Iran obtaining nuclear weapons - then what?

[Latte]

This will be a bit hastily written, I hope you'll excuse that.

I'd like to just get the "facts straight" first.

First, I'd like to point out that the leader of Iran is Ayatollah Khomeini, not Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Secondly, the remark often translated into "wiping Israel off the map" by western media was more accurately meant as not necessarily physical destruction of Israel, but the or uprooting or dissolvement of the Israeli state. A state which many do not recognize as legitimate due to the way it was founded.

Ayatollah Khomeini, the supreme leader of Iran, has repeatedly stated nuclear weapons are un-Islamic, and basically condemned them. Whether he is sincere or not, I do not know.

What I mostly wanted to discuss is a scenario where Iran does obtain nuclear weapons.

I don't particularly see where it is in Iran's interest to launch a nuclear strike at Israel. Iran would be devastated beyond repair by a retaliatory strike (estimates are that Israel alone could utterly destroy Iranian society and kill off large amounts of the population and infrastructure), just like the Soviet Union would be devastated if it attacked the US during the cold war.
I don't think it's in Iran's interest to supply third parties with nuclear weapons either, as the risk to itself would be too grave if the connection was made by foreign intelligence services.

I think it'd merely be a deterrence. A sort of shield against external military pressure which would allow Iran to be relatively "safe" in the region. There is growing discontent with the US in most nations that have US-friendly leaders these times. Public opinion polls in Egypt, Saudi Arabia and several other nations show that Nasrallah & Ahmadinejad are far more popular than the national leaders. If Iran was not directly threatened by the US militarily, the fear is that eventually many nations in the middle east will "join Iran" so to speak, and turn away from the US for protection, eventually leading to a middle-east form of the EU (or maybe going beyond that).

It seems then that this is not about fear of a physical attack on Israel, but a fear of the rising influence of Iran, and in return the declining influence of the US and Israel in the region. Heh... even if Iran doesn't acquire nuclear weapons, it still seems that threatening Iran anyways is a tactic to scare other nations from increasing ties with Iran (which I think is what the Bush administration is doing right now). It doesn't seem to be working extremely well, however.
I guess in the end, the US has to make a choice between military confrontation - which has many possible outcomes and consequences - or talking to Iran despite Iran having the upper hand on the bargaining table, especially after how the recent conflict in Lebanon turned out.

I'd like to write more, but I have to run.

[thod]

Shalom, er I mean Hello,

Satellite pictures reveal sightings of Iranian goat herders developing a new and vicious breed of goat. It is felt that this weapon of mass destruction poses a threat to the entire region. Although yet untested, the US feels that these goats are a direct threat to the M1 Abrams tank. As a result of this deliberate provocation the US has began counter terrorist activity inside Iran.

[Latte]

Shalom, er I mean Hello,

Satellite pictures reveal sightings of Iranian goat herders developing a new and vicious breed of goat. It is felt that this weapon of mass destruction poses a threat to the entire region. Although yet untested, the US feels that these goats are a direct threat to the M1 Abrams tank. As a result of this deliberate provocation the US has began counter terrorist activity inside Iran.


They have resorted to biological warfare now I see. Apparently no means is too cruel to those evil evil persians.

[jesse]

Whether Iran is truly after nuclear weapons technology, one can only guess these days. News has become so saturated of apocalyptic posturing and propaganda that it makes little sense to even keep up with the bickering between the US and Iran. The US government is just pissed because Iran is no lead by a pro-US government, and since they have so much important resources such as oil and natural gas, they go out of their way to vilify and taunt Iran.

Iran might be lead by firebrand spitfires with a distaste of the US status quo in the world, but I don't picture Iran to be on a kamikaze mission. If we assume that Iran is not bluffing on the nuclear issue, only focusing on nuclear technology being used for generating electricity makes sense long term. Oil and natural gas are limited resources and placing all of your eggs in a single basket is not the best strategy, just in case you'd run out of your energy supply.

I view the persistant flammability of the Middle East as a manifest of discontent toward the biased US support of Israel, no matter the circumstance. You have to admire the ease at which Israel twists arms, a simple hint toward a pesky holocaust a few generations ago and you'll have anyone eating from the palm of your hands. Collective guilt at its finest, and my hat's off to their manipulation ability.

Whether or not local leaders are less popular than Iran's president Ahmadinejad or Hizbollah's leader Nasrallah, this migt be so-called shopping around for strong men who are not US lapdogs.They are also populists and the more free things you can promise, you're a winner in the eyes of the masses. God, country, religion = :thumbsup:

[Homini Lupus]

For what I know Ayatollah Khomeini is dead and Ahmadinnejad is the president of the islamic republic of Iran (even if he has to deal with the Council of Guardians).

Given that the main concern is if the Iranian government can keep the weapons for themselves or their nuclear weapon technology is going to spread around and, at least on the long run, fall in the hands of unaccountable organisations.

Given that I don't see why they should't be free to build their power centrals, as long as the flow of fissile materials are controlled by international agencies there's no problem for sure (once you have enough fissile material it is quite simple to create a nuclear bomb).

[sriv]

How would they actually deliver/drop a hypothetical nuclear bomb?

[thod]

How would they actually deliver/drop a hypothetical nuclear bomb?

You can get a lot under one of those hats.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Aronnax]

How would they actually deliver/drop a hypothetical nuclear bomb?

I don't know what they're planning but here's some hypothetical delivery systems:

1) Iran uses a SCUD or equivalent. "Wait, weren't those the terribly inaccurate missiles used by Iraq in the first gulf war?" Why yes they were Sriv, they were originally developed by the USSR to deliver atomic weapons. Their accuracy sucked because, lets face it, you don't have to get that close with an atom bomb.

2) Iran spends more time developing their space program (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and develops a true ICBM.

3) Iran sticks an atomic weapon in an isotainer (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and detonates it in someone's harbor.

I doubt that Iran will take agressive action because of MAD. My only concern is it's abandoning the conditions of the international nonproliferation treaty. Such action may motivate other members to abandon the treaty and develop their own weapons.

[thod]

There are nuclear artillery shells too. The big worry the US has is that they will sink their fleet in the gulf. Without supplies or air support the ground troops are doomed. They dont have to have much range. Whats more, soldiers are expected to die. Nuking someones ships when they are attacking your country is self defense. You have only killed soldiers. This is the same as the US being invaded by a superior military and using nukes as a last ditch defense to stop the invading troops. So the US wouldn't be able to nuke Tehran back since that would be an attack on the civilian population. This would bring world condemnation, but killing soldiers is OK. If they did then delivering a nuke to the US is easy. You could bring it in on a fishing boat to Canada and drive it across the border. You can fit one in a suitcase.

[sriv]

3) Iran sticks an atomic weapon in an isotainer (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and detonates it in someone's harbor.

I doubt that Iran will take agressive action because of MAD. My only concern is it's abandoning the conditions of the international nonproliferation treaty. Such action may motivate other members to abandon the treaty and develop their own weapons.

3 sounds the most plausible for its subtlety and possibility of hijack.

I agree, is there any chance of the bomb arriving anonymously?

[thod]

I agree, is there any chance of the bomb arriving anonymously?

Put dark glasses and false beard on it to do the trick.

[Latte]

For what I know Ayatollah Khomeini is dead and Ahmadinnejad is the president of the islamic republic of Iran (even if he has to deal with the Council of Guardians).

Excuse me, I miswrote. I meant Ayatollah Ali Khamenei [:

[Aronnax]

So the US wouldn't be able to nuke Tehran back since that would be an attack on the civilian population. This would bring world condemnation, but killing soldiers is OK.

The predetermined response to a tactical atomic strike is a tactical atomic strike. Iran would cease to have military bases and atomic processing plants. Civilian near these bases and plants would be considered collateral damage. To clarify: there's a large Iranian air force base right next the Tehran and most of Iran's major cities have a military base in close proximity. Do you remember the big deal everyone was making about the US developing "mini-nukes" a few years ago "to get at hardened positions"? These kind of situations are exactly what they're for. "Small" weapons are terrifying because it's easier to rationalize their use.

Atomic war is ugly and there's a reason the escalation sequence is made public information.


If they did then delivering a nuke to the US is easy. You could bring it in on a fishing boat to Canada and drive it across the border. You can fit one in a suitcase.

Iran isn't at a "briefcase nuke" point yet unless they're buying them from Russia. It takes decades of actual testing (the kind you see from space) to get the fuel load and detonation mechanism that small and have it operate reliably. The last thing you'd want to do is to start an atomic exchange and not have your first strike go off.

If someone was going the fishing boat route they'd detonate the ~4 ton device in the boat. This is one of those things where you'd really want the reliability size brings.





Aronnax added to this post, 12 minutes and 41 seconds later...

3 sounds the most plausible for its subtlety and possibility of hijack.

I agree, is there any chance of the bomb arriving anonymously?

Anonymity is possible but when the populous starts screaming for blood leaders fear for their power...

The combinations of an angry public and a frightened leader is a recipe for disaster. The blame will end up somewhere; think about how easy it was to justify invading Iraq with only a few thousand unrelated deaths and flimsy evidence.

[Homini Lupus]

I remember I read sometimes ago in "foreign affairs" about the problem of controllong that nuclear devices or other similar threats don't get into the US through their southern or northern border, but I don't know very much about the real situation in those areas.

[Octavianus Caesar]

There was a cleric in Egypt, that said "it is the duty of all Muslim nations to obtain nuclear weapons". Iran will most likely buy missiles from Russia and deliver them on those.

As some speculate, Israel or the US will take out the plants by the end of the year. If that does not happen, then I think that will embolden the Iranians to continue their nuclear process.

[Homini Lupus]

I think it's the war against Iraq that emboldened Iran and took us to this point. Iraq was it's most likely potential enemy while now its shiite population is a tool wich can be used by Iran. After all, even if they are of a different race, with the civil war Iran looks to some of them as the only possibility.

[Karamazov]

MAD's powers are limited and are continuing to be limited by the Supreme Ayatollah due to the boisterous rhetoric but most importantly, a growing impatience to his economic policy that has resulted in grinding inflation, including rolling blackouts this past winter. Tehran is experiencing shifts in power with the public largely dissatisfied, so a large scale nuclear attack or buying and selling of any components is most likely not on the itinerary.

Iranians and Iraqis, no matter what religious affiliation or common cause, won't be uniting anytime so. Two totally different cultures, including lingering resentment stemming from the Iran/Iraq war.

[Octavianus Caesar]

MAD's powers are limited and are continuing to be limited by the Supreme Ayatollah due to the boisterous rhetoric but most importantly, a growing impatience to his economic policy that has resulted in grinding inflation, including rolling blackouts this past winter. Tehran is experiencing shifts in power with the public largely dissatisfied, so a large scale nuclear attack or buying and selling of any components is most likely not on the itinerary.

Iranians and Iraqis, no matter what religious affiliation or common cause, won't be uniting anytime so. Two totally different cultures, including lingering resentment stemming from the Iran/Iraq war.

I think you under estimate President AJ, he is a fanatic, he is willing to destroy his whole country if it can bring about the rise of the Mahdi, which means he will willing to lose Tehran if it means he can destroy an Israeli City with a Nuke.

Russia was not a fanatical nation, they knew that if one nuke went off an American nuke would follow theirs. MAD can not work with Iran, that is why they must be stopped and their project destroyed.

President AJ wants Israel "liberated" what that means is that every Jew on "Israel territory" is removed and it is given back to a Islamic power. Israel is considered Islamic territory and the Jews are trespassing and AJ is willing to use Nukes to bring out their destruction.

[Karamazov]

I think you under estimate President AJ, he is a fanatic, he is willing to destroy his whole country if it can bring about the rise of the Mahdi, which means he will willing to lose Tehran if it means he can destroy an Israeli City with a Nuke.

Russia was not a fanatical nation, they knew that if one nuke went off an American nuke would follow theirs. MAD can not work with Iran, that is why they must be stopped and their project destroyed.

President AJ wants Israel "liberated" what that means is that every Jew on "Israel territory" is removed and it is given back to a Islamic power. Israel is considered Islamic territory and the Jews are trespassing and AJ is willing to use Nukes to bring out their destruction.

I think you greatly overestimate and exaggerate this so-called threat by a man who's political power is slowly eroding. There is a discrepancy between wishful thinking and carbon-based reality, so when MAD makes such statements, perhaps you should take into account that he can't really...erm...do anything about it. As I've said, the Supreme Ayatollah and other high ranking officials make those kinds of decisions when it comes to military action (which, face it, won't happen). Tehran, even at it's most zealous after the hostage crisis, never attacked another country. The economic sanctions alone have caused enough damage, leaving him a very unpopular head of state. Like I've said before, striking a another nation which would, in effect, destroy Iran, is not on the itinerary.

[Octavianus Caesar]

I think you greatly overestimate and exaggerate this so-called threat by a man who's political power is slowly eroding. There is a discrepancy between wishful thinking and carbon-based reality, so when MAD makes such statements, perhaps you should take into account that he can't really...erm...do anything about it. As I've said, the Supreme Ayatollah and other high ranking officials make those kinds of decisions when it comes to military action (which, face it, won't happen). Tehran, even at it's most zealous after the hostage crisis, never attacked another country. The economic sanctions alone have caused enough damage, leaving him a very unpopular head of state. Like I've said before, striking a another nation which would, in effect, destroy Iran, is not on the itinerary.

I think we got our terms mixed up: MAD to you is President AJ, I interpreted MAD as mutually assured destruction. So my argument was assuming they have Nukes and why MAD would not work.

Last time the world underestimated a nobody leader, we got WWII.

I would rather he be overestimated then under. That way we don't have a nuclear holocaust to deal with because of it.

Israel will strike Iran with or without permission from anyone. Bush, seems to have indicated he may strike Iran before leaving office. So either way someone will strike them.

[Karamazov]

I think we got our terms mixed up: MAD to you is President AJ, I interpreted MAD as mutually assured destruction. So my argument was assuming they have Nukes and why MAD would not work.

Last time the world underestimated a nobody leader, we got WWII.

I would rather he be overestimated then under. That way we don't have a nuclear holocaust to deal with because of it.

Israel will strike Iran with or without permission from anyone. Bush, seems to have indicated he may strike Iran before leaving office. So either way someone will strike them.

That's understandable but It's still too early to call.

[jesse]

I think you greatly overestimate and exaggerate this so-called threat by a man who's political power is slowly eroding. There is a discrepancy between wishful thinking and carbon-based reality, so when MAD makes such statements, perhaps you should take into account that he can't really...erm...do anything about it. As I've said, the Supreme Ayatollah and other high ranking officials make those kinds of decisions when it comes to military action (which, face it, won't happen). Tehran, even at it's most zealous after the hostage crisis, never attacked another country. The economic sanctions alone have caused enough damage, leaving him a very unpopular head of state. Like I've said before, striking a another nation which would, in effect, destroy Iran, is not on the itinerary.

The type of rhetoric employed by leaders in the region is typical, but that is jus t what it is: hot air and big threats. I would truly be surprised if the old men in the guardian council would attempt such a foolish feat as to declare war and actually go all-out against Israel.

Whether or not the economic sanctions work, they are unlikely to bear any effect on the leadership and elite of Iranian society. The common citizen bears the brunt in most cases as most economic sanctions and embargos have shown over the last 50 years. Iran's power apparatus however has it in their interest to keep the populace at least somewhat content, otherwise their aggressive rhetoric does nothing, well, maybe apart from looking fantastic in the sensation press.