Does Chirac's slip reflect France's real position on a nuclear Iran?

[TCO]

I was wrong both times about the NBC capability. Back in GW1 (I was serving), I thought the noises sounded like bluster from the right (but the danger to Kuwait and SA justified the war...despite the Democrats voting against it). When we found after the war that things were more extensive than thought, was surprised.

Same deal this time round. (However, I was always someone who just saw Iraq as a continuation of GW1 in justification and didn't want to stay and occupy either.)

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Brachy-Pride
Would iran nuke jerusalem? I dont think so since it is too sacred, they would nuke Tel Aviv I guess

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Mosque_Seizure

This wiki doesnt mention it, but the wiki on the Bin Laden family does, that this seizure was done by pro-Iranian Islamists. Of course seizing a place and holding hostages isnt nuking it.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Pekka
Well, should Iran get the bomb and USE it, say, on Israel, if the EU doesn't act with fierce military power to destroy Iran, it puts itself into a really bad spot. That is, EU would need to strike Iran hard and immidiately. If not, it would be like the opposite, not doing anything would be a hostile act against the West. Self mutilation.

The EU wouldn't have time to do ****. How much of Iran would be left after 200 nuclear warheads hit it? It would certainly cease to exist as an organised national entity. So would Israel, of course, assuming Tehran gets more than a dozen or so warheads.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Of course you're correct hence my "looking good so far" as opposed to saying it was a done deal. But I do suppose this is the correct way of doing these kind of things rather than sending a live full fledged and armed nuke heading towards San Francisco. On second thought....


But on the other hand you were asking will SDI going to work anytime soon.

Operational within 1 year according to this article.

I don't trust their estimate. I think the biggest hills are ahead of them.

[Ramo]

The APS put out interesting stuff on the feasibility of boost-phase ABM systems a few years ago. I believe the gist of their report's that ballistic missiles using liquid-based propellants be difficult to take down but technically feasible, but solid-based propellants would be extremely difficult.

[Pekka]

KH, true, except in that case, I'd expect EU to be on time with the intelligence as well. So they'd be prepared, or at least knew it was coming most likely. But sure, msot likely reaction time wouldn't be enough, to destroy Iran for the 39358th time it was already destroyed. But at least fingers on button.

What is important now is, if Iran gets the bomb, I personally believe IDF will strike first, but if they manage to get the bomb and survive the strikes, what everyone needs to do is to make sure that Iran can't make any alliances, even with weaker nations. Let it be known, that join Iran in possible nuclear attack thing with your twigs and rocks, nukes will be coming there as well. Isolate it like NK. Give it no real power, unless they opt to use the power, in which case strike first policy is in order anyway.

[KrazyHorse]

I have the bad feeling nobody's going to do anything effectual about Iran's development of nuclear weapons.

[DinoDoc]

Well duh. They have Russia funding its development.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The arsenal that M Chirac posits would not be a threat. So Iran has one or two nukes. Theres no threat there of the nukes getting into the hands of terrorists. If there were, hed presumably be worried about Iran having one or two nukes, but he says he is NOT. But he IS worried about Egypt and KSA having nukes. I asked why, since presumably MAD applies as well to to them as to Iran. You stated that that would be a worry because such nukes could get into the hands of terrorists. If THAT is why Chirac fears proliferation, then he must believe that Egyptian or Saudi nukes are MORE likely to end up in terr hands than Iranian nukes, and Im not certain why he would thing that (i can come up with a few hypotheses, but Im not certain)

Neither you nor I know for certain what Chirac had in mind (if anything at all, that man is far beyond 70), and speculations obviously lead nowhere. Maybe he considers 1-2 nukes less dangerous because one who has so little warheads is less likely to give them away than one who has much more. But as I said, that are speculations, assumptions, nothing more.

That said, I really don't want to play his advocate here. As I said above, he's one of the (many) politicians, whom I deeply despise.

Another possibility is that Chirac thinks prolif to Egypt and KSA would lead Iran to a bigger arsenal and then MAD might not apply. Or alternatively, that in the uncertainty, and changing relative positions of an arms races, MAD would not apply.

One forgets the dangers that the USSR and the USA saw at the time when their nukes were deliverable only be aircraft of by rockets vulnerable to a first strike. MAD really came into its own with hardened silos, and sub launched ballistic missiles, which made a second strike more secure. Its not clear that MAD is nearly as reliable in the conditions of the ME today as it was during the more strategically stable parts of the Cold War. I think Chirac realizes that, even if some folks dont.

That's probably true, and MAD works best if comparatively few powers have nuclear weapons, i.e. only in connection with a working NPT. The more countries have nukes, the greater is the danger of a nuclear conflict.

What concerns my stance on Iran's nukes... I would certainly prefer a non-nuclear Iran (this goes for any country in that region), but I can perfectly understand why they are going this way. The Iraq war showed what happens to a member of the "axis of evil" without nukes. It was like a big red "Get nukes or we're coming after you". And the fact, that their hated enemy Israel is de facto a nuclear power, doesn't help much either. So in the end, sanctions or not, Iran will get nuclear weapons, as sad as that is, and there's really not much what can be done.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

Neither you nor I know for certain what Chirac had in mind (if anything at all, that man is far beyond 70), and speculations obviously lead nowhere. Maybe he considers 1-2 nukes less dangerous because one who has so little warheads is less likely to give them away than one who has much more. But as I said, that are speculations, assumptions, nothing more.

That said, I really don't want to play his

Well discussing what Chirac said and what he meant was what I had in mind here, not rehashing discussions we've had before about Iran.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

What concerns my stance on Iran's nukes... I would certainly prefer a non-nuclear Iran (this goes for any country in that region), but I can perfectly understand why they are going this way. The Iraq war showed what happens to a member of the "axis of evil" without nukes. It was like a big red "Get nukes or we're coming after you". And the fact, that their hated enemy Israel is de facto a nuclear power, doesn't help much either. So in the end, sanctions or not, Iran will get nuclear weapons, as sad as that is, and there's really not much what can be done.

Actually this logic is so dangerous that I would advocate a massive millitary effort under a UN mandate to attack just such a recent nuclear power to demonstrate that such weapons do not in fact offer such protection. Obviously the nukes would be used and it would be awful but if nukes are to be used, better to be used once under such circumstances than decades later in a way that leads to a vast general nuclear war because every nation on earth has stockpiles of them.

When every nation possess stockpiles of nukes the situation regarding first strike considerations is so complex and there are so many actors involved that it seems impossible to imagine no slip ups occuring.

[Pekka]

KH, yeah, I agree with you. However, I disagree to some extent, I think IDF is going to strike when there are no alternatives left. They are not going to wait too long. They have the responsibility to protect their own people, and given the recent history, not to attack is I think out of the question.

THe situation is different in Israel. I mean, we might not udnerstand it, but it's different. We don't like Iran getting the nuke. Not too stable, crazy kind of leader, a new nuke country is just something you wouldn't want, but for Israel it's different.

Do you think Iran is going to strike in Europe? No. US? No. Israel? Maybe. It's the only place I feel is realistic for them to strike, if they should strike.

So, Israel is next to them, outnumbered already, but then they'd be also outgunned. You have a guy there, who denies holocaust happened, you know, how are you supposed to deal with that? Take another risk of getting wiped out? Just because no one else going to do the strike?

It's a situation fo Israel knowing, that others are expecting them to attack, so no one really bothers. Because Israel has no alternatives. It's unfair for them, but that's the way it goes. But they will strike, I just don't see how any leader in there, or generals, could ever stand down and not even try. Of course they will strike. They are just going to wait, until it's the last possible moment, so they won't stir any more crap right now, should the strike fail. Because when it is necessary, the last possible moment, well, we understand they had to give it a try. But not until it is aboslutely last moment. But when it comes, they will strike.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Geronimo
Actually this logic is so dangerous that I would advocate a massive millitary effort under a UN mandate to attack just such a recent nuclear power to demonstrate that such weapons do not in fact offer such protection. Obviously the nukes would be used and it would be awful but if nukes are to be used, better to be used once under such circumstances than decades later in a way that leads to a vast general nuclear war because every nation on earth has stockpiles of them.

You would advocate a UN led massive military effort against Israel? I'm shocked.

[KrazyHorse]

Pekka

No strike they do with the exception of a significant nuclear strike (more than just a couple of warheads) will have enough of an effect against the Iranians to be called effectual. If anybody's going to hit Iran it needs to be US/NATO and it needs to be now.

[Pekka]

KH, you could be right.