If Iran gets a nuke, what do they do with it?

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by OklahomaGator, Jan 24, 2014.

  1. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    Yet we've already proven that we can get into what is nearly a perpetual state of war in the region without any positive accomplishments. Nothing says nonsense war then when junior needed to whip his little pecker out to avenge some childhood fantasy revenge about Saddam not liking daddy. What this is is aggression dressed up as the next supposedly inevitable bogeyman. But when it comes to war, the chicken hawks sure like to cluck the loudest. But by definition, they aren't the ones with any skin in the game.

    We also shouldn't be led by Israel's perpetual fear as a reason to involve American lives and treasure on some preemptive folly. We can't just assume that Iran would do anything with a nuke besides house it and try to be a bigger bully. We should be concerned of course about how that might destabilize the region as ben put it, but here again though, we need not going jumping headlong into war based upon such worries. The real crappy thing about this is that Israel would probably just unilaterally strike first thus dragging us in anyway, and then what we get is more war based on cartoonish perceptions of Iranian leadership as being nuts.
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2014
    • Winner Winner x 1
  2. chompalot
    Online

    chompalot Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    9,325
    Likes Received:
    113
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +479
    I get it, but I don't think what you said will sink very far in for the neocons and the Christian-right on here, though. They're guarded by their bubble and are hell-bent on war.
    • Boring Boring x 3
    • Like Like x 1
  3. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    44,873
    Likes Received:
    1,178
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +4,541
    We look at those who are saber-rattling in Iran but just how does it look when the Rep nominee is going around singing "Bomb, bomb, Iran?" How does it make them feel? There is more than one side to the mess we find ourselves in in the Mideast and it is a long way from being all on them.
    • Like Like x 1
  4. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    Well that is just as much a concern. These are the same people who brought us Iraq war folly--who never seem to lose any appetite for war. And I am not a pacifist either, and I know that Iran's recent comments about the wording of the agreement is a legit cause for concern. I just don't think we start ratcheting up a clucking about war so quickly because of their posturing.
  5. OklahomaGator
    Online

    OklahomaGator Moderator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    36,412
    Likes Received:
    1,619
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Miami, OK
    Ratings Received:
    +3,240
    I don't think Iran wii give a bomb to terrorists. I wouldn't put it past them to give some nuclear material for a dirty bomb.
  6. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,797
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,679
    To answer the OP: what will Iran do if they get it? Well, three things will happen--none of them good for the US or for the M.E.

    1.) they intend to use it (either directly or via proxy) to take out Israel; one-up the Saudis for regional control in the Sunni-Shi'a ideological war (think: the 30 years war in Europe between the Protestants and Catholics); and hope to establish a regional caliphate, like their hard-liners have long agitated for.

    2.) they intend to use their nukes as an implied threat of force to strong-arm their foreign policy goals in the region; waging proxy wars with Israel and the Saudis with impunity (there'd be no need to jump through hoops like they do now: they could arm proxies directly and face zero threat of conventional warfare by way of response); and blackmail regional countries into compliance by sheer virtue of them having nukes and the ability to spike worldwide oil prices at their leisure.

    3.) they're just for self-defense purposes and they have no real desire to use it. Even so, Iran having weapons will spark the Saudis into action to acquire their own--and/or the US will be forced into strengthening our ties with the Kingdom and establishing a security pact with them to ensure that any attack on the Kingdom will be seen as an attack on the US (a NATO-type arrangement that goes far, far beyond what we have now and only deepens our ties to the area).

    No matter what: the US will have to significantly boost our presence in the area in all major arenas: diplomatically, militarily, and economically. A nuclear-armed Iran will be disastrous for the region and for the US, no matter which way you spin it.
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
  7. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,797
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,679
    Their hard-liners have long said that doing so would bring back the return of the Mahdi (their version of the second-coming). The "Twelvers" believe that after a period of turmoil in the M.E., the Mahdi will reveal himself, establish peace and justice--along with the rightful governance of Islam.

    Not all Shi'a Muslims subscribe to this theory. But a majority of those that do are in Iran--and Iran's theological leaders have long been the most hard-core adherents to the theory.

    If radical religious beliefs form the core of one's thinking; well, then you have a plausible reason why a country would gamble so greatly. It is certainly not a Western type of thinking or a Christian type of thinking either. It's part of a faith that celebrates martyrdom in a way that most Christians have rejected long ago.
    • Winner Winner x 1
  8. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,797
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,679
    Several people have said "MAD" exists in this scenario. It's a Cold War-type of mentality that doesn't apply to Iran-Israel in the slightest.

    Israel is a small country, with finite amounts of land, and finite amounts of places to hide nuclear weapons. Unless Israel's nuclear arsenal is on 24-7 alert (which is impossible to maintain for any length of time--not even the US could manage it much more than two weeks even at the height of the Cold War with virtually unlimited defense budgets), they'd quite literally, have no time for a counter-strike. Israel is about 5-8 minutes from Iran for a medium-ranged ICBM. That's not enough time to fuel Israel's nuclear missiles in time to launch a counter-strike. Only the missiles that are armed AND fueled would be able to be launched. Again--it's impossible to keep a nuclear arsenal at that level of readiness for very long. Especially not for a small country like Israel--it's too expensive, even if they wanted to.

    As a result, a "first-strike" ability is possible. All Iran would have to worry about is whatever nuclear weapons that were armed and fueled at the time they started their raid (even assuming 2-3 at any given time, Iran would only lose about a dozen cities and could easily still be around)--and whatever nukes that would be at sea in one of their four submarines.

    You're absolutely right that, even if they didn't want to use a nuke on Israel, the fact that they have the strategic advantage would enable them to do whatever they want with respect to funding and arming Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel would have their hands full fending off concerted attacks from those two--who occupy a lot of fortified land in Lebanon from which to attack Israel.
    • Informative Informative x 1
  9. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,797
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,679
    Agreed. IF, hypothetically, Iran nukes Israel and manages to avoid serious counter-strikes...who would respond?

    Russia, India, North Korea, and China wouldn't. I doubt Pakistan would--even if the Saudis begged them to.

    Neither France or the UK would do it on their own, independent of world opinion.

    Which leaves the US--and whoever's in office at that moment in time. Keep in mind: we aren't obligated to nuke anyone for Israel's sake, even if a grievous injustice was done. Honestly, I highly doubt any US President would respond with a full nuclear strike on Iran without first gauging world opinion.
  10. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,797
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,679
    Cute.

    Anything to criticize conservatives and Republicans, eh chomp?

    Difference being: the crazies who would consider starting WWIII to speed up the "second coming" aren't in power in this country. Far, far from it (and thank God for that). Unlike Iran.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,840
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,285
    So we can agree that two likely outcomes of Iran gaining a nuclear weapon would be:

    1) Increasing support for Hamas and Hezbollah to overthrow the Israeli government. Iran would probably increase its "foreign policy" support in other regional conflicts, as well, including Syria and Iraq. It may well be possible that Iran's restraint is the only thing keeping a lid on Iraq right now. They have been supporting Iraqi insurgents since 2003. If they can shut down Iraq's oil production, it makes their own oil that much more valuable.

    2) Saudi Arabia would immediately begin its own nuclear weapons program. The Saudis do not like Iran and do not trust Iran. Would the U.S. declare sanctions on Saudi Arabia to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon under these circumstances? Of course not. If Iraq ever recovers enough to have a stable government and economy, they will not like being next door to two nuclear powers, and they will start developing nuclear weapons. So that will give us four nuclear powers in the middle east (five if you include Pakistan). Not a good situation, especially given their recent history of conflict.

    Iran would not nuke Israel if there was any long-term damage to Jerusalem, which is one of the Islamic holy sites. The whole middle east would be up in arms, as would the clerics in Iran. The Israeli government is in Tel Aviv, so that might be a target if it can be done without affecting Jerusalem.
  12. chemgator
    Offline

    chemgator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    8,840
    Likes Received:
    262
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,285
    Sorry, son, but the decision to invade Iraq was the right one. The subsequent decisions that lost the war in Iraq will be a textbook example of what not to do for centuries to come in West Point, much like the lessons learned in Vietnam. Rummy the Dummy will go down in history as one of the worst SECDEF's since Lincoln's time, along with McNamara. Had the war been properly managed, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Your "neocons" would be viewed by historians as having the correct answer to the Iraqi problem. As you get older and more mature, you'll be able to separate the decision to go to war from the decision on how to prosecute the war.
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    44,873
    Likes Received:
    1,178
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +4,541

    Based on their past I just don't see this. While they may well sponsor terrorism what have they done to show they have a death wish for the whole country? I don't think they are so stupid as to believe they can just unleash nukes and that would be the end of the story. Retaliation is very likely and in a real exchange they are not going to be anything but a radiation zone.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  14. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    44,873
    Likes Received:
    1,178
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +4,541
    I'm older and I think the decision was a stupid waste of men and money. Not to mention destroying a buffer to Iran.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    Didn't realize you were such a comedian, chem :D

    The historical record about the disastrous war speaks for itself. Claims to the contrary do not demonstrate a mature mind or analytical superiority, but delusional thinking.
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2014
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,797
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,679
    But it wouldn't necessarily be a death wish or suicidal. Again, Iran can wipe out most of Israel's counter-strike capability and major cities (Tel Aviv and Haifa) before the Israelis have time to respond. It only takes minutes for ICBMs to travel the distance.

    Unless Israel is on full alert 24-7 (which is impossible), a first-strike that is successful is possible.

    And, if Israel doesn't nuke them, who will? We can eliminate the Russians, Chinese, North Koreans, Indians, Pakistanis, French, and the Brits. Which leaves only America--and I honestly cannot see an American President engaging in a nuclear counter strike that didn't involve a direct attack on America or one of our NATO allies.

    So you say they wouldn't be suicidal, but is it really that easy?
  17. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    34,762
    Likes Received:
    2,809
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,821
    They'll blachmail the United States of America for money to "secure them properly" and to add insult to injury, every other middle-east state will want a nuke of their own... This will make the middle-east the most dangerous place on Earth. Moreso than just jihadists with bombs strapped to their belts.. They'll have nukes for sale to the highest bidder. And that is where we bite on the blackmail again... by buying these people off.

    Even the Russians have played this game of free money for "securing their nukes properly" extorion game...
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2014
  18. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    Should they get a weapon, preemptively striking Iran seems to me just as bad as Israel getting hit first by them. I don't pretend to know with any certainty though what best course is but I don't think this ramping up the rhetoric to strike them helps.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  19. gatorev12
    Online

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,797
    Likes Received:
    330
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,679
    When have I ever said, in any thread, that we should strike them?
  20. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    I didn't say you. But we both know that we've had a number of periods in the past decade in which the neocon rhetoric has been ramped up, which was what I was writing too 'generally.'

Share This Page