Help me out here: Why would Iran having 1 or 2 nuke bombs be a reason to panic?

[karlrschneider]

Some of the "concern" seems to be that they "might give one to terrorists"...well, no shit. What guarantee is there that Pakistan, India, or China wouldn't do the same thing for a price? For that matter, how certain are we that everyone in the former Soviet Republic with access/control of them or even a U.S. submarine captain are all immune to the temptation of riches and power?

But even if Iran decided to keep their 1 or 2 or 3 bombs?....what exactly would they expect to do with them? Bomb
Israel? Does anyone really think they're -that- insane? The MAD doctrine worked fine when the "enemy" had
thousands of nukes...it certainly ought to work at LEAST as well with somebody with a handful. What am I missing here?

(And it occurs to me the same question could be applied to North Korea which might actually be in possession
of a handful of nukes or at least close...)

:eyes:

[Viva_La_Revolution]

1. don't try to bring facts and reality into it

you'll give the Sheeple a head-ache.

[karlrschneider]

3. That is my mission.

:rofl:

[Lerkfish]

2. It has to do with fealty to the west

Obviously, we're giving nukes to Pakistan, we're forgiving nukes in N Korea, we're pretending that Israel pretending they have none is okeydokey, etc.

it comes down to the fact that the stated reasons do not match the actual reasons, as you've already surmised.

It comes down to how CONTROLLABLE those countries are, or how we perceive their controllability to be, completely irregardless of their actual WMD threat (as we've seen with Iraq).

[Warren Stupidity]

4. They don't have any bombs or any capacity to make any bombs.

So your question is purely hypothetical. The answer is, of course, that a nuclear Iran would be under the same MAD constraints as all of the other nuclear nations: you cannot use them as their use will guarantee your destruction. The only exception to that rule is that if you have nukes and are about to be destroyed, you might as well use them. This is the only reason why no nuclear weapons have been used for military purposes since Nagasaki.

All a nuclear Iran does is bollux our plans for regime change.

[karlrschneider]

12. Yes, it was hypothetical but it was somewhat practical as a general proposition.

But you did address a point that's overlooked "...if you're about to be destroyed.."

When we nuked Japan, nobody else had atom bombs and so that was a unique moment in history. Whatever the morality or justification for what we did (another discussion, really), is different now. And an 'exchange', however it plays out in terms of human casualties bodes ill for what many Americans think is really important: cheap gasoline which is apparently following the Dodo Bird anyway.

But I don't think assholes like Bush would refrain from using the nuclear option if they thought it would accomplish their nefarious goals which don't really have anything to do with regime change except inasmuch as it would further the
agenda.

[southerncrone]

5. Because Repukes & the MSM need for us to believe this and be verrrry afraid!

Fear-mongering, fear-mongering, fear-mongering!

Where did all these nukes originate from to start with? We all know the answer to that, but NO ONE ever asks that question.

[BlooInBloo]

6. It's not. Unless you're Israel.

[Warren Stupidity]

8. Why? Israel has a survivable nuclear deterrent.

Anyone attacking Israel will suffer a devastating retaliation. MAD is operative. Israel has nothing to panic about from a nuclear Iran.

[BlooInBloo]

13. I'm sure that's a great relief to the millions who'd already be dead.

[Warren Stupidity]

14. You don't understand MAD then.

It is the mutual contemplation of millions of one's own dead that prevents nuclear conflict. Iran is not suicidal. As it is not suicidal it will not attack Israel with nuclear weapons.

[karlrschneider]

18. Exactly. Evan an insane maniacal leader knows better than to destroy

the very nation he wants to rule...iron fist is pretty useless if there's nobody to subjugate.

[BlooInBloo]

23. Then he's ipso facto not insane.

[karlrschneider]

27. No, Ahmidinijad isn't insane. He's a prick but not insane.

You don't even grasp that you supported my point, do you? How sad.

[BlooInBloo]

36. Sigh. And it's on that very question that I wouldn't be excited about betting...

... the lives of a million or so of my countrymen on.

No misunderstanding. Just disagreement. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand.

[originalpckelly]

44. And what about the "countrymen" of the US who might have to die as a result of...

Israel bombing Iran? How many American soldiers in Iraq would die? How many Iranians might die? Do Iranians mean any less as people than Israelis?

And do you really think, that if Israel or the US on Israel's behalf were to bomb Iran, that there wouldn't be some type of retaliation? What, do you just think you can bomb people back to the stone age and not expect them to hate us?

[karlrschneider]

15. Are you saying Iran's government would risk their own near-certain

annihilation to kill half a million Israelis?

:eyes: :eyes:

[BlooInBloo]

16. I'm saying I wouldn't want to bet the lives of my countrymen that they *wouldn't*.

[Warren Stupidity]

Then you simply do not understand MAD.

How come there have been no nuclear conflicts since 1945? Explain that simple fact.

[BlooInBloo]

21. lol! All disagreement must be my misunderstanding, eh? lol!

[Warren Stupidity]

37. No just this particular one.

But please explain why the only use of nuclear weapons occurred when only one nation possessed them and since the end of our monopoly nuclear weapons have not been used.

[Selatius]

40. The proposition of a conflict between two states armed with nukes would necessarily lead to death

The reason why the US or the USSR did not fight a world war was precisely because both sides feared total annihilation on a scale not seen in human history. Imagine 500,000,000 dying in the first day of war with several hundred million more dying in the following weeks, months, and years due to residual conflict in Europe, Asia, and points beyond followed by radioactive fallout and nuclear winter, which would likely kill several billion more.

The US took the bet for 50 years with the USSR, and the US came out on the winning side of the bet. Oddly enough, the Russians came out on the winning side of the bet as well. Mainly, they're still alive, and so are we.

If Israel didn't have nukes, BooInBloo would have an extremely valid point, but at this point, the intelligence community worldwide has already reached a consensus as to the existence of an Israeli nuclear stockpile and nuclear program that would, at any rate, dwarf by many multiples any program Iran possesses or will hope to possess within the next decade.

Iran knows provoking a nuclear conflict is a losing proposition at any rate, so the only real valid point Iran would have to develop nuclear weapons is apparently as a form of deterrence.

[Warren Stupidity]

41. Well that is exactly the point.

So Boo, any relevant comments here? Or just more snarks?

[dave_p]

7. And how do they deliver them anyway?

As with any alleged WMD, having it menaces yourself more than anyone else unless you can actually get the thing intact from A to B.

If anyone's going to leak nukes to terrorists, it's not Iran but Pakistan. But Pakistan's useful, so we look the other way. It's nuts.

[Warren Stupidity]

10. Missiles of course, Iran has reasonable missiles.

But since using them would assure an annihilating retaliation, they will not use them.

[dave_p]

34. There's missiles and there's missiles

I remember Iraq's supposedly mighty missile arsenal and its utter uselessness when they tried using it. How certain's Iran that its missiles wouldn't just land in Damascus anyway?

But I quite agree about MAD. Israel's more of a threat anyway to Iran (and its neighbours) than Iran is to anybody. An Iranian capability would just go a small part of the way toward reducing the imbalance.

[Warren Stupidity]

42. I was being generous to the argument that they could strike

with missiles. I agree that they probably can't strike their intended targets. Iran and Iraq were fairly effective lobbing missiles into each other's capitals at the end of the Iran-Iraq war, but that is a moderate distance.

[Strelnikov_]

9. Because it would then be impossible to repossess all of our NG and petroleum

they are sitting on.

[kenny blankenship]

11. then we can't invade them anymore

It's hard to make invasion plans when your victim might be able to spring a couple of nukes on your invasion path and take out an entire armored division. Folks back home might not understand the necessary sacrifice of 10,000 men!

[madeline_con]

17. Yes, they're expected to bomb Israel with them. n/t

[karlrschneider]

22. "Expected"?? What does that mean?

It would be national suicide. Why would they jeopardize their billions in oil sales?

[madeline_con]

30. Just what it says.

They are expected to lob their bombs (when and if they get some) toward Israel.

That's the whole point of DUH-bya and Co. freaking out about Iran. It went so well when they used the same tactic in the build up to Iraq, they thought, what the hell...

[Forkboy]

19. Nuke's are useless as weapons...great for status.

Iran won't bomb anyone.

[uppityperson]

20. Because OMG who SAYS they will STOP at 1 or 2!!!!!!!!!11

OMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOMGOGOGMGMGOOGMGOGMOGMOGGMOMG

[karlrschneider]

25. Well, I bow to your obviously superior interlocutory skills.

Could you try that again....in English, please? Or Spanish...or French. Or any other common Earthly tongue?

[uppityperson]

29. Who needs facts and reality when you can impose fear.

sorry, my "omg" runneth together. Good question to ask those that bring this up. Thank you for the idea.

[Bonobo]

24. It's called "PROJECTING". We used 2 nukes on civilians, so we think others will.

[karlrschneider]

28. Maybe but in 1945 nobody else had any.

And that's what makes it different.

[SayWhatYo]

26. Couple reasons I can think of...

Well first, the less nukes in the world the better. If you're like me and would rather see all the nuclear weapons destroyed, then it's rather hypocritical to be against the US having them, but not against others. At least that is how I view it. If I'm going to be 'demand' all nukes be destroyed then I need to be consistent, even if my ultimate idea would never come to realization.

Also, I believe there is a fear of a nuclear arms race in the middle east, and that it would ultimately cause the nations there to spend too much money in the nuclear arms area. That would in turn cause nations to collapse and possibly cause these bombs to end up with rouge groups. Maybe they wouldn't be used on the west, but instead on countries in the area. Obviously nuclear bombs going off anywhere is not a good thing. That's just one of the things I heard before. Whether or not it's likely or not, I do not know. There are far more intelligent and knowledgeable people who can give the likelihood of that scenario.




From a more 'realist' type of view though. I do not blame Iran for wanting to build nuclear weapons. I also do not blame the US for wanting to prevent them from getting them. I find it funny how so many people always expect one 'side' to roll over for the other 'side'. Until the entire world decides to play nice, I don't think we can really fault any country for wanting to protect it's own interests. I want to make it clear though, I am not saying that I think Iran should make nuclear weapons(as I said above, I would rather there be none) I'm just saying that I can understand why they would want to, much like I can understand why certain other countries wouldn't want Iran to.

[lectrobyte]

31. There is already a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. The other

countries are trying to catch up to Israel.

[karlrschneider]

32. I also would like for nukes to be "un-invented" but it's a Pandora thing.

And technology being what it is, somebody would re-invent them. Humans will develop whatever is possible and try for the impossible, it seems to be a part of our hard-wiring. But as much as I agree with your proposed possible 'limited nuke war' in the ME being a bad thing (no shit), it's virtually impossible for it to be -limited- to that venue, especially when you consider the socio-economic possibilities that the USA, the EU and obviously Russia and China would have to consider.

At this stage of world history, I don't think it's possible for ONE nuke to be used by one country against another.
How much it would escalate is a script for the ultimate horror movie.

[Warren Stupidity]

53. Given that we are moving in the opposite direction

and are re-arming our nuclear forces and destabilizing with our dumb anti-missile systems (and by the way by ending our efforts to disarm ourselves we are in violation of the NNPT) it is just complete hypocrisy for us to be demanding that others do not arm themselves.

[Zodiak]

33. I have to agree. I do not see a nuclear armed Iran as a threat

not even to Israel. Nuclear arms historically are only good to deter an invasion except the two times they were used in 1945. MAD is real and successful as a deterrent to first-strike....even for "crazy" nations.

This is all fear mongering to justify an invasion....nothing more. It is disappointing that so many in the Democratic party are singing this tune.

[Javaman]

35. Why ruin a good fear tactic with the truth? nt

[Greyhound]

38. Because they're evil, crazy, unfriendly ferigners.

not at all trustworthy like our good friends the Indians and Pakistanis.:sarcasm:

[KittyWampus]

39. What happens when Iran gets tactical nukes. Do you doubt Bush would use tactical nukes?

The answer is no.

And Iran's present leader is just as fucked up as Bush.

As a Progressive, I want to stop nuclear proliferation. That includes Iran. And the USA.

[bonito]

43. It would force the use of diplomacy

That is the only sane solution to prevent the build up, as it is, the build up will either force diplomacy or worse.

[conspirator]

45. ALERT: LAUNCH DETECTED. I think a nuclear war is now more iminent than during the cold war.

It's simple. Iraq was invaded because of 9/11(officially). Now imagine what will happen if a dirty bomb goes of in the US or Israel. What will happen? I have no doubt that Iran and even Pakistan would be immediatly nuked.
Now the problem is than Iran also knows that, and they know they will pay for any dirty bomb attack even if they arent responsible. So they have nothing to loose but to pursue the nukes in order to take Israel with them.
If Alqaeda acquires a nuke from the russian mafia or from agents infiltrated in Pakistan it will be the apocalypse. I think the US should leave Iraq and invade Pakistan to prevent a nuclear war.
And if you doubt me. Why do you think the missile defense system is being installed in central europe, and the UK is investing in a new generation of nukes?

[SoCalDem]

46. Because only responsible countries are allowed to have them

Like pakistan & India & Israel
and the old rusting ones scattered all over the former USSR
and the ones we have which we say we would not use, (but we actually did TWICE)

you know.. the "responsible countries"

[rockymountaindem]

47. A lot of it is based on the assumption that Iran is not a "rational" actor

and might provoke a nuclear war it cannot win with Israel in order to "take one for the team" as it were and wipe out the Jewish state no matter what the cost. That's the real debate here, as far as I can see. It's not about the inherent threat of Iranian nukes, but rather whether they are crazy enough to use them or sane enough not to. That's a whole other can of worms we could get into another time if you want.

There are, of course, other threats to nuclear proliferation. The first is the sale or transfer of nuclear material or weapons to terrorist networks. Of course, should Iran attempt such an action which resulted in the tracing of the exchange back to Tehran, that would have essentially the same consequences on Iran as firing a missle themselves. So, again, we have to ask if the Iranian leadership, present or future, is the the frame of mind to do such a thing. In addition, there are also the problems of accidential launch or percieved accidental launch, an incident of which occurred during the seventies and which almost prompted a devastating nuclear exchange between the two superpowers.

Here we have what I believe to be an argument devoid of political overtones against Iranian nuclear development. Every time a new state acquires nuclear weapons, the risk to the world of accidental launch rises. That's something we should not overlook, as the consequences would be very dire.

On a closing note, the idea that MAD is somehow, well, bulletproof is not a good one. MAD nearly failed during the Cuban Missile Crisis, at a point in which the CIA informed President Kennedy that in their opinion Khrushchev was not acting rationally and that the White House should be ready for anything (hint, hint). In addition, military historian Gwynne Dyer in his book "War" revealed that in all of the NATO war-gaming exercises, the officers representing one side or the other opted to begin a nuclear exchange within no more than six days of the onset of a conventional war in Europe. That means that in all the exercises and theory sessions conducted by NATO during the Cold War, neither side made it farther than day six of a percieved conflict before using nuclear weapons. Considering the tension brought about by the Able Archer exercises in Europe as late as 1983, this should not be discounted. In all, while MAD might work well most of the time, I wouldn't want to risk that level of destruction if there's even a 3% chance that MAD might not hold in a crisis situation.

[paulk]

49. thanks, RMD

for a rational post.

Iran is a theocracy, and a theocratic state cannot be counted on to make rational decisions.

[rockymountaindem]

50. Now hang on, I didn't go that far

The theocratic aspect adds another dimension to the analysis of Iran as a rational or irrational actor. Admittedly, the theocratic aspect of the Iranian government is a negative for their level of rationality, but it is not the only factor. Instead of stopping our search for clues at the Iranian form of government, we would need to have an exhaustive debate over the *actions* of said government and its current leaders over the past several decades. While being a theocracy doesn't help Iran's case for being a rational actor, it doesn't automatically overwhelm other factors, such as the desire for regime survival.

For instance, people can debate until they're blue in the face things such as the rationality of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact (trust me, I have both in seminar and in my free time). From one side of the spectrum, it's easy to write the pact off as another bad product of Stalin's rule which ultimately damaged the USSR. As my professor noted, if we say "Stalin was an irrational actor" or "Stalin was insane", we absolve him of responsibility for his action. Therefore we must examine the motives and actions of the Soviet government of the period from the assumption that they were rational actors acting in the best interests of their regime, if not their whole country. Once we take that perspective, the debate becomes much more illuminated, deeper, and more educational.

The same thing should be done vis a vis Iran. Instead of writing off their regime as insane or merely dogmatic, we need to first see things the way they would see the situation before we can attempt to formulate a solution. It might not work for other reasons, but once we start making our decisions based on the notion that the other side is totally irrational and capable of anything at all we're already heading in the wrong direction towards a place where *we* cannot predict anything. This approach has worked well with North Korea. We see in North Korea a regime run by someone who could easily be called irrational. Looking deeper, however, the US saw that Kim had specific demands which he hoped we could meet in exchange for his satisfaction of our demands to stop nuclear research. Even Colin Powell had to admit in 2002 that the Agreed Framework of 1994 prevented N. Korea from developing many nuclear weapons. Had the Clinton administration attempted to confront Kim on the assumption that he's just plain nuts, the outcome could have been highly problematic.

Taking everything into consideration means just that. Taking everything into consideration and then developing tunnel vision over one issue (in this case, the theocratic nature of the Iranian regime), is self-defeating.

[Warren Stupidity]

55. We can also look back in history to see how Iran (or Persia)

has acted in the world. Iran has a very long history. I see no reason to assume that the current regime is all that different from prior Iranian states, and every reason to believe that Iran has an historical pattern of behavior that continues into the present regime. Since the late 1700s Iran has not been an aggressive nation. The current regime has not shown itself to be aggressive over the last twenty five years. I see no reason to believe that Iran will suddenly start lobbing nukes at its neighbors.

[rockymountaindem]

59. Not entirely true

The Iranians supported Kurdish rebels in Iraq throughout the seventies, and have since begun and funded Hezbollah. Not that those two things mean they're the worst people in the neighborhood, but they're not perfect either.

[Warren Stupidity]

61. I didn't say they were perfect.

But funding various organizations - Kurds in Iraq or shiites in Lebanon - is a far cry from invading one's neighbors.

[paulk]

57. ok

It's a part of the mix.

But, it is the one thing that concerns me the most about Iran - that the Mullah's decisions might not be based on what is best for the country or the regime, but rather in what they might see as best for their religion - and that might not take into consideration what's best for the regime or country as a whole.

The same worries apply to the Bush junta as well...

[Warren Stupidity]

54. Hmmm... well Israel is at least partially a theocracy as well.

But on what historical basis do you make the claim that "a theocratic state cannot be counted on to make rational decisions"?

Before you rush out to find an example of an irrational theocratic state (the taliban comes to mind) you also need to show that this is some sort of invariant of theocratic states and that non-theocratic states can be counted on to make rational decisions. That latter part seems to be a particularly difficult hurdle for you to overcome.

[JohnLocke]

58. Israel is not a theocracy, that's bullcrap.

Israel has no state religion; all faiths enjoy freedom of worship. It is ruled by elected, mostly secular leaders.

[Warren Stupidity]

60. Israel is generally considered a partial theocracy, as I stated.

I really do not want to wander off into the I/P forum here, but:

"Israel
Israel can be regarded as somewhat theocratic given the intertwining of rabbinical law (Halakha) and civil law, as well as the fact that there are state employed rabbis with religious/civil duties. Israel's Law of Return grants preferential treatment to Jews with the aim of facilitating their immigration to what the State of Israel views as their ancestral homeland. Jews converting to other religions lose their right to citizenship under the Law of Return. Israel's Basic Law: The Knesset (1985, Amendment No 9) states that a political list may not participate in elections if its party platform implies the "denial of the existence of the state of Israel as the state of Jewish people".<2> A member of any religion can be a citizen of Israel with full and equal rights under the law."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theocracy#Israel

Just google 'Israel marriage' to see what a mixed up mess this is.

[bbgrunt]

48. it seems that those who insist that everyone is safer when everyone

has a gun, do not see the logical extension of their argument to countries and nuclear weapons.

[libodem]

52. hmmmmmm, what a point!

gotta give you credit, you've been thinking. I like that. :)

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

51. "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed

by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." H. L. Mencken

[conspirator]

56. The problem is not Iran having nukes. The problem is the US occupation of the middle east.

The US occupation forces in the middle east are the only cause for islamic terrorism.
People say that terrorists are fools who attack without any objective, thats never been the case.
Look at northern ireland. Once power sharing was achieved the terror stopped.
Iran will never launch a missile against any nation. But terrorists wont have any problem with blowing up cities with dirty bombs.

[McCamy Taylor]

62. The US would have to treat them as allies, the way we do Pakistan.,

We would have to invite them to eat at the "Big folks" table. We would have to negotiate with them in good faith.

The US does not want to do that.