I think situations like this are unpredictably fluid especially with the US in its current state of crazy.
Self preservation might look a lot different once “the thing” happens (hopefully it won’t).
If the US goes nuclear on Iran, it means that the US has gone nuclear on Iran. No question, it would be highly alarming to see the end of 80 years of nuclear restraint. But it wouldn’t tell us who the US might target after that or indeed whether nuclear weapons are ever used by the US or anyone else ever again.
In any case, due to the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction, the other nuclear powers would still be the countries least likely to face a US nuclear attack.
And to think people were talking about Iran’s enrichment facilities, plutonium refineries, and ICBM factories like they were some sort of bad guys.
My feeling about the thread title is – it’s unpredictable.
The reason I am posting here is that, about four hours ago, Trump put out a post that I can only read as a threat to wage nuclear war, on Iran, tonight:
It’s simple: If the US nukes Iran, then there are only two possible outcomes. Either someone else nukes us in response, or nobody does.
If someone else nukes us in response, then we nuke them, and then everyone else nukes us, and then we nuke all of them, and so on. Everyone is now in a nuclear war.
If nobody nukes us in response, then that establishes that the world is not willing to retaliate against nuclear attacks, and so there’s no reason for Putin to not nuke Ukraine, or for India and Pakistan to nuke each other, and for generally every nation with nukes to use them against whomever they like least. Again, the end result is that everyone is now in a nuclear war.
Except for MAD in this case.
You all seem to exagerating the willingness of leaders to have their countries nuked.
Nuking people who can’t nuke them back? sure, I can see anybody evil enough doing it.
Nuking someone who WILL nuke you back? I can’t see anybody doing that in the short term.
No, there too.
In the current world, where it’s assumed that third parties will intervene in a nuclear war, nobody can afford to start anything, because it’s a certainty that anyone who starts anything will be flattened. But in this scenario, we’re not in that world any more: A nuclear war between India and Pakistan would only be between those two nations. The leadership of India has to be considering “If Pakistan nukes us first, they might destroy all of our nuclear capability, as well as kill lots of people. If we nuke them first, then we might be able to destroy all of their nuclear capability, and thereby prevent them from nuking us.”. Meanwhile, of course, the leadership of Pakistan is considering the same thing. Of course, they’d also be considering the possibility that neither will nuke the other, but that’s going to look a lot less likely than it does now, and it’d be easy for either side to conclude that it’s not worth the risk.
When the course of action that is least likely to result in your nation being nuked is launching the first strike, the lack of willingness to be nuked is going to lead to nuking.
I disagree, what stops countries with nukes from nuking each other is the other party’s nuclear capability, no third party intervention.
That will continue to be a fact if other countries nuke defenseless populations.
" The course of action that is least likely to result in your nation being nuked is launching the first strike" only works if you can be sure that your strike will take out the enemy nuclear capabilities, you and I know that is very difficult (you even said “India and Pakistan will nuke each other” not “India OR Pakistan will nuke the other”).
If you and I know it, the leaders of India and Pakistan know it too.
I think Congress would form a committee, maybe block the budget for a few weeks, maaaaybe impeach but fail to follow through.
I agree with your predictions on all other points.
I disagree that this is a MAD situation. MAD is about strategic nukes. The U.S. also has adjustable-yield tactical nukes, delivered by airplane, which can vaporise an airport or a few city blocks .. up to Hiroshima level. Would Russia or China trigger immediate Armageddon to avenge an airport? The problem would be the build-up and instability in the ensuing months and years, after the taboo is broken.
Even if the U.S. uses an strategic nuke in Iran, China and Russia will not commit suicide over it.
Unless I’m mistaken neither power has Iran covered under it’s nuclear umbrella.
Maybe not instantly, but soon. War games and simulations where tactical nuclear weapons are used consistently escalate to strategic nuclear weapons; it’s a largely imaginary distinction.
Given the weirdly religious overtones this war has taken on in the last few days and the fact that certain members of the Administration such as Hegseth seem eager for the Apocalypse I would say there is a possibility Trump will use nuclear weapons on Iran. Will that be tonight or next week? Who knows. I just see it as being a greater possibility with all the Jesus/God talk.
My concern as well. There are too many “let’s hasten the Rapture” folks in this administration for my comfort.
Even without the Jesus aspect, when your glorious military operation isn’t going as planned, and you need to save face without putting troops on the ground, you look at your options. The factors that usually prevent use of nukes are morality, conventions, treaties, and the threat of diplomatic or military retaliation. Or sound military reasoning telling you that the nukes won’t help the campaign (see Colin Powell, back then). Pretty much all of those are off the table this time around.
This is where I think some back-channel communication needs to be had (on the quiet), that outlines the economic destruction that former allies are willing to take if this unthinkable happens. Crashing the bond market is just one thing. There are many other economic levers that can be used against the US.
Sure it will cause a huge amount of harm to those allies. But it needs to be made clear that this is something they are honestly willing to tolerate, and they’re not joking around.