So when do we invade Iran?

[Winston]

lotm,

I sent you a PM.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


That is an AFFIRMATION of the theory of deterrence.

I am talking about the people who speak as if Iran getting nukes is different from any other regime, like the USSR, or China, or Pakistan, getting nukes.

what makes you think everyones so happy about Pakistan having nukes? Im not, and i think that could well be a disaster in the making. I hardly think that makes the prospect of Iran having nukes more comforting.

[lord of the mark]

I am more optimistic about Russian and Chinese cooperation. Russia appears to be genuinely embarrased by Iranian words and behavior, is reluctant to see the spread of nuclear weapons across the mideast, and wants to be taken seriously as a responsible world power. As do the Chinese. I expect the US and the EU to proceed slowly and deliberately, largely to keep Russia and China on board.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Darius871


Why is it a foregone conclusion that we'd "know" they received it from Iran? It's entirely likely that an Israeli city would be vaporized out of the blue, with no hints to any country's intelligence agency as to who carried out the attack, let alone where the bomb came from. It could have been Iranian, could have been North Korean, could have been from the black market of a former Soviet republic, could have been independently constructed using stolen nuclear fuel, etc. etc. etc.

Why couldn't the mullahs reach the rational, "reasonable" conclusion that Iran would most likely have plausible deniability after the fact? Why couldn't they come to the rational conclusion that even if - and that's a BIG IF - the Mossad or CIA find reason to conclude that Iran was the perpetrator, they still likely wouldn't have sufficient evidence to justify nuclear retaliation before the international community? Remember that this is an international community that wouldn't trust the Israelis as far as it can throw them, and the lack of WMD in Iraq has destroyed whatever little credibility the American intelligence commmunity once had.

From the mullahs' perspective, attacking Israel by proxy could be viewed as an entirely rational calculated risk. Given the right precautions, they could get off scot-free at best, or just barely escape retaliation at worst. Combine that line of reasoning with their sincere belief in divine providence, and you have a possibility at least worth considering.

I agree that the possibility is worth considering. I just think that that's too dangerous of a game for any rational leader to want to play, especially when his enemies are infinitely better armed.

A devestating nuclear attack on an Israeli city after Iran has publicly defied the rest of the world and achieved nuclear capability... that would be a huge red flag... Iran would be considered by many (or at least by the U.S., Israel, and probably Britain) as being almost per se responsible for the attack. I don't think that it would take much proof that Iran was behind the attack and launch a retaliatory strike. Israel would be at an extremely heightened state of agitation, as would the U.S.. we don't really know what the international reaction would be. I think that Israel would nuke Iran almost reflexively.

Iran is playing a dangerous game in that respect. They would be the first suspect if anything of the sort happened.

Besides, why would heads of state want to arm some notoriously unpredictable terrorist organizations with weapons that could destroy their country? What if the mullahs interpret something differently that AQ?AQ may then use the weapons against the mullahs.

I certainly don't want Iran to develop nuclear weapons, but I just don't see what the U.S. can do to stop them without full international support. Thus, when weighing in on what we do without that support, I think that the "do nothing" response is, unfortunately, the only option. It's an option I think is viable because of my belief that Iran won't be able to use them offensively even if they develop them.

[germanos]

I think the most plausible explanation for Iran's nuke is self-defense. The US is closing in on them (Iraq to the west, Afghanistan to the east) and they would feel much more secure if they had the Bomb.

The mullahs have been invaded once by Iraq, they rightfully fear another onslaught.

I really don't think the Iranian clergy is thinking about launching a first strike with the Bomb. There is no point.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Wycoff
I agree that the possibility is worth considering. I just think that that's too dangerous of a game for any rational leader to want to play, especially when his enemies are infinitely better armed.

A devestating nuclear attack on an Israeli city after Iran has publicly defied the rest of the world and achieved nuclear capability... that would be a huge red flag... Iran would be considered by many (or at least by the U.S., Israel, and probably Britain) as being almost per se responsible for the attack. I don't think that it would take much proof that Iran was behind the attack and launch a retaliatory strike. Israel would be at an extremely heightened state of agitation, as would the U.S.. we don't really know what the international reaction would be. I think that Israel would nuke Iran almost reflexively.

Iran is playing a dangerous game in that respect. They would be the first suspect if anything of the sort happened.

We're pretty much in agreement then, although I'm not so sure Israel would wipe Iran of the map reflexively. I'm arguing more against GePap's assertion that traditional deterrence applies in this case.

Originally posted by Wycoff
Besides, why would heads of state want to arm some notoriously unpredictable terrorist organizations with weapons that could destroy their country? What if the mullahs interpret something differently that AQ?AQ may then use the weapons against the mullahs.

I never said anything about al-Qaeda; anyone who seriously talks about the Jafari mullahs giving nukes to Wahabbi jihadists needs his head checked. Sectarian differences also make any discussion of Iranian nukes ending up in the United States utterly ridiculous. We're talking about Hezbollah or some smaller Shi'ite organization in Lebanon.

[PLATO]

Enriched uranium carries a signature of the plant it was enriched in. A nuclear device that exploded would be fairly easy to trace to the source.

I am not, however, convinved that Iran would do "the only rational" thing with nuclear weapons. I do not find it impossible to imagine them launching a first strike by any means. Those that are betting the farm that they won't are thinking from a purely western thought pattern. It is absurd to believe that the concept of mutually assured destruction has is universally accepted. It is even more absurd to not at least consider the possibility that deterence does not have value in every case.

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by PLATO
Enriched uranium carries a signature of the plant it was enriched in. A nuclear device that exploded would be fairly easy to trace to the source.

How does this work exactly?

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by Darius871
We're pretty much in agreement then, although I'm not so sure Israel would wipe Iran of the map reflexively. I'm arguing more against GePap's assertion that traditional deterrence applies in this case.

I think that traditional deterrence pretty much would hold if Iran had them. I don't think that having nukes will do Iran much good. It would obviously be unable to openly use them. Could they funnel them through secret channels to an ally terror organization? Possibly, but I think that it would be far too dangerous for them to try. One hint that the organization received its weapons from Iran and Iran would be toast. You've described a situstion in which deterrence might not hold, but I think that your scenario isn't as plausible as you believe it is.

[Wycoff]

Originally posted by PLATO
I do not find it impossible to imagine them launching a first strike by any means. Those that are betting the farm that they won't are thinking from a purely western thought pattern. It is absurd to believe that the concept of mutually assured destruction has is universally accepted. It is even more absurd to not at least consider the possibility that deterence does not have value in every case.

The mullahs did not get to where they are by being suicide bombers. Sure, there are suicidal elements in fundamentalist Islam. However, they are usually young men, men who are used by the fundy leaders. It's one thing to have a stranger strap a bomb on himself for your cause; it is quite another to do something that amounts to strapping a bomb on your own chest. You're not going to see Osama strap a boomb on his chest. You're not going to see the PLA leadership strap bombs on their chests, and you're not going to see the mullahs strap bombs on their chests.

[Agathon]

It is absurd to believe that the concept of mutually assured destruction has is universally accepted.

Bull****. The Chinese accept it. The Russians accept it. The Indians and Pakstanis have found that they have to accept it. Everyone accepts it because the prospect of extinction trumps cultural assumptions every time.

[Chemical Ollie]

Originally posted by Ecthy


How does this work exactly?

You run a scan of the elemements and isotopes present in the samples. Every reactor gives a unique signature

[Ecthy]

How definite is the result? I suppose there are reators with very similar"signatures"?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Agathon


Bull****. The Chinese accept it. The Russians accept it. The Indians and Pakstanis have found that they have to accept it. Everyone accepts it because the prospect of extinction trumps cultural assumptions every time.

Yes, everyone must think exactly alike. How stupid of me to believe that everyone in the world's governments wouldn't share your conclusions.

Please forgive me for assuming that a leadership that has had no education in any international relations, never left their own boarders, spent a lifetime studying fundamentalist religious precepts, and promotes the election of leaders that want to "wipe them off the map" could ever have a different thought than yours.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Sikander


Like Libya for instance.

Lybia chose not to seek nukes on their own, ebcause Qadaffi didn;t think they would do anything for him.

He is in a very different position than the Iranians anyways.

So no, the US didn;t stop Libya. Thanks for the supporting evidence