Letter: Iran less a threat than was Soviet Union

Thursday, Nov. 1, 2007 | 7:35 a.m.

For the more than 60 years since the atomic bomb was used in World War II, the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia have been in a nuclear standoff. Both countries have had enough atomic weapons to wipe each other off the map.

Realizing this, both countries have restrained themselves from using this ultimate weapon, in spite of enduring several crises with each other (Korea, Vietnam, the Berlin crisis in '61, the Cuban missile threat in '62).

Meanwhile, nuclear weapons have slowly but surely spread around the world - England, France, Pakistan, India, Israel and China have atomic weapons. They too are aware of the severe ramifications of using such power - so they have not.

There is no doubt that more countries will acquire such weapons. With Russian help, Iran most certainly could have one in the near future. As long as Iran's leaders are aware that Tehran and the rest of Iran would be totally destroyed (in retaliation), it is reasonable to presume they too would restrain themselves.

So why do we become so concerned with Iranian development of such a weapon?

President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have hinted at military action to stop the Iranian development. Why do we want to start World War III with Iran (and Russia?) to stop the inevitable ?

Even if Iran had "the bomb," it doesn't have the missiles to deliver one to the United States. Or maybe the real reason is to justify putting American troops on top of the oil supplies underneath Iran ( like Iraq). We shall see.

Frank O'Neill, Las Vegas