Iran; 10 nukes; what changes?

[red_elk]

Meanwhile, gasoline costs about $1,000 dollars a gallon,

In this scenario, rather one potato costs 1,000$
Gasoline much more.

 

[Joecoolyo]

They'll try and start building their own little "anti-western" sphere of influence in the Middle East, against the Turkish and Saudi spheres.

Considering their continued support for the Assad regime, and general antagonism with being Shiite, I don't see them getting very strong, or building a very strong bloc of allies in the Middle East.

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

They'll try and start building their own little "anti-western" sphere of influence in the Middle East, against the Turkish and Saudi spheres.

Considering their continued support for the Assad regime, and general antagonism with being Shiite, I don't see them getting very strong, or building a very strong bloc of allies in the Middle East.

I could see them support a Shi'ite government in Iraq, but other than that, I don't think they have much.

 

[Joecoolyo]

I could see them support a Shi'ite government in Iraq, but other than that, I don't think they have much.

Besides Iraq, and maybe Bahrain (though I don't see the Sunnis in charge leaving anytime soon after the failed revolution), I don't sense much ambivalence towards Tehran among populations in the Middle East.

 

[BasketCase]

A number of things the OP left out:

The idea that they would give them to terrorist seems unlikely because:

Your list neglects to consider the possibility of nukes getting STOLEN by terrorists rather than donated by Iran.

3- terrorist had a gargantuan opportunity when the soviet Union split to acquire nukes, if it didn't happen then why would it now?

The second half of that doesn't follow from the first half. Next time a crook robs a bank you'll see why: "how come this bank was robbed and that other one across the street wasn't??" Doesn't make any sense. Maybe terrorists did try to steal nukes from the ex-Soviet Union and got caught.

Or maybe they succeeded and we simply haven't found out yet.......

So bottom line Iran with nukes just means one less kid that can be bullied in the middle-east.

Counterexamples: Pakistan and the Soviet Union.

Nukes don't deter the U.S.; they never have.

The U.S. actually doesn't use its overwhelming military very much. We prefer to use more insidious weapons that don't show on any radar. We insinuate our culture into other cultures. We use economic ties to sneak through borders. We use the Web and the cell phone network to plant dissident ideas in vulnerable minds.

Those are things that can't be retaliated-against with a nuclear strike. Iran will gain no deterrent value from nukes. We'll bully Iran around whenever we like.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

The U.S. actually doesn't use its overwhelming military very much.

 

[Core Imposter]

Thinking be not a strong point for many.

What would have been different when Saddam invaded Kuwait if he had 10 nuclear weapons?

If Gadafi had 10?

Pakistan is the nexus of global danger now as this country cannot be said to be stable enough to have any real degree of certainty of security.

Iran is an outright theocracy that advocates the abolution of the Jewish nation.

A lot of people didn't believe Hitler would actually do the things he said either. And a lot of Chinese were shocked, shocked, at the invasion of the Great Horde. Unthinkable! This despite the fact that a whole, great, wall had been built to counter the danger.

Each generation has a blind spot, they can't believe that anything can happen until they have experienced it themselves.

But it always has.

 

[BasketCase]

@Paradigm: wasn't joking. Keep in mind all the hated enemies we haven't invaded in the last forty years or so.

@Cooper: I'll answer you when you delete that first line.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

That's because when you invaded Cuba you got pwned pretty hard And everyone else had nuclear weapons. Apart from Vietnam, how did that go, did you win?

 

[red_elk]

Nukes don't deter the U.S.; they never have.

And the fact that among about dozen of countries invaded by the US since 1950-s, none were nuclear powers is a pure coincidence.

 

[Antilogic]

The U.S. actually doesn't use its overwhelming military very much.

I'll leave the link to this list of post-WW2 military interventions here.

 

[ZeletDude]

They wouldn't use them unless they were attacked, as several others have stated

 

[FriendlyFire]

Counterexamples: Pakistan and the Soviet Union.
Nukes don't deter the U.S.; they never have.

This is the US, scared [censored] by a secret muslim, black president and hes socialist healthcare but fearless against nukes.

 

[BasketCase]

And the fact that among about dozen of countries invaded by the US since 1950-s, none were nuclear powers is a pure coincidence.

Yup. Coincidence.

With the exception of the Soviet Union, none of the world's nuclear powers ever caused the U.S. enough problems for us to consider them invasion material. Take note that despite its nuclear....."deterrent" the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more. And note something else: now that Russia's nuclear deterrent has pretty much completely collapsed and Russia is weaker than ever, it is NOT considered an enemy by the U.S. any more.

That's because when you invaded Cuba

Why, thank you for mentioning Cuba! That's just what I need to put this to bed.

Cuban missile crisis. For that brief time, Cuba DID acquire a nuclear deterrent. And it utterly failed to deter the United States. In fact it did the opposite. The United States stared Cuba in the eye and said "you wanna do this thing? You ready to go?" And Cuba folded.

Once again, nuclear weapons failed to deter the United States. I disagree with a few other things you guys said, but that Cuba thing just made the point so solidly that there's no need to "go nuclear" on this any more.

<--- reaction to bad pun

Edit:

I'll leave the link to this list of post-WW2 military interventions

That's beside the point I was making. Take a look at all the other nations who caused serious headaches for the U.S. but did not end up on that list. Fact is, U.S. military asskick is the exception rather than the rule.

 

[red_elk]

Take note that despite its nuclear....."deterrent" the Soviet Union doesn't exist any more.

In case of USSR/Russia, nuclear weapons serve their purpose perfectly. We were involved IIRC in about 7 major military conflicts on our territory in first half of XX century and zero in second half. Neither you nor anybody else were able to defeat USSR militarily and for the same reason you cannot invade Russia today.

And note something else: now that Russia's nuclear deterrent has pretty much completely collapsed and Russia is weaker than ever, it is NOT considered an enemy by the U.S. any more.

You don't have a slightest idea about state of Russian army today.
Its nuclear potential is arguably the best in the world, and certainly comparable to the American one.
http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/nukes/nuclearweapons/nukestatus.html
Even when everything, as you said, pretty much completely collapsed (though it was 20 years ago, not "now"), funding strategic forces was one of the top priorities.

And Cuba folded.

It was not Cuban decision. Khruschev removed Soviet missiles from Cuba, when Kennedy agreed to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey in exchange. You obviously know this.

He simply didn't want to start WW3 over Cuba issue, just as you didn't start it when your friend Georgia got screwed in 2008.

 

[IAM]

Thinking be not a strong point for many.

What would have been different when Saddam invaded Kuwait if he had 10 nuclear weapons?

If Gadafi had 10?

I think either leader would have used nukes if invaded and facing total destruction of their power base. People that have nothing to lose have no reason to not use them and every reason to. Same with Iran. If they have 10 nukes then even a mutiple, even limited, targeted airstrike may spark nuclear retaliation simply because they don't know if it's a prelude to invasion or what.

 

[Benefactor]

10 nukes isn't even a proper deterrent anyway, it could be wiped out with some massive pre-emptive nuking.

 

[red_elk]

Effective means of delivery also matter. If they present, even one warhead can be effective deterrence, as nobody will take a risk and start confrontation, when millions of lives are at stake.

 

[Core Imposter]

Effective means of delivery also matter. If they present, even one warhead can be effective deterrence, as nobody will take a risk and start confrontation, when millions of lives are at stake.

Really, in a world where there are 500,000 global homicides a year mostly single murders by single individuals you can unequivocally state the nobody will take that risk?

I hold that the chance of use of nuclear weapons in the future is no less than 100% firm.

The former chief of the Mossad just said that a strike would be a bad idea because the Iranians were rational in their own way. So was Hitler, I don't get his point.

 

[Aroddo]

If Iran suddenly aquired nukes then the following will happen: Iran will ally with the USA.

Just like Pakistan.