I get that it sounds scary if one of our adversaries gets a nuclear weapon. But at the same time, 70 plus years of mutually assured destruction seems to have worked. I have no reason to believe that it won’t keep working in the future.
I mean sure, try to negotiate things through diplomatic means. But if that falls through is it really worth going to war for? Because it’s not like the country is going to use them if they get them.
If Iran gets nuclear weapons expect them to be flying towards Israel in short order.
MAD is only stable if there are two contenders. Not 3, not 10, and certainly not 30.
The hazards to humanity in general only go up as the number of nuke countries increase. Both hazards from deliberate use, and hazards from mistaken or accidental use.
From a strictly US-centric (read US-sefish) POV, once a non-ally gains nukes, they become in effect militarily invincible. Note our current criminal regime has chosen to make war at Iran, not at NK.
There are libraries full of learned commentary on nuclear policy and nuclear proliferation. Plenty of food for thought there.
Absolutely none of the above justifies anything our current criminal regime is doing in Iran. Any claim by them that it was about nukes is a lie.
Why do you think they’re going to be the first ones to do it (since us anyway)?
Iran would only launch nukes at Israel if ruling Iranian clerics were insane or suicidal (since Israel would nuke them right back). Based on the ongoing war, they seem anything but – they appear to be making decisions based on sound strategy and with long-term thinking. Netanyahu and co have been trying to sell the idea that they’re fanatics willing to commit personal and national suicide just to kill Israel for decades, but that’s bullshit propaganda, not based on actual fact. Sure, they’re awful, evil people, but I see no reason to believe they have no regard for their own lives or existence of their country.
Which isn’t to say it would be great if they had nukes. It would be very bad. But they’re probably going to get them. This war is making it almost certain, IMO. We better learn to live with the idea.
Iran would only launch nukes at Israel if ruling Iranian clerics were insane or suicidal (since Israel and the United States would nuke them right back).
Only up to a certain point, after which the prevalence of nuclear weapons would mean that something akin to MAD would be in effect again, due to everyone having them.
I think the biggest threat isn’t international war of the usual kind, with nukes being waved at each other, a-la India/Pakistan, but rather the threat of unsecured nuclear weapons. I mean, imagine a scenario where say… Iraq had developed effective nukes sometime between 1991 and 2003. We certainly wouldn’t have invaded, but then what happens when Hussein finally dies or is deposed in that scenario? What if the Kurds got a nuke somehow? Or the hard-line Islamic militias?
I’d be far less worried about actual states using them on each other, and far more worried about non-state actors getting hold of them and using them.
This absolutely would not happen.
The purpose of nuclear weapons is deterrence.
eta I guess with a caveat that Israel, after learning about the nukes, might try a decapitation nuke strike on Iran in which case Iran could respond in kind.
Amongst semi-sane states.
Like North Korea, for example?
I see and mostly agree with your point as to deliberate use.
But IMO the odds of a mistake, a sole crazy person in legit chain of command, or a simple malfunction or miscommunication leading to a launch & detonation that the owning country’s proper authorities really didn’t intend, only go up as more countries have more weapons. Each with a bespoke secret command and control system.
Agreed.
I have often said that I am 100% absolutely certain that Islamic terrorists don’t have nukes. How do I know this? Both Tel Aviv and NYC still exist.
I wonder what kind of resources a terrorist group would need to deploy a nuke?
Wouldn’t you need a whole team of engineers? Would a terrorist group be able to assemble such a team?
I ask because I really don’t know.
They don’t build it. They steal it. Or are given it by rogue elements in a regime. Put it on a truck, drive it to the target, and set it off. No real engineering required.
To be sure, US weapons are designed to be very hard to set off without a lot of external conditions met and fancy secret computers talking the bomb into going off. And usually have decent physical security as well. Minus a few slip-ups.
Other countries, and especially their earliest efforts, may not be nearly as concerned about engineering up that level of what the US calls “nuclear surety”: It absolutely positively will go off when & where intended and absolutely positively won’t anywhere/anywhen else.
Ah, nuclear weapons!
The thing about nuclear weapons is, you cannot use nuclear weapons (the only winning move is not to play), so it seems like it should not matter who has them. Unfortunately, history shows that the chance of an accidental nuclear alert (like the WarGames-type incident in 1979, or the Soviet alert in 1983) , an accident (including a “broken arrow” or a diverted warhead), Cuban-Missle-Crisis-style submarine commander deciding to launch a nuclear torpedo or two, “madmen” like Nixon or Trump gaining control of nuclear weapons, etc. are… non negligible, and the more states that have to deal with those issues, the more precarious the problem becomes, mathematically.
I’m sure that in 1985, plutonium is available in every corner drugstore, but in 2026, it’s a little hard to come by.
There are sanctions on everything, of course, not just the raw materials, but at the state- or quasi-state level there are often ways around them.
Slightly different note; I’m surprised they haven’t tried chemical weapons of some kind yet.
Sure you can. I can see a lot of scenarios where limited use/tactical use would maybe not be appropriate, but not ending in global thermonuclear war either. I imagine they’d make the user a pariah nation, but if say (God forbid) Trump decided to nuke Bandar Abbas for some crazy reason, I don’t see an all out nuclear exchange by all nuclear parties resulting from that.
The whole MAD-style calculus implies large scale strategic use of nuclear weapons- ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers. Small yield, single warhead strikes aren’t really what that sort of strategic level thinking is contingent on. You can argue that escalation is inevitable, but I’m not convinced it would be, especially if the use isn’t between two nuclear-armed nations.
I am not in the War College gaming this out on a regular basis, but some exercises in the past (e.g., Proud Prophet) had the “limited nuclear war” ending up with half a billion people killed. You sure you want to roll the dice on that? Especially with multiple countries in the mix, as posited?
Well, yes, but, in that case, (e.g.,) why do you need a nuke to level the Bandar Abbas naval base/port? There are really no other options to take it out? And what do you do after Odessa gets nuked later the same day?
“I don’t care about the man/country that wants ten nuclear weapons. I care about the man/country who wants just one.”
I think the greater danger than a MAD Dr Strangelove style civilization-ending all out nuclear exchange is some bad actor getting ahold of a single weapon and blowing up a city with it. Someone who doesn’t care about the threat of global retaliation. So the more countries that obtain nuclear weapons (particularly ones with unstable, totalitarian, or extremist governments) the higher the chance of that happening IMHO.
No country (or man, whatever) is going to invest in a Manhattan Project to produce just one weapon any more than they build a factory to produce a single tank.