IRAN GOES NUCLEAR...SO WHAT?

Avgas

There is much speculation that Iran either had already some ability to put together some sort of crude nuclear device, or will have this sooner rather than later.

Let us assume, very conservatively, that by 2015 Iran becomes a borderline nuclear power….

(in fact they already have some form of dirty bomb capability and a chemical weapons capability no doubt..and these could be reasons why Israelis have not struck.... so far…that and the fact that air strikes would at best delay…BUT not conclusively stop the programme)

My question is ……in military terms ……so what?

What is the big deal?

We’ve been living with at least two paranoid and unstable regimes with nukes for years..North Korea and Pakistan…..why worry more about Iran…..? Arguably of those three…Iran is MORE stable and predictible and ….rational…..which is more than you can say for North Korea…….

(BTW one could also describe France as paranoid and unstable at times :rolleyes:)

Now it seems Burma…sorry Myanmar…[the country formally known as Burma]…is getting in on the act and building their own back-yard bomb….

Why get so shirty with Iran when Pakistan, North Korea or Burma are arguably as odious as regimes go.....?

Not that I'm a fan of the Iranians or anything. Just stirring it.:):)

dlofnep

I would agree that Iran is more stable than North Korea. The only reason why the United States is pushing for UN sanctions on Iran, is because it knows Israel will no longer be able to dictate how the middle-east operates. While I doubt either Israel or Iran would ever use nuclear weapons - it would certainly even the playing field.

I think Iran would be attacked by Israel if there was any certainty of it having nuclear weapons. At present, I don't believe that it has and I don't believe that Israel or the United States have the moral ground to push for sanctions on Iran for pursuing nuclear fuel or weapons.

who what when

Iran has the worlds third largest supply of oil!
Its all about securing Americas supply of oil!

Avgas

well your comments are both fine...but i more interested in the MILITARY logic of the situation rather than the political rights and wrongs....

In fact based on deterrence theory, any Iranian nuclear capability will merely balance and offset Israel’s nuclear arsenal.

They can’t use such weapons, most of all against Israel…because the response would be……pretty bloody awful.

As I see it, the real problem is NOT with Israel whom they have no intention of nuking in some fit of anti-semitic rage (although there is plenty of nasty anti-semitism in Iran). They would get nuked back 100 times over and the Israeli warheads would actually arrive on target…which is more than can be said for their missiles.

No the real risk is that….

They will become much bolder and aggressive in their takeover of ‘shia Iraq’….and this will cause the break up of Iraq…if that is is not already coming along nicely now…..…the US will be afraid to formally fight Iranian intervention…or the Iranian government will calculate that the US with their ‘sissyboy’ President Obama seeking an unlikely re-election in 2012 will NOT risk a stand-off.

OR

They will become much bolder and aggressive with Israel…mainly to destract from internal woes……...one could image a future war between Hezbollah…sorry Lebanon…and maybe even Syria…under an ‘Iranian’ nuclear umbrella’……with lots of high level Iranian support…..that would severely test Israel…….it might be more of an unconventional war in the guise of a campaign of rocket artillery duels and bombardments……..

OR

Saudi Arabia will rapidly move to develop its own nuclear capability, probably by simple purchase, or leasing, of a Pakistan weapon, if they can get away with that. Not sure whether their Chinese MRBM/SRBM missiles are still working.

And to the Saudis one could add that Egypt may reconsider its ‘good boy’ routine….as might Turkey…they might both decide they need a few nukes as well to deter Iran.

One other often overlooked development of Iranian nuclear weapons would be their tactical use rather than stratgeic use….

If Iran do ever find themselves head to head with US superpower…small-scale tactical nukes….those deployed from relatively small tactical rockets like FROG…etc. would be a very quick way of detering American land and sea forces…..mini-tactical nukes would really rain on the parade of the bulls**t Styker brigade hyper-mobility/hyper vulnerable concept…… I mean your fancy elecronics and mobility is not much good to you if your rubber tires have been sizzled and EMP has wiped out your blueforce tracker….……… and mini-nukes are an ideal weapon for closing the gulf straits and taking out a carrier group…. or at least making life very deeply unpleasant for same…..

I don’t think that the Iranians would ever be mad enough to use such tactical nukes at the outset of a limited war with the US…however…… instead the possession of the same do set a pain threshold over what the Americans could inflict and expect to get away with…….should American amphibious forces attempt a large scale landing as part of a more comprehensive defeat of Iran….or should a US armoured corps…..or really what they can muster now …a gaggle of brigades plus huge airpower….attempt to push towards Tehran to ‘remove the regime’…….then tactical nukes put a red line over such ‘adventures’.

In short you can see why Iran will almost 100% be sure to become a nuclear power of some sort, subject to time constraints. It rules out what the Americans did to Iraq in 2003. That is the point.

Not pretty but very logical and crudely effective.

So…I think we can safely say Iranian nukes would NOT be a force for peace in the world…..but it would not be the end of the world either…at least not just yet……


On the upside…….

In the long term there are encouraging signs that the Iranian middle class want some form of hybrid Islamic-western democratic system……and that a politicallly reformist regime, if or when it emerges, should stabilise things a bit…….

Another possibly modifying development would be the very large earthquake which Iran is now long overdue……this would potentially keep them very domestically busy for a while and might even serve as a pretext for domestic political change……

However, the bad news based on academic research…….is that regimes undergoing a domestic democratic challenge……in otherwords Iran today…… are often at risk of initiating speculative wars……precisely to consolidate their weakening internal position……

Oh…sh*t…….? :rolleyes:

Run_to_da_hills

I would trust Iran with nukes more than I would trust Israel.

Conor108

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would trust Iran with nukes more than I would trust Israel.

BlaasForRafa

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

I would trust Iran with nukes more than I would trust Israel.

Of course YOU would. Most other people have sense however.

dlofnep

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Of course YOU would. Most other people have sense however.

Speak for yourself. You don't determine what sense is.

Didn't Israel sell nuclear weapons to an Apartheid South African Government? Hardly the actions of a responsible regime.

Israel would certainly nuke Iran long before Iran nuked Israel. If Iran attacked Israel, it knows that Israel would have the US's backing. If Israel attacked Iran, it knows that the American-lead media would paint it as a preemptive strike on Iran with support from the US Government, and is immune to international condemnation because of it.

Avgas

Can I suggest before we get side tracked into the usual pro/anti Israel thing that we can't really know whether Israel or Iran is more politically likely to use nuclear missiles first......given that INTENT is so hard to judge ...might it be better to simply judge CAPABILITIES....?

Israel have advanced nuclear weaponry...very probably. Some sources says its v. advanced, other that its a more rudiamentary 'doomsday' force.
Iran probably for now has at best only some type of 'DIRTY BOMB' warhead capability...and guidance and accurarcy is probably not as good...but not rubbish either.

Israel do have the ARROW ballistic missiles system...and I don't think the Iranians have anything similiar until/unless Russians provide them with say upgraded S400s....but even then probably not as good.

The downside is that Iran is a very large country and could absorb a limited nuclear exchange....if your thinking like Dr. Strangelove. Israel is small and compact and could not.....or much less.

That about sums it up.....both sides would seek to use nuclear weapons as a last resort, unless as I suggested earlier there is some kind of attempt to use them at sea....an environment where nuclear weapons are much more suited for tactical use........most likely in the Persian Gulf.....

But let's be honest this is all extreme conjecture. My wider point is that the genie is out the bottle...we have to live with lots of loony and dodgy states who have nukes......North Korea, ...France, etc.

I suppose one interesting military question is how good are Iranian missiles in terms of accurarcy, payload and countermeasures?

Any views?

Run_to_da_hills

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Most other people have sense however.

Thats because most other people are brainwashed by the media. :rolleyes:

BrianD

It's an interesting situation. The reasons for war are often irrational and history has shown, often at the whim of an individual. Whatever the reasons, a war can be fought 'logically'.

A nuclear Iran might actually bring more stability to the region than you might think.

There is always a risk that an extremist in Iran might push the button to send Israel into the stone age. The downside to this is that they would also be sending the Palestinian state and part of the neighbouring Arab states to a similar fate. So would Iran do this just for the sake of obliterating the Israeli state?

Israel has probably kept many of its neighbours and states like at Iran at bay because of its nuclear deterrant. Being on the edge of the middle east it could attack arab cities without the same ramifications. It can engage in precision non-nuclear attacks on it's neighbours e.g. Syria, Iraq (in the past) knowing that the nuclear deterrent will avert the threat of full scale declarations of war.

So if both Iran and Israel go nuclear it should keep both countries at arms length. Israel would probably stop intervening into other coutries and its a possibility that this would also restrain the Iranian proxies.

It's interesting that Iran has a very young population who e quite moderate. Remember Iranians view themselves as Persians and not Arabs. There is a view that there will be positive change if the moderate youths can get into power before the clerics get the nukes.

globemaster1986

Avgas wrote: »

But let's be honest this is all extreme conjecture. My wider point is that the genie is out the bottle...we have to live with lots of loony and dodgy states who have nukes......North Korea, ...France, etc.

I'm sorry but why are you calling france a loony or dodgy state? I know they have an overwhelming propensity as a people to go on strike at the drop of a hat but....

BlaasForRafa

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Thats because most other people are brainwashed by the media. :rolleyes:

Some people seem to be brainwashed by Iranian propoganda alright :rolleyes:

Manic Moran

[Mod]OK. Enough with the stupid picture-posting already.

Either address Avgas' topic, or don't post at all. Capice?
[/Mod]

NTM

dlofnep

Nevermind. Mod has already posted.

Avgas

globemaster1986 wrote: »

I'm sorry but why are you calling france a loony or dodgy state? I know they have an overwhelming propensity as a people to go on strike at the drop of a hat but....

Fair enough Globemaster I was a tad excessive...an attempt at humour or sorts........but you know...I may also have had in mind......world cup qualifiers....do the words: STOLEN......EVIL.....DEATH TO FRANCE... ring a tiny bell?..

Hey.......but I'm not bitter.

I heard..... French squad flew economy back to France after their ABJECT FAILURE. Ouch!!!!!

So there is a GOD and s/he is IRISH.:rolleyes: