Nuclear weapons used in next 30 years?

[subba]

Ok here goes an estimate of the number of nukes..plus i was wrong on the mating warheads. As per a statement previously by the JS, i think the Agni 2 warheads are kept mated after 2002 op parikrama.

http://www.indiaresearch.org/Indo-USStrategicDeal.pdf

This in addition to get details of warhead capabilities..

Agni [Strategic Ballistic Missile]

[Officer of Engineers]

Part 1 of your question Sir..,

A) I think zero active. Warheads i doubt are mated and kept. I could be dead wrong though again.

B) The number of warheads that could be readily mated to warheads in case of conflict? Dunno again.

C) The number of warheads around 250Kt, 95 vintage 3 stage devices that could be made from potential pu stocks assuming 3 kg per weapon..hard call again sir, but some sources say India has access to around 2500 kg of WGP.

Then by START II definitions, India does not have any nuclear weapons.

[subba]

Then by START II definitions, India does not have any nuclear weapons.

Great..so can we claim the moral high ground too.. :)

[cape_royds]

I don't think you really 'get' the guys in Iran, then.

A-jad is the ideological descendent of Ayatollah Khomeini, so let's let HIM fill us in on how they see all that bad stuff that would happen to 'em if they busted a nuke:



Now, I know it is human nature to flinch when one looks in the face of Evil. But that's going to get us all killed. So, can the ones among us that simply don't have the sack for what's coming PLEASE stop hampering us with their attempts to re-assure themselves that our enemies don't really mean what they say, and let the rest of us that take an enemy at his word get on with it already?

We are dealing with a fanatic and millenerian enemy, one that seeks death, is, in fact, in love with the concept of death on a massive scale. He seeks Paradise through his own death, and although this is hard for a Westerner to get his head around, he is NOT about the Here and the Now, he's about the Sweet By-and-By, the Hereafter. Temporal arrangements, like holding power in Iran or anywhere else is simply of no account whatsoever, except as a means to that end. They embrace death: their own, yours, mine, everybody else's, too.

You need to get ahold of that.

Bluesman, I think events have proven you wrong.

The theocratic regime has been in place in Iran for over a quarter of a century, and they simply haven't started any wars. The only significant conflict they've been involved in was when they were invaded by Iraq.

Now people point to the fact that Iran often used "human wave" tactics during that war as proof somehow that the Iranians are mindless fanatics. But those tactics came out of necessity--Iran lacked spares for its American-made weapons, most of their worldwide assets were frozen, they could only buy arms on the world market using hard cash, and they had limited credit in world financial markets. (None of this is surprising, mind you, since a revolutionary government doesn't exactly get a triple-A rating from Moody's!)

So especially as the war went on, the Iranians had to husband their best-equipped formations, and make increasing use of the main resources they had available, manpower and willpower--with grievous results.

Therefore, even their "fanatical" tactics had a rational strategic basis.

Indeed, Iran's behaviour as a state has conformed to most of the parameters of rational power-politics.

If they were truly death-seeking, they've had plenty of opportunities to get themselves wiped out by starting wars. They could start a war with Israel, the USA, or Russia any time they like! If all that mattered to them was spiritual purity, why haven't they gone to war already?

Answer: they measure the correlation of forces and seek to optimize the rewards for their risks. They don't want to risk destruction in exchange for a negligible result.

However, risk/reward thinking is the hallmark of a rational power-political actor. The Iranians, even under the mullahs, measure risk and reward, and are quite deterrable.

But Iran hasn't even exploited opportunities for lower-risk aggression. Note that Iran stayed out of the Caucasus and trans-Caspia during the unsettled 1990's despite the fact that they have significant national interests in the region, and despite the fact that Russia was very weak at the time. Iran was also more or less hands-off with regard to Afghanistan, which was geopolitically a vaccuum during the 90's. Nor did Iran even try to settle any old scores with a battered and blockaded Iraq.

Now Iran has certainly been involved in a proxy war in Lebanon. But please tell me which country in the Middle East has not been involved in a proxy war in Lebanon!

The very fact that Iran today seeks nuclear weapons indicates the degree to which they respect temporal, worldly power.

Is it out of line for Iran to want nukes? Is this just something a mullah got from a dream?

Not really: even the Shah sought nukes.

Moreover, look at Iran's region. They have three nuclear-armed neighbours or near-neighbours: Russia, Israel, and Pakistan.

All three of those countries have a well-known track record of starting wars. All three of those countries have suffered recent political instability. Russia in particular has openly invaded Iran twice in the past century.

The USA and the UK, imperial powers from outside the region, have each openly invaded Iran once in the past century. The USA and UK have also has invaded Iran's neighbours and maintain strong bases nearby.

This is not to count all the various covert shananigans which I will dismiss as the small change of power-politics. One Mossadegh more or less is no big deal, right?

Let me ask you, then, what rational government, under these current conditions and with this history, would not seek to acquire a nuclear deterrent?

A nuclear deterrent would enable Iran to reduce conventional military expenditure and would release labour resources. Did you know that Iran's population growth is slowing and in a few decades, Iran might be the "greyest" country in the Middle East? Reducing the size of the conventional armed forces makes good sense for Iran.

Nuclear electricity generation would free valuable petroleum resources for export, which would gain more hard currency for capital formation and investment.

Given the rising value of the petroleum resource, it makes sense to deter those who might be tempted to steal it rather than buy it. When you own something that valuable, you'd have to be as stupid as a Canadian to not prepare to defend it!

There's nothing "irrational" about Iran wanting nuclear power and nuclear weapons. You may like their policy, or you may dislike it, but you just cannot call that policy irrational.

That brings me to a final question: what about Ahemdinejad's heated rhetoric? After all, no one can listen to the Iranian president without misgivings.

A few points here:

1. Under Iran's constitution, the President does not control the armed forces. This is unusual in republics, and most people don't know that Iran is different in this way. Ahmedinejad doesn't have a finger on the button.

2. (a) The Iranians know quite well that the USA, other Western powers and Israel will never, under any circumstances, want to see Iran have nukes. It doesn't matter if Iran sent them all flowers, candies, and kisses. Even a bunch of free oil probably wouldn't change their minds. The West will be hostile no matter what, so there's not much to lose by grating on their nerves.

(b) Meanwhile, by seeming to antagonize Israel and the USA and defy the West, Iran can assuage Arab public opinion about Iranian nuclear weapons. (Of course, pro-Western governments in Egypt, KSA, etc. will oppose Iranian nukes, but their publics don't agree with them. Check out page 57 of this link: http://brookings.edu/views/speeches/...i20070208.pdf).

By antagonizing the West, by threatening Israel, and by running the obvious risk of attack from the USA, the Iranians gain credibility in the eyes of the Arabs, as if to say "our nuclear weapons are to protect all of us from outside intervention, and to put pressure on the Zionists."

After all, why else would Arabs tolerate Iranians having nukes?

So Ahmedinejad's threats aren't meant to scare Israelis or influence people in the West. They're directed at a different audience altogether. And it's a line of diplomacy that makes quite a bit of sense.

3. Finally, nuclear deterrence is a funny thing. On the one hand, it's as rational as deterrence can ever get--games theoried and formularized to the max. On the other hand, it also comes down to plain old-fashioned nerves.

Nixon called it the "madman theory." Your prospective adversary must be convinced that you're just a little bit nuts, to hone the nuclear sword to its final edge. Your enemy needs to have the certainty that there is a final limit, and the uncertainty of where exactly that edge lies.

It's also politically very useful to have slavering dogs like Curtis LeMay straining at the leash, for example. They scare the hell out of everybody by saying extreme things. Of course, you keep them away from the big red button, but you don't have to tell your enemies that!

Even things like Ronald Reagan's seeming gaffe, "we start bombing in a few minutes," is all part of the game.

I think Ahmedinejad is part of the game. A rational game. The game of power-politics.

[ExNavyAmerican]

I voted yes. It is inevitable.

[Blademaster]

I know I hate lawyers too.

Does that mean you gonna hate me?

[Officer of Engineers]

Oh I won't hate you for being a lawyer but being a smart-asss?

[Zinja]

Nuclear use in the next 30yrs? Very less likely. Whilst many theorise use by terrorists, there is far too much at stake for their use. No terrorist can pull a nuclear attack without emerse backing of a nuclear producing country, the technology required demands so. And that backing can not be hid because a nuclear detonation leaves a signature in its residue which can be traced to where the nuclear material came from. The supplying nation can be sure to kiss its race good bye in retaliatory strikes (asuming the attack will be to a nuclear power). No 'it's not me, it's the terrorist' can save them. For this reason not even Pak or Iran(if they will have nuclear weapons) would take this risky path.

Will nuclear weapons ever be used? My prediction is a definate 'Yes', but not in the next 30 years, and i would even say not even in the next century. Their best use any time soon would probably be de-bunking Small Tactical Weaponry, nothing major.