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. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,555
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,274
    You really think they care about what we say? They are about actions and the "lack thereof" speaks volumes to those haters looking to bomb Israel with a nuke. That is... if you believe in 'their' words they'll nuke Israel
  2. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,511
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,276
    I'm not a neocon though and pretty sure you know that. As far as ramping up the rhetoric goes: do we have any particular reason to trust Iran? They've flaunted their promises and their word on this subject over the past two decades...and now that they're on the precipice of obtaining a nuclear weapon and have all but acknowledged as much with the peace talks--we're supposed to take them at their word?

    Even if we want to genuinely try--prudence would also dictate that there be some awareness of the consequences for violating any agreement. If the Iranians get huffy about it--well, eff them, they're not serious. We have no reason to trust them and they darn well know it.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  3. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,788
    Likes Received:
    855
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,051
    I'm sorry but I am in total disagreement with you on this. If Iran nukes Israel the uproar in this country from both sides of the aisle would force our response and it would be disastrous for Iran. I really don't think they are willing to bet their whole country on such an iffy gamble. They are not the Taliban but a very old civilization with some pretty smart people from what I have read.
  4. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,154
    Likes Received:
    4,059
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +5,922
    I know you are not. Never thought otherwise. I respect your opinions on such matters. I guess I should clarify better; in replying to you, I was making a general statement just to point out why maybe we (as a society) shouldn't be so quick to trust the neocon warmongering argument.

    To answer your question, I can think of one decent reason, Iran is a member state of the UN and to a considerable extent, this contains them. While they want power in the region, no doubt, since they can't really get it through legit means right now, they can exert it in other ways. This is why they play these little cat and mouse games and why they try to keep their fingerprints off of the violence in the region that they do sponsor. And I also believe, like Saddam, they want others in the region to constantly think they are close to having a nuke as a way to create a false impression of their being stronger than they truly are. What I don't believe though is that they are crazy or have some societal suicide mission. They might be super religious and their thinking might be at odds with western thinking, they are reasonable enough to know they would be crushed, and ultimately they would be crushed if they used one.
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2014
  5. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,511
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,276
    A full nuclear response? That I sincerely doubt would be a decision that would be done easily. And, in any case, it would be too late for Israel for the reasons I mentioned. A surprise attack on Israel could eliminate the vast majority of the country and the vast majority of its nuclear weapons--which no one has even attempted to contradict.

    I have no doubt we'd react to some degree. Both sides of the aisle would denounce the attacks and we'd do something, no doubt.

    But nuking the Iranians into the Stone Age? That I don't see without significant international support--and arriving at that consensus won't be easy or a short process either.
  6. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,788
    Likes Received:
    855
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,051

    OK, we'll just have to disagree.

    As I stated earlier I 'm sure not in favor of Iran getting nukes but I don't think sanctions are going to stop them and I'm not sure anything short of military strikes will do it. That would run the risk of another large conflict in and of itself.
  7. RayGator
    Online

    RayGator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    40,402
    Likes Received:
    507
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Lakeland, Florida USA.
    Ratings Received:
    +1,215
    Honestly, IMHO, it's not a question of IF as it is WHEN? I think it will happen at some point in time. If it hasn't already. And since Jews are hated so much, commonly referred to as PIGS by the Islamist terrorists, I have no doubt your option #4. will be their first priority. And I also have no doubt the government of Israel holds that belief also. They won't be asleep.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,558
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,692
    And if the alternatives are "military strikes to disrupt their program" or "Iran has nuclear weapons", there can't be an actual choice there, even if one allows themselves to dither for a bit. Seriously, a near permanent detente held by intermittent cruise missile strikes or bombings to whackamole their nuclear dreams is preferable to Iran being a nuclear military power (note, their ability to respond is a LOT less significant if this were to happen before and instead of them being a nuclear state, for reasons I hope are obvious).

    But even in the paradigm of trying to use diplomatic and economic leverage to dissuade them, even that can only work if Iran understands that they have to deal with us to avoid those strikes. Right now, they don't actually believe anybody besides maybe Israel would dare actually, physically stop them trying to advance toward being a nuclear power, and that's why they can afford to indulge a deal but then flout any sense that it binds them and just generally be a big bag of dicks about everything because there is nothing worse that's going to happen besides us making additional entreaties.

    At the very least, there has always been the notion that Israel would do it, but during this administration it's actually started to feel more like, if anything, we'd prevent Israel from doing it rather than just remaining politely silent -- may already have, even, depending on what one makes of various events over the past couple years.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,788
    Likes Received:
    855
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,051

    I think you would agree that Iran is not going to sit idly by while we, or Israel, attack them. That is nothing short of an act of war. Now they might not launch a military counter strike but there are many ways they can hurt us. It only took a couple of brothers with homemade devices to bring Boston to a virtual standstill and we know what can happen with a well thought out plan. While we can't hunker down in a hole and allow them to dictate terms to us we can use discretion in how we use our military and I personally believe there are going to be some serious ramifications to an attack on their sites. It could very well escalate into a full blown war with the biggest part of the Mideast involved. And it is worthwhile to keep in mind we are going to be seen as the perps responsible for starting the whole brouhaha.

    Things are not done in a vacuum. There are reactions to any action and there are repercussions which could result in things occurring we haven't even discussed yet.
  10. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,058
    Likes Received:
    466
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,543
    My estimate is that there is not going to be any kind of strike on Iran under this President.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,558
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,692
    Sure it's an act of war -- but the entire point is to limit Iran's ability to project power that can harm us or our allies in the first place. Same as how we could bomb Libya, or how Clinton could launch cruise missiles in the vague direction of bin Laden, etc, without us suddenly being "at war" with Libya or the Sudan, etc. Iran can't invade us, they can't blockade our ports, etc. And the entire point of the exercise would be to prevent them from having nuclear weapons, or the means to deliver them ballistically.

    Besides which, I can't imagine any math in which given the binary choice between "reaction to a strike" and "Iran as a nuclear state" favors letting them become a nuclear state. Our foreign policy with Iran should be "you will not have nuclear weapons, and that can go easier or harder, either an open hand or a closed fist." Or "agree, respect, and comply with bagging nuclear development or we'll blast your program's capabilities backwards a couple decades" vs. "we're blasting your programs capabilities backwards a couple decades because it's just simpler".

    What I perceive from this administration is a sense of resignation to a nuclear Iran and even a sort of indignity that just because a nuclear Iran is obviously not in our national interests that we somehow are so arrogant as to consider preventing it (forgetting for instance that "our national interests" is the exclusive and complete job description of our foreign policy, or is supposed to be).
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,511
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,276
    While I'm in agreement with what Michi has been saying here...there are a few other options that could be done short of attacking them.

    One: tighten the sanctions noose even tighter. Iran's economy is still in the dumps and their desperate enough for some relief that they're talking to us. Sanctions and further isolating Iran is preferable to war--but also runs the risk of them getting the bomb anyway.

    Two: ratchet the attention up on their program, like the US did with exposing the Soviet missiles in Cuba. Part of why that was a victory for US foreign policy was because Kennedy managed to get world opinion on our side--which the Russians realized and backed down.

    Speaking of the Cuban missile crisis: the distance from central Iran to Israel is 1100 miles (parts of Iran are even closer). The distance from central Cuba to Washington DC is 1200 miles. For those continuing to say that any concept of MAD as we understood it would apply to Iran-Israel, keep that in mind: that was the basis for the entire American argument for Russia taking those missile out of Cuba--the fact that having missiles that close would eliminate the concept of MAD and tip the balance of power.
  13. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,058
    Likes Received:
    466
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,543
    A progression for concern to me is: nuclear bomb development; ability to make it smaller over time; co-current development of cruise missile system; use of any sea capable ships as platform for cruise missile launch; no need to imagine the remainder of the possibilites for the "death to America" crowd.

    Much, much worse than the Cuba situation, IMHO.
  14. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,788
    Likes Received:
    855
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,051
    Kind of makes you wonder why we don't/didn't bomb NK doesn't it. Of course the answer to that one is clear.
  15. gatorev12
    Offline

    gatorev12 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2009
    Messages:
    11,511
    Likes Received:
    259
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,276
    Not really--the North Koreans are far easier to contain and certainly don't have expansionist aims fueled by religious ideology.

    Iran has a position of far more strategic importance since they can choke off much of the world's oil supply at the Straights of Hormuz--and can blackmail the world into doing what they want as a result, if they so chose. Considering NK ratchets up the war rhetoric every time they want more money/food (and usually gets it), I fail to see why giving a bigger, more populous, and more geostrategically important country like Iran the ability to do the same thing the NKs do but on a larger scale is helpful...
  16. wgbgator
    Offline

    wgbgator Sub-optimal Poster Premium Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2007
    Messages:
    22,223
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,334
    Seems like an Iran that is more of engaged with the world economy would be a less unstable Iran, nuclear or not. The worse case scenario would be an Iran under crippling sanctions and a nuclear weapon - one that is has the potential to slide into failed state territory, like Pakistan.
  17. MichiGator2002
    Online

    MichiGator2002 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    15,558
    Likes Received:
    402
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,692
    Well, they can project power against our allies -- the south. And, yeah, China would be a contentious issue, because any sort of strike on the Norks is sort of like Shooter McGavin hitting the ball off that guy's foot in terms of delicacy. Iran can play that card to deter a nuclear counterattack, most likely, but probably not a conventional attack against their program.

    Rev, I like all of your options, but all of them still rely on the US having the apparent will to fall back on a military option if they are to work at all. I don't think Iran believes we have the will, and what is more, I think convincing them that we don't is an actual policy goal of this administration, under the misguided, naive, ignorant notion that they are only truculent, maybe even only wanting a nuclear weapon at all because we are so awful and mean.
  18. DaveFla
    Offline

    DaveFla Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    18,259
    Likes Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +909
    So, what's wrong with my answer? How was it "flippant" Hall. I mean, Iran has expressed the desire to Inilate Iran before...

    Now, try to focus your answer to my question, and NOT directly at me personally...
  19. HallGator
    Online

    HallGator Administrator VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    42,788
    Likes Received:
    855
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Outer Limits
    Ratings Received:
    +3,051
    North Korea could threaten SK, Japan, and the Sea of Japan. To me they are much more radical than the Iranians and led by a total egomaniac who has no clue he is not god.

    The real reason we don't attack NK is because of China. If they weren't there we would have them in our sights.
  20. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    13,623
    Likes Received:
    925
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,713
    history has shown that there are none more radical than those that believe they are doing what their supreme being wants done. The worse wars have always been borne from religion. NK leaders understand that death by martyrdom is not a good thing, not so much with Iranian leaders.

    the best path to avoid conflict was to continue to cripple Iran to the point hat their economy would fall apart and the people would demand that they give up any dreams of nuclear enrichment capabilities. the loyalty of the republican guard and the Quds comes with a financial price and once the ayatollah could no longer pay that price their loyalty would turn. we have now given the ayatollah the means necessary to insure their loyalty for an extended period of time, or at least long enough for them to complete their heavy water reactor before the inspectors get thrown out,....again.

    we were well down the path of removing the ayatollah ability to buy loyalty and sponsor terrorism before 0 decided he needed another peace prize. loosening the sanctions on Iran only moves Iran closer to nuclear weapons and therefore the entire region closer to war.

Share This Page