Iran's nuclear weapons program was never halted says IAEA.

[Dinner]

Not sure I could really count on that especially if nukes are involved.

[chequita guevara]

Israel has 200 nukes.

[Dinner]

The Jews don't run around saying they want to wipe countries off the map. Ama-nut-a-job does.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by St Leo
Good. Hopefully, they'll have nukes very soon and the US will stop with the sabre-rattling. With any luck, the next US President will understand nuclear deterrent and MAD as well as the Iranians do.

I certainly hope he understands it better than you do.

MAD does not apply to this situation. There is a near-zero chance of Iran building even ONE nuclear warhead that could reach the United States in the immediate future; and little reason for them to do so in any event.

Furthermore, it is unlikely they could build enough warheads to achieve MAD deterrent status in the next half century, unless they find a pretty big stash of uranium somewhere, build quite a few weaponizing plants to convert that Uranium to usable weapons-grade material, and also find quite a bit of rocket fuel.

MAD deterrent requires:
1. A capacity to launch warheads that could do total damage to any potential enemy.
2. Adequate warheads, factoring quantity and ability to 'hide' or bunker warheads, to ensure the warheads would be protected from destruction in a preemptive attack.
3. Credible assurances that these nuclear options would be used in an attack, and that they would be used even if a decapitation attack was successfully carried out.

I see no evidence that any of the three criteria are achievable by Iran in the near future, whether or not they are able to produce even one nuclear warhead.

For comparison, the only two states that have MAD capability are US and Russia. China may or may not be near this level, but last I checked (2001) they were still considered below MAD capability (they had around 100 warheads at the time, IIRC). Britain and France were also below this level (partially due to their small size and small air force). Israel, India, and Pakistan are all well below this level (in the single or low double digits). (When I say 'nukes' I mean long-range nukes, not short-range. It's possible Israel has increased this number significantly, but I don't think it was that high at the time.)

[Patroklos]

Isreal is small, it would only take one to really screw them up.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The Jews don't run around saying they want to wipe countries off the map. Ama-nut-a-job does.

One has the ability to do so. The other is just a windbag who has no authority in his own government. If the Queen of England said she'd like to wipe Israel off the map, she'd have about as much ability to do so as the President of Iran . . . none.

Furthermore, the Jews are not Israel. Israel has 200 bombs. The Jews do not.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
One has the ability to do so. The other is just a windbag who has no authority in his own government. If the Queen of England said she'd like to wipe Israel off the map, she'd have about as much ability to do so as the President of Iran . . . none.

could you like... go read a book, before you spout utter nonsense?

to explain that the president does not hold absolute and ultimate power in Iran, is one thing.

to claim that he is similar in power to the queen of england is a joke, and this is just spouting ignorance.

you need to set your head straight about the workings of complex political systems.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by snoopy369
MAD does not apply to this situation. There is a near-zero chance of Iran building even ONE nuclear warhead that could reach the United States in the immediate future; and little reason for them to do so in any event.

they could reach US interests
N. Korea does not really threaten the US, and yet it has very strong deterrence.

Furthermore, it is unlikely they could build enough warheads to achieve MAD deterrent status in the next half century, unless they find a pretty big stash of uranium somewhere, build quite a few weaponizing plants to convert that Uranium to usable weapons-grade material, and also find quite a bit of rocket fuel.

they have enough potential to create a powerful tactical MAD deterrent for the US, and to be a strategic serious threat for Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Saudia, Qatar, Bahrain etc.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

they could reach US interests
N. Korea does not really threaten the US, and yet it has very strong deterrence.


they have enough potential to create a powerful tactical MAD deterrent for the US, and to be a strategic serious threat for Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Saudia, Qatar, Bahrain etc.

They do not have MAD capability, and will not any time in the near future. MAD is a term with a very specific definition in International Relations. Using it this way would be comparable to telling a chemist that water at 80C is boiling...

They would have the ability to throw a bit more weight around the international arena than they do now, certainly, by producing evidence of a nuclear weapon. They would not have MAD capability.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

could you like... go read a book, before you spout utter nonsense?

to explain that the president does not hold absolute and ultimate power in Iran, is one thing.

to claim that he is similar in power to the queen of england is a joke, and this is just spouting ignorance.

you need to set your head straight about the workings of complex political systems.

Does he control the military? No. Then he has the same power the Queen has in carrying out threats. None.

[Kuciwalker]

That's a pretty naive view.

[chequita guevara]

So you think Nancy Pelosi could destroy Israel if she were so inclined?

[snoopy369]

Somehow I think the government of the US is organized slightly differently to the government of Iran... and the same goes for the real power structure (which may or may not reflect the actual organization).

[chequita guevara]

Maybe you might want to base your opinion on how Iran actually works, as opposed to assumptions. If the President of Iran does anything the Supreme Leader doesn't want or like he doesn't remain President. Anything he wants to do, he has to get approval from the Supreme Leader. Khamenei, not Ahmadinejad, makes policy.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
So you think Nancy Pelosi could destroy Israel if she were so inclined?

I think Nancy Pelosi has substantially more influence on US foreign policy than the Queen of England on UK foreign policy.

Comments like yours betray either complete incomprehension of basic logic, or willingness to make fallacious arguments to support what you so desperately wish to be true.