Iran's WMD - Still No Evidence?

**zraver** · 04 Nov 08,, 23:03

Originally Posted by Traxus

I think Iran having nuclear weapons is not itself dangerous. There is a common argument that Iran will nuke Israel or some such, because their leaders are "crazy". However states that obtain nuclear weapons have a way of being rather cautious.

Who ever put that silly idea in your head? The US and USSR almost went to war 3 times over nukes, only 1 of those times was a direct confrontation. China gave Pakistan nukes and then watched India and Pakistan face off in what could easily have spiraled out of control. The USSR gave China nukes, only to have Mao tell Moscow to take a hike, France attacked Greenpeace to set off a nuke, France and the US supplied Israel with the materials to build the bomb, only to know be held hostage in part by any Israeli nuclear action. Possessing nukes does not make a government more cautious or smarter.

The proliferation of nuclear weapons is something the world is going to have to get used to. As time goes on and nations become more industrialized, nuclear weapons will be within reach for more and more countries. It is inevitable that more countries will attempt to develop them.

Nuke 1 or 2 as an object lesson and they won't. Nuclear weapons are only attractive because the costs do not outweigh the perceived benefits. increase the costs and they lose thier appeal. The way Iran is going, they may well end up the object lesson of the 21st century.

**Traxus** · 04 Nov 08,, 23:32

Originally Posted by zraver

because you said, "

Possession of just 1 warhead that fits on a missile is a threat to Israel it cannot tolerate and it will strike first, or the US will. 1 system is simply not enough to ensure MAD, but it is enough to invite attack. But the problem is even worse for Iran. To have a nuclear deterrent you need to detonate a device. Bu tthe first device detonated probably won't be a deliverable warhead, although it might be a bomb. So even if it works, Iran still has to move from prototype to missile warhead. The window between Iran's Trinity Moment and a feilded nuclear BM force begs for an attack.

Agreed, except that I don't think a strike on Iran is absolutely guaranteed, although it is pretty likely if they were to get a nuke.

No P5 member is going to ally with Iran. Iran with its outdated technology and pipsqueak economy is a client never an equal.

If Iran were to get a nuke then nations would have different reasons for their alliances. I don't think its likely in the short term.

Lots of detonations so far from kiloton to 50 megaton range- no disasters yet. Now if the US or Israel nukes Iran it would be a disaster for Iran, but not for anyone else.

I meant that if nuclear weapons were to be used, then they would be back into the category of weapons that can actually be used during the normal conduct of war. Currently using a nuke as a weapon is pretty well unthinkable, the world would be justifiably outraged. If a nuke was used though, probably a low yield tactical nuke, then they would become more acceptable as weapons. A new arms race would begin as countries got more nukes. In my opinion weapons that powerful should absolutely not be used on this planet, there is way too much room for horrendous escalation, environmental damage, nuclear fallout, and loss of life.

**Traxus** · 04 Nov 08,, 23:37

Originally Posted by zraver

Who ever put that silly idea in your head? The US and USSR almost went to war 3 times over nukes, only 1 of those times was a direct confrontation. China gave Pakistan nukes and then watched India and Pakistan face off in what could easily have spiraled out of control. The USSR gave China nukes, only to have Mao tell Moscow to take a hike, France attacked Greenpeace to set off a nuke, France and the US supplied Israel with the materials to build the bomb, only to know be held hostage in part by any Israeli nuclear action. Possessing nukes does not make a government more cautious or smarter.

Yet no nuclear weapon has been used since Nagasaki. The US and the USSR were enemies, and in previous times would have probably gone to war with each other. Nuclear weapons meant that direct military confrontation was too dangerous for either party to initiate. This is hardly a hard and fast rule, but that no nuclear weapon has been used in anger in over 60 years suggests that nuclear nations do not use them recklessly.

Nuke 1 or 2 as an object lesson and they won't. Nuclear weapons are only attractive because the costs do not outweigh the perceived benefits. increase the costs and they lose thier appeal. The way Iran is going, they may well end up the object lesson of the 21st century.

Do you actually think that nuking "1 or 2" countries to dissuade them from getting nukes is a good idea?

**zraver** · 04 Nov 08,, 23:46

Originally Posted by Traxus

Agreed, except that I don't think a strike on Iran is absolutely guaranteed, although it is pretty likely if they were to get a nuke.

Then how do you justify this,

If they got sufficient nuclear weapons/long range missiles then they would have an effective deterrent against the US. That or an alliance with another nuclear power.

There is a huge capability gap between demonstration and deployed arsenal.

If Iran were to get a nuke then nations would have different reasons for their alliances. I don't think its likely in the short term.

Russia and Chin would peel away from Iran. China armed Pakistan to offset India so the PRC could concentrate on the USSR. Iran doe snot fit that mold, nor would Russia welcome a nuclear Iran. Russia might actually be the one to strike, they don't fool around.

I meant that if nuclear weapons were to be used, then they would be back into the category of weapons that can actually be used during the normal conduct of war.

That is where they are now.

Currently using a nuke as a weapon is pretty well unthinkable, the world would be justifiably outraged.

If it was unthinkable, we would not be having this conversation. And as far as the world is concerned- so what? If valid interests of the great powers decree that a smaller power is to be rubbed out that will simply be the way it is. World opinion means zero to a P5 member.

If a nuke was used though, probably a low yield tactical nuke, then they would become more acceptable as weapons.

If your going to go, go all the way. if a great power decides that Iran has to be purged with fire- then glass the entire country. The anger will be the same, and the long term effects will mean more than piddly-widdly tactical weapons.

A new arms race would begin as countries got more nukes.

If Iran gets glassed for seeking nukes, not many other countries will want them- the risks will be to great.

In my opinion weapons that powerful should absolutely not be used on this planet, there is way too much room for horrendous escalation, environmental damage, nuclear fallout, and loss of life.

Welcome to MAD, I grew up with it.

**~~Zemco~~** · 05 Nov 08,, 00:32

Originally Posted by zraver

Who ever put that silly idea in your head? The US and USSR almost went to war 3 times over nukes, only 1 of those times was a direct confrontation.

There was never a direct confrontation and the US and Soviet Union never "almost went to war 3 times over nukes."

Originally Posted by zraver

China gave Pakistan nukes and then watched India and Pakistan face off in what could easily have spiraled out of control.

Was that a hallucination you had while smoking crystal meth?

The US, Canada and France supplied Pakistan with its nuclear reactors and all the separation and enrichment equipment.

Originally Posted by zraver

The USSR gave China nukes, only to have Mao tell Moscow to take a hike

What is this, make it up as you go along day?

China got their nukes indirectly from the US via Hong Kong through the British.

Originally Posted by zraver

France and the US supplied Israel with the materials to build the bomb, only to know be held hostage in part by any Israeli nuclear action.

The Israelis stole 100% of everything related to nuclear weapons by spying. The US and France didn't help them with anything. In fact, the greatest espionage coup in history was when the CIA set up a front company to buy titanium from the Soviet Union to build the SR-71. That was bested years later when the Mossad set up a front company to buy tritium from the US.

You need to brush up on your history of things nuclear.

**Officer of Engineers** · 05 Nov 08,, 00:35

What the hell? You yourself admitted that Iran bought a Chinese nuclear warhead blueprint from AQ Khan. You're a troll. And the Chinese got their weapons knowledge from Moscow, you damne twit.

**Kansas Bear** · 05 Nov 08,, 01:20

Originally Posted by Zemco

The US, Canada and France supplied Pakistan with its nuclear reactors and all the separation and enrichment equipment.

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/pakistan/nuke/

Read, learn, comprehend

**Traxus** · 06 Nov 08,, 01:03

Originally Posted by zraver

Then how do you justify this,

There is a huge capability gap between demonstration and deployed arsenal.

I was talking about the hypothetical. How would Iran be allowed to get nukes and the missiles to carry them? I have no idea. But its not like it would be the first time a country unfriendly to the US got nukes and got away with it.

Russia and Chin would peel away from Iran. China armed Pakistan to offset India so the PRC could concentrate on the USSR. Iran doe snot fit that mold, nor would Russia welcome a nuclear Iran. Russia might actually be the one to strike, they don't fool around.

Whatever, its impossible to be able to predict the future like this. May go this way, may not. Its a minor point anyway.

That is where they are now.

Um, no. I'm sure military commanders consider them to be just like any other weapons, I'm sure there are scenarios in which they would be used. But nukes are not like other weapons. Again I'll point out that only two nukes have ever been used in anger. None since WW2. There is a massive stigma against using them, even though a low yeild tactical nuke may be similar in destructive power to a very large conventional bomb. The conventional bomb is used, the nuke is not. If nuke are acceptable to use, why has no nation done so since WW2?

If it was unthinkable, we would not be having this conversation. And as far as the world is concerned- so what? If valid interests of the great powers decree that a smaller power is to be rubbed out that will simply be the way it is. World opinion means zero to a P5 member.

I'd like to think that if any nation were to use nukes there would be massive sanctions placed against that country. Naive probably, but it would certainly create a huge amount of hate for the country that used them, and rightfully so.

If your going to go, go all the way. if a great power decides that Iran has to be purged with fire- then glass the entire country. The anger will be the same, and the long term effects will mean more than piddly-widdly tactical weapons.

If Iran gets glassed for seeking nukes, not many other countries will want them- the risks will be to great.

I truly hope that will never happen. If any country were to do that I would take up arms against them; it would be the greatest evil ever unleashed, and we would destroy our planet if we adopted this mindset.

Welcome to MAD, I grew up with it.

MAD is fine. If MAD applied to Iran then there would be no problem. Nobody attacks, because they cannot expect to win. The danger with nukes comes when things are unbalanced.

**zraver** · 07 Nov 08,, 20:47

Originally Posted by Traxus

I was talking about the hypothetical. How would Iran be allowed to get nukes and the missiles to carry them? I have no idea. But its not like it would be the first time a country unfriendly to the US got nukes and got away with it.

It would be the first a country not allied with a nuclear power got them.

[quote]Whatever, its impossible to be able to predict the future like this. May go this way, may not. Its a minor point anyway.[/qoute]

Russia has taken almost half of historical Persia already. Russia will go to war to keep Iran from getting nukes that might fall into hands that seek harm to Russia.

Um, no. I'm sure military commanders consider them to be just like any other weapons, I'm sure there are scenarios in which they would be used. But nukes are not like other weapons. Again I'll point out that only two nukes have ever been used in anger. None since WW2. There is a massive stigma against using them, even though a low yeild tactical nuke may be similar in destructive power to a very large conventional bomb. The conventional bomb is used, the nuke is not. If nuke are acceptable to use, why has no nation done so since WW2?

Nuclear weapons have been used, just not in direct combat. In the Korean War the US Army released pictures of US Infantry charging towards a mushroom cloud, what message did that send to the PRC? In 67 and 73 the USSR tried to save Egypt, each time the US said ok, ready to go to war with us? In 1991 Saddam was told in no uncertain terms that gas on coalition troops equaled nukes in Baghdad. Russia just said Poland and the Cezch Rep are now nuclear targets.

Every single time this threat of nuclear use is made, those making it must be prepared to honor it or it loses its value.

I'd like to think that if any nation were to use nukes there would be massive sanctions placed against that country. Naive probably, but it would certainly create a huge amount of hate for the country that used them, and rightfully so.

The US is not going to put under sanctions, the world needs our markets and our grains. Without the US your unemployed and hungry.

I truly hope that will never happen. If any country were to do that I would take up arms against them; it would be the greatest evil ever unleashed, and we would destroy our planet if we adopted this mindset.

The danger is not enforcing the peace. When bit countries think they can dictate to the world, its really gotten dangerous. When they walk small out of fear, its safe.

MAD is fine. If MAD applied to Iran then there would be no problem. Nobody attacks, because they cannot expect to win. The danger with nukes comes when things are unbalanced.

If Iran pursues and gets a nuke and gets glassed for, balance will return.

**Traxus** · 09 Nov 08,, 19:39

Originally Posted by zraver

The danger is not enforcing the peace. When bit countries think they can dictate to the world, its really gotten dangerous. When they walk small out of fear, its safe.

If Iran pursues and gets a nuke and gets glassed for, balance will return.

Ah, the good old war for peace. If Iran got "glassed" you would see such an incredibly violent reaction around the world. States may be cowed into inaction, but the populace of such countries would be more than willing to turn to terrorist attacks under such circumstances. I very much doubt any sort of balance would come from that.

**zraver** · 09 Nov 08,, 23:12

Originally Posted by Traxus

Ah, the good old war for peace. If Iran got "glassed" you would see such an incredibly violent reaction around the world. States may be cowed into inaction, but the populace of such countries would be more than willing to turn to terrorist attacks under such circumstances. I very much doubt any sort of balance would come from that.

The problem is I don't see a historical connection to that claim. I am not advocating glassing Iran. Simply trying to project a possible future based on historical similarities. Shock works, enough death will make any population choose peace over war.

**Maeda Toshiie** · 12 Nov 08,, 06:41

Originally Posted by zraver

... Shock works, enough death will make any population choose peace over war.

Something like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when the other side does not have similar means to retaliate?

**Ahriman** · 14 Nov 08,, 13:56

Originally Posted by Traxus

Ah, the good old war for peace. If Iran got "glassed" you would see such an incredibly violent reaction around the world. States may be cowed into inaction, but the populace of such countries would be more than willing to turn to terrorist attacks under such circumstances. I very much doubt any sort of balance would come from that.

Its just a typical way of saying "What? they got bigger balls? Bomb them!" This is a mindset of how in the United States, and we think that we are too invincible and safe if we use such actions without getting harm. Not all of us have this, but majority of the population believe this.

Believe me, the military has a far different view than what sabre rattling you just read.

**Dreadnought** · 14 Nov 08,, 16:31

Originally Posted by Maeda Toshiie

Something like Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when the other side does not have similar means to retaliate?

You leave out the fact that the "other side" was busy working on the very same thing. So you comparrison is a moot point.

**Dreadnought** · 14 Nov 08,, 16:33

Originally Posted by Ahriman

Its just a typical way of saying "What? they got bigger balls? Bomb them!" This is a mindset of how in the United States, and we think that we are too invincible and safe if we use such actions without getting harm. Not all of us have this, but majority of the population believe this.

Believe me, the military has a far different view than what sabre rattling you just read.

Would like to know where you live in the U.S. that has this mindset?

You can speak for the population?

Thread: Iran's WMD - Still No Evidence?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Principles of War for the Battlefield of the Future

So who moved the WMD? Someone did...

Iran to be refered to U.N. Security Council

Why use force when talk works so well?

A Preemptive Attack on Iran's Nuclear Facilities: Possible Consequences

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions