AJ and all, it's not a ground- or sea-level nuke or thermo-nuke that's the hazard... all of those kinds of shit tend to make the land uninhabitable.

But a high-altitude EMP blast from an atomic weapon would ruin all or enough of ALL the electronics in the US (and a good part of Canada, too, and, deprived of cars, internet, power, water and smartphones, society would implode.

Any invader strong enough to land a LOT of troops on our soil with Working Equipment would take 'US' over quickly.

Are we prepared for or defending against that? I don't see any evidence of it.

Perhaps we should not get too upset about it. Per-
haps we should treat the whole thing with the con-
tempt it deserves. After all, Congress can simp-
ly decline to ratify it; (or the Senate can, can't
it?) And then, if we can prevent ourselves and
Israel from being attacked between now and
January in 2017, we may be able to make our-
selves safer. (And then, maybe Israel may do
us a favor and knock Iran out).

Iran can stop making nuclear bombs any time it wants. Takes NO agreement. Without their bomb making, there is no need for sanctions, so they would be eliminated. Whats happening now is Obama gives up the sanctions, and Iran doesnt give up its bomb making (why should they- nuclear bomb making IS their trump card which they have used to get where they are now). Obama is an ass

I think you and I are in agreement. My original objection was to the characterization of all arabs as mentally defective. Your point about islam is well taken.

Of course. Generalizations in and of themselves are fallacies. Individuals should be treated as such.

That being said, one of the insidious things about Islam is that it tolerates zero dissent. It actively punishes thinking as we know it by the harshest of measures. What you are seeing (and what I am pointing out) is the results of a society that actively punishes thinking at all. One of the results is a total lack of scientific progress.

I too am not surprised at all. Is it possible there are three liars in this scenario all trying to out lie each other? Of course it is.

Kerry, well we all know about his history of being a liar, he sat in front of Congress with a whole bunch of liars and told made up stories. The Iranian guy has to lie, if he went home with any other story he and his family would no longer be. And our president, again we have a list of his lack of creditability, he has very little if any.

We as in Obama/democrats

Y'all are definitely entertaining to read-over as I'm often late and seldom chime in. I agree!! With about everything. I don't know who I trust more: 'Leetle o' or the Iranian negotiator. And this may have been posted already, but Pat Buchanan and Hannity had an interesting exchange, either reflecting upon Pat's different, if not more informed, take on the situation, and Hannity's holding the Fox News 'line'. http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Iran-Pa...

Most of us know it IS down right stupid to trust the Iranians, but they are and have been exactly who they say they are and proclaim it to the world. Regrettably I wouldn't really trust anyone in o's administration to act with our best interests in mind. Their track record speaks for itself.

It weakens our position, but letting Iran fight ISIS(Sunni vs Shia) is the most efficient, but that has been Iran's ambition since we were selling anthrax to Saddam, while North was selling Iran weapons to raise money for proxy war in central America.

An enemy that announces they are your enemy can obviously be trusted to act like an enemy, while Leetle o ......I wouldn't want him petting my dog.

Fivedollargold isn't so sure Ovomit would retaliate. He might send Kerry back to the negotiating table.

Well put

They did a good job of making a movie from the book.

Along with killing the XL pipe line and trying to bankrupt the coal industry, he's doing everything he can to keep up dependent on foreign oil.

Unfortunately, I don't believe either side.

You asserted that all terrorist attacks in the US were by Muslims. I named one that was not.

Murder is not OK. And I am not defending murderers. If anything, you are the one arguing inferentially that they are not fully culpable because they have some mental defect they inherited. That's ridiculous and the burden is on you to prove it in any event. Where are those studies showing all arabs are mentally defective? And exactly how do you explain Steve Jobs? Was he a mutant?

An amazing reply. Let's remember what we are discussing. The proposition at issue is whether ALL arabs or people of arab descent are genetically mentally defective. The "proof" you cite is the fact that over the course of many generations some arabs have killed Christians and that some murders in the US have been committed by Muslims (many of whom are arabs or of arab descent). Additionnaly, you cite the fact that overseas some muslims are murdering some Christians and that, according to you, no muslims are objecting to those murders.
First, historical murders conducted on the basis of religion are not proof of genetic mental disorders. Otherwise we could claim all Italians or those of italian descent have non-functioning brains because their ancestors (Romans) murdered Christians. That's obviously absurd.
Second, I don't know how you define terrorist attack, but not all of them have been committed by muslims, but even if they have, what does that tell us about the mental state of those who have not committed such attacks? Nothing, of course. Of course the actions of murderers tell us a lot about their mental state and perhaps something about the ideology they follow, but it tells us nothing about the genetic makeup of those who do not commit such crimes. Otherwise we would condemn the whole non-aboriginal populace of Australia as mentally defective given their criminal ancestors.
Finally, lots of muslims have decried murders of by muslim terrorists. How have they escaped the fatal gene? Give it up. Don't blame murders on the murderers genetic ancestors. Each of them is personally responsible for their acts. As Rand noted, racism is a particularly ugly form of collectivism. Judge each on their ideas and actions.

If and when Iran is stupid to try to use a nuke of any time they'll be glowing in the dark on a glass table by the next day.

We as in Muslims?

His first two names are Arabic.

It makes a huge difference. Muslims are the ones murdering Christians all over the world. Also I told you what difference makes above. The burden is on you. You're the one trying to shift the subject because you can't defend the murderous Muslims all over the world. Or do you think what they are doing is OK with an atheist?

Nice try. Why not mention Pearl Harbor and Germany? Stay on subject. Muslims did not attack Waco. They were suspected of breaking the law. The three towers were Muslim, the fool that fired up his underwear was Muslim. The fool that set his shoes on fire was Muslim. The Boston bombers were Muslim. Go back more? The Barbary pirates were Muslim.

I am not a Muslim. I am an atheist. And what difference does that make? I don't care what your religion is or where you have lived. Defend your position. Where is your proof that all arabs are genetically mentally defective?

OK City was not by Muslims. It was Americans who wanted revenge for Waco.

How about a thousand years of wars trying to kill Christians? Or do you need proof of that?

All of the terrorist attacks on the United States have been by Muslims. Muslims are attacking Christians all over the world, beheading them, cutting them in half, burning them alive. Thousands are joining their war against civilization. Does that serve as proof in your book?

I don't see any Muslims standing up in protest for these murderous cowardly crimes.