Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Kogan Loloklam]

All of the sudden Iran has been getting a lot of news with the dire warning about the development of nukes. Well that's really not new news. They've been ignoring UN nuclear agreements and telling inspectors where to stick it since the 1990s. Really what is new is that Israel made their usual saber rattling bullshit about how they plan to increase strife in the area to prevent Iran from having nukes, and then there comes out some paper saying they are 3 years at most from developing one.

Now this says to me that we either invade them, or we live with them having nukes.
So, I know we are all afraid of terrorists detonating nukes, but here's my question...
What do we really have to be afraid of, and is it worth a war?

Iran's leadership may rattle their sabers and help out organizations that are terroristic, but they have to know there would be nuclear retaliation in the event they ever actually launched a nuclear-armed missile. Their leadership is very unlikely to survive, so our nuclear deterrent works there. Those same leaders also have to know that if they sell the nukes to terrorists, the source of the bomb can be found and again, no more leadership. As such, they have pretty strong incentive for holding on to their nukes and not using them or giving them away.

So why do we care if Iran gets nukes? Why would it be worth starting a total war in the region? Is there other options given the personalities involved?

North Korea has nukes, we haven't seen them using them.

[Zangi]

Because we'd lose the option of toppling the leadership easily... gotta make sure that people with the triggers do not pull when that happens... lot more logistics and a need for a wider scope of planning and random shit that could happen.

It could also mean, if there is no workable replacement plan, someone would have to prop it up like China is doing for NK... while everyone else trade embargoes and stuffs at em. 

In short: If the regime fails, higher chance of nukes getting into the hands of people who would use it, instead of 'defense'.

[lemon10]

AFAIK, the saber rattling isn't about actually threatening them or making Iran think they will invade, the reason is to make news and have people be focusing on it in the international stage, since no one has really been caring about it recently due to all the other big and interesting stuff in the middle east area that has been happening.

[Flying Dice]

North Korea doesn't have the delivery systems they would need to hit anything with their warheads. Iran almost certainly doesn't either. Quite apart from that, the whole "nuclear capability cool kids" attitude that the West has is rather annoying. For that matter, I'd almost rather the Iranians have nukes than the Israelis, as Israel almost certainly do have delivery systems, and still holds enough Western influence that we'd likely protect them from retaliation (regardless of official condemnation) if they launched another "preemptive" strike against their neighbors before the new generations force their hawks out of power.

Well, if I had my druthers, neither would have nuclear capability, as I'm opposed to proliferation, but I would rather have a MAD situation than an imbalance, as IMO Israel/Iran is one of the two most likely pairings to initiate nuclear war. In a mutual suicide situation, there is at least a chance that saner heads will prevail, but if one side has functional nuclear weapons and the other doesn't, and a new conflict strikes up...

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure the US would drop Israel like a hot potato if they launched a nuke, especially if they launched it at an area with no potential to retaliate. The US government isn't fanatically pro-Israel enough to ignore a nuclear launch. I don't think any allies are. That's serious end-of-the-world potential.

[scriver]

I guess it's also important to remember that, even if it is just a front, we can't disallow them having nuclear reactors. In fact, it's downright against our interests to do so, besides the moral objections. I'm not very knowledgeable about Iranian infrastructure, but from what I've understood it's one of those "highly modern cities, more-or-less-medieval rural regions" situations, and since tolerance and democratic but not least secular mindset has grown pretty much alongside the better liviny standards for us, we would want the same to happen in Iran, if it could. So that makes yhe whole "they'll use the be-riched Uranium to make nuclear missiles" part even more complicated.

I'm not sure what to think.

Call me crazy, but I'm pretty sure the US would drop Israel like a hot potato if they launched a nuke, especially if they launched it at an area with no potential to retaliate. The US government isn't fanatically pro-Israel enough to ignore a nuclear launch. I don't think any allies are. That's serious end-of-the-world potential.

I would hope so as well, though I got the impression he meant "ordinary" warfare preemptive strike

Because we'd lose the option of toppling the leadership easily...

You - or we- don't really have that option anyway.

[sneakey pete]

I wouldn't say Iran doesn't have the missile capability to lob stuff to nearby countries.

As for the bombs themselves, though not an expert, what i have heard from an expert was that the type of reactors and nuclear material that iran has would only allow them to produce a bomb that would decay to the point of uselessness in a few months. Its hardly going to be a constantly sitting on the pad deterrent without being very expensive for them to maintain (make a new bomb every 2 months? not easy...)

Apart from that, i honestly doubt anyone has the capability to remove Irans nuclear program with military means. B2 bombers or cruise missles might work, but after what happened to iraq in the 70's i'm sure they've taken a lot of precautions, not to mention their air defences are probably vastly superior to those of iraq in the 70's when they were at war with iran (iran bombed iraq's reactor back then without "advanced americna equipment"etc), and the 90's, as they'd only had a few years to recover from the iran iraq war then, and from then to 2003 there was sporadic bombing, whereas iran has had peace to build up its network. So yeah, i don't know. if something happens it coudl be interesting.

[mainiac]

People forget the fact that the Operation Desert Fox air raids in the 90s were a complete success at disarming Iraq's nuclear capability.  No ground invasion necessary.  And Iraq had the best military equipment a tin-pot dictatorship could dream of.  I think Iran's leadership understands this as well as our generals do, seeing as it happened on their doorstep.

[sneakey pete]

Err... after having had their anti air forces decimated in the first gulf war, being placed under an embargo and being sporadically attacked since then, you'd call it having the best military equipment a tin pot dictatorship could dream of? not even to mention that iran isn't a tin pot dictatorship anyway...

[Danaru]

I think it's less about "Nuclear weapon cool kids club" and more "Okay seriously if anyone launches a nuke, there's going to be a giant cascade of everyone nuking each other, let's keep as few people having nukes as possible"

Everyone WITH nukes is too scared to disarm because it'll break the cold-war-esque mexican standoff. The last thing you need is for more people to join in, especially since once one person shoots, everyone starts blasting wildly until the world is like a really crappy version of Fallout

[scriver]

While true, there's certainly more of a "we can have nukes but not you" situation here. I mean, how much do you think the USA would care if Germany, Switzerland, or Sweden or Norway were showing signs of making their own nukes?

[Aqizzar]

While true, there's certainly more of a "we can have nukes but not you" situation here. I mean, how much do you think the USA would care if Germany, Switzerland, or Sweden or Norway were showing signs of making their own nukes?

Well, Iran isn't any of those countries is it?  Surprise surprise, geopolitics is hard, and requires judging each actor on their own merits.

Why everybody seems surprised by this turn of events, when Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East proper (Pakistan is a different bag), I don't know.

[palsch]

While true, there's certainly more of a "we can have nukes but not you" situation here. I mean, how much do you think the USA would care if Germany, Switzerland, or Sweden or Norway were showing signs of making their own nukes?

They would probably be worried as to what their motivations were. Those countries don't need nukes for defence so their intentions would probably be politically manipulative. Likely taking aim at lax NPT enforcement which requires gradual disarmament and utterly failed when it came to India, Pakistan and Israel. Arguably North Korea although their nukes are frankly a sideshow and arguably worthless. Their biological and chemical weapon are far scarier, plus they don't need nukes to flatten Seoul.

If, as an example, Germany were to start to seek nukes I would expect it as a political and quasi-legal poke at France and the UK rather than an actual military strategy. They are also a (mostly) rational actor on the world stage with close trade ties and their political and economic status deriving from their diplomatic relations with other nations. Their putting that at risk is incredibly unlikely. And that's before you get to a free press, fairly pacifist population and strong anti-nuclear movement with their borders.

The danger from Iran comes from their internal manipulations which portray their nuclear project as their right, solely focusing on the energy aspect. Notably the recent report was decried as western lies and their official stance was given as nuclear weapons existence being an affront to human rights. Of course they would never seek the bomb and any evidence to the contrary must have been invented by imperialists and Zionists. They also have international cover from Russia making increased sanctions hard to enforce.

[scriver]

Well, Iran isn't any of those countries is it?  Surprise surprise, geopolitics is hard, and requires judging each actor on their own merits.

Why everybody seems surprised by this turn of events, when Israel is the only nuclear power in the Middle East proper (Pakistan is a different bag), I don't know.

Hence the "we can have it but not you" situation.

Also, I don't really think anyone is surprised? We have known about Iran's projects for years, it was bound to come to the point sooner or later. Though I doubt this is it, but we're travelling closer to the edge, I guess.

[They would probably be worried as to what their motivations were. Those countries don't need nukes for defence so their intentions would probably be politically manipulative.

Norway and Germany do not, already having an arsenal with NATO I suppose, but Switzerland does to ensure their independence and neutrality, and the not-quite-as-neutral-as-Switzerland-but-still-neutralish-Sweden needs it to protect itself against Russia when they decide to push for control of the Baltic Sea and ocean-side view of the Atlantic again.

Strictly hypothetically, I mean - excuse me while I go fetch my tinfoil hat

Anyway, you're reading too much into what I said when all it was meant to do is show how it is a problem of us against them. At least, that is definitely of Iran sees it - we can have nukes but they can't, but only because we say they can't.

I'm not saying we shouldn't be more worried about Iran getting nukes than Germany, though. But I guess it looked like I did.

edit: Spelling. Again.

[Dutchling]

wups