. The bush lie that they were trying to build nuclear weapons only works because it keeps being repeated and hinted at. It would be nice if Mr. Cooper and Mr. Monbiot would cease trying to demoninze Iran.
Nuclear weapons can only be used in an act of terrorism. Dropping any one of them is a terrorist act. (If you disagree, please tell me how slaughtering an entire city isn't terrorism, but blowing up a bus or a market is)
That being said, any nation that possesses these weapons is a terrorist nation. Any nation attempting to construct these weapons is a terrorist nation, and anyone supporting the use or possession of these weapons is a terrorist.