The more we say it; the easier it is for Israel to do it.
Then what?
It’s not impossible that that’s a consideration here. But at the end of the day Israel is going to do what it decides is in its best interest and it’s not going to base that on what people say.
Because they’ve been trying to develop a non-military nuclear program, and the NNPT gives help to countries to develop such programs in return for their allowing inspectors, declaring everything, etc.
- What Simplicio said.
- The Israelis will never stand for the Iranians having nukes, because they know where the first one will be pointed - so why bother?
There isn’t a great deal they can do about it short of preemptively nuking Iran, and I can’t see them doing that. And I expect that Iran wants nukes to protect itself from America, not Israel. Israel is just their rhetorical whipping boy; America is a genuine threat to their nation.
The following cold-blooded analysis of the effects of military action is not intended to be an endorsement.
The problem with military action to “prevent” a country from going nuclear is, well, it becomes a contest of the levels of willpower involved.
Just going in and bombing the plants, centrifuges, labs, reactors, and hardware does not remove the knowledge or the intent to build nukes. It just temporarily removes the technical capability (or sets it back x number of years).
Also bombing (or assassinating) the scientists and technicians might remove the knowledge for the medium-term…assuming we could identify, locate, and strike enough of them before they scattered into the general population. But eventually new scientists can be trained, and the intent remains (probably redoubled in intensity, too).
Also bombing (or assassinating) the government/head of state probably doesn’t remove intent. Overthrowing the government and replacing it with something friendly would remove the intent…if we could make it stick, which is tricky. But that probably can’t be done without invasion and occupation.
Invasion and occupation of a country whose population is used to oppression and suffering from poor morale is tough enough (see Iraq.) Against a determined, medium-sized sovereign state with a history of proud independence, it would be VERY hard – last time the US faced such a prospect, against Imperial Japan, we were looking at using an army of literally millions of men, and expected to lose an astonishing number – some estimates go as high as a million US casualties (and Japanese casualties would have been much higher).
Ultimately, we did not choose to pay that cost in 1946. I have difficulty imagining we would be willing to do so in 2012. Would the Iranians fight with the same sort of suicidal dedication we saw from Imperial Japan? Maybe. I suppose it’s possible that the average Iranian won’t fight back very hard, but I suspect that’s fantasy and not a sound basis for policy. I doubt they see themselves as crazy goatherds – they are the inheritors of Persia, one of the world’s great empires.
But even at a lower level of dedication Iranian resistance could make conquest and occupation very difficult and expensive. And they have fabulous tracts of mountainous terrain for defense, and the potential for religious fanaticism drawing in their neighbors.
I don’t want Iran to have nukes, period, and furthermore I don’t share the confidence some people have that a nuclear Iran would refrain from nuking Israel. But I have a hard time envisioning any purely military solution that would a) work reliably and b) not carry a price tag that would deter us.
IMHO the real solution, if one is possible at all, is political. Two possible options:
[ul][li]Co-opting Iran with trade, respect and entry into the upper tiers of international prominence (so that Iran would both lose its fear of the US and at the same time have too much invested in the status quo to want to actually use a nuke)[/li]Supporting democratic student revolution (if that’s even a realistic option – depending on how numerous, well-organized, and dedicated the students are). This ultimately only works if we follow up by investing the new Iran into the status quo as described above.[/ul]
Nope. You misread my post. You said we were threatening them. I didn’t accept that premise. Unless you want to claim that we threaten everyone with nukes. You might claim that, but it’s a nonsensical position. It makes the term “threaten” meaningless.
Sure they can. Iran doesn’t have SSBNs or nuclear-capable bombers. Taking out nukes in a silo really isn’t that hard with conventional weapons.
Anyway, while I’ll buy that Iran wants nukes to protect itself from America in the long term, I don’t see what good nukes do them in the short term. It will be decades before they can develop (or buy) a delivery system capable of threatening the US.
I disagree with many of your points here. As long as Iran has martyrs and the U.S. allows civilian air traffic, Iran has a nuclear-capable bombing force. Iran would have to pre-position nuclear devices outside the country to do this, true. It would be a nightmare on the command and control side—even if the U.S. gave Iran (or Iran stole) all of its knowledge of PALs, other means of securing weapons, and maintaining security for deployed nuclear forces. I can’t realistically seeing Iran taking on that kind of liability exposure. what if they lost one? What if the host nation discovers Iran has a house with a nuke in the basement? But the possibility is there, and will be used if Iran thinks that’s the only way Iran can maintain its security.
Further, would you be willing to bet your country’s cities that a preemptive conventional strike with, I’m guessing, B-2s would get all of the IRBMs before a launch-on-attack order? Maybe F-22s with the B-2s could get the IRBMs in boost phase? Hell of a bet. And you still couldn’t be sure that you got all of their devices, unless things have dramatically improved regarding remote sensing of weaponizable fissionable material.
Why do I think that Iran would have a launch-on-attack order? Because I think TPTB in Iran would interpret an attack on their nuclear assets as a prelude to regime change. And regime change these days means you swing from a rope or hope the Saudis will take you in. I can see a dictatorial cabal, thinking they’re all going to die anyway, pushing the button. At least, it’s a significant probability that they will do so, greater IMHO than the probability that those weapons will be used against the United States absent an attack upon Iran.
Just when you thought we could consign all of those Herman Kahn books to the trashheap…
I think Sailboat is on the right track as to the solutions to this problem. Consider the example of South Africa. They gave up their nuclear program once their concerns about their national survival were addressed. I don’t see why the same dynamic can’t be modified to apply to Iran. I also agree with Sailboat in his lack of confidence that an Iran nuke won’t ever be used against Israel, and share his wish that they don’t acquire them. I don’t know what U.S. policy will be in the instance of a terrorist attack against Israel: whether to stand by as Israel obliterates the top 15 population centers in Iran—nevermind where all of the fallout plumes will poison.
Well, Iran doesn’t have to actually shoot off nuclear missiles to threaten us with nukes. Part of the reason why people here don’t trust them is that we’re afraid they might use 3rd parties like Hizbollah to do their dirty work. Smuggle a dirty nuke into a major American city and it’ll be hell
Serious question too, to everyone who thinks Iran may use a nuke. Why? Its suicide. Even if they believed all their own propaganda, they would be a newly nuclear country with a tiny arsenal and comparatively bad ICBMs who knows that a country with possibly a few hundred nukes, Israel, backed by another one with a few thousand, USA, is poised and ready to glass their entire country if a nuke is ever used for offense. This is why I am not too worried about Iran having a nuke. They are not suicidal. This isn’t North Korea having a nuke and trying to blackmail the world
Of course we were threatening them. And of course we threaten almost every nation but our close allies (and I’ll bet there’s a plan in a drawer somewhere to nuke England… just in case). There is no other point to having a huge military and a huge stockpile of nuclear weapons, and multiple means of delivering them.
A ridiculous claim. Bush said that a nuclear attack on Iran wasn’t off the table; did he or any other president say the same about say Canada? As I said in the other thread you are engaging in American exceptionalism; if some other country announced that a nuclear attack on America wasn’t off the table, we’d most certainly take it as a threat. But other countries are just supposed to take American threats of genocide in stride.
I’ve never bought that idea. Nobody with nukes gives them to loose cannons like terrorists. Nor do I think they are stupid enough to think the result would be anything but themselves getting nuked.
They don’t need to threaten the US, they just need to be able to nuke US troop concentrations, or those of any US backed proxy that is invading them.
Those reading along should realize that Der has gone on record as saying that every nation on the planet should point nuclear weapons at the US. That means that, by his own brand of logic, Der wants to threaten America with genocide.
One may, perhaps, be forgiven for not taking such rhetoric particularly seriously.
The US might not like it, but that would be an entirely rational thing to do. Of course, that’s not to say all the threats would be oriented toward the US, but toward unfriendly neighbors as well.
Please note I’m not advocating this as the right thing to do, but it’s perfectly understandable, particularly in cases when the government has a long history of being fucked with by colonial powers. Iran is certainly such a case.
Nope.
That is not a threat.
Even the Iranians wouldn’t use nukes on their own soil.
… and how we react to it is going to be based on what we’ve said.
Against an invasion by an enemy they have no hope of defeating conventionally? Of course they would, so would we and so would anyone else. Besides; unless the troops in question magically teleport their way in, they’ll be able to nuke the troops before they cross the border.
I thought they destroyed their nuclear capability before a regime change, lest the new guys decide to use it.
Correct: From Wikipedia