Iran has nuclear weapons!?

[SS-18 ICBM]

I think you ought to consider the effects of residual radioactivity that stays after a weapon is detonated, and can even be carried through the ecosystem.

Could be worth taking out an Israeli city for to them.

The simple retort is that this would have exactly the same effect as if Iran did the nuking, since no other enemy of Israel has the means to produce a nuclear weapon.

That is the most likely possibility they'd deduce, but they wouldn't declare a war devastating to the world economy without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't a weapon from another nation with nuclear capability.

First of all, Iran likely will not have very many nuclear weapons

Why not? How do you know how many they want to have?

Then there is the fact there would be no guarantee that a potential sale wouldn't just be a CIA/IAEA sting operation.

Interesting. Go on.

Even if you do make the sale where is the guarantee that the terrorist organization is going to use the nuke as intended (whether they want to or not) or not just immediately make it public where they got the weapon?

What else do you think they might do with it? And why would they say who they got the weapon from? Are they stupid or something?


Great, this is turning into another one of those discussions with 15 billion things to quote.

 

[Incodcito]

The simple retort is that this would have exactly the same effect as if Iran did the nuking, since no other enemy of Israel has the means to produce a nuclear weapon. What Hezbollah would do is a red herring that has no relevance to the point under consideration.

Plenty of doubt would still exist... at least for the rest of the world, considering ex soviet nukes. Me thinks Israel would commit a holocaust against Iran and ask questions later if one of its cities were wiped off the map.

 

[asbestos]

Could be worth taking out an Israeli city for to them.

I'd really like to hear the reasoning behind this.

That is the most likely possibility they'd deduce, but they wouldn't declare a war devastating to the world economy without proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't a weapon from another nation with nuclear capability.

Israel has never concerned itself with international opinion.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I'd really like to hear the reasoning behind this.

Why would Iran care what happened to some Israeli city?

Israel has never concerned itself with international opinion.

That's an interesting provocation. I wonder how Israel will attack Iran.

 

[Joecoolyo]

So if Iran really doesn't care about Palestine, whats the source of enmity between Iran and Israel?

Some sort of pseudo-anti-imperialist/anti-American agenda I would presume.

Anyways, as for the bomb argument going on. Iran, even if it got a nuke, would not use it. World opinion, no matter who they used it against, would drop immensely of them, especially with the big hitters around the world. The only people who would actually give a thumbs up to that are a bunch of religious extremists hiding out in caves, people I doubt Iran even likes.

Iran getting the bomb has less to do with them actually using it and more just power play in the region. If they get the bomb, they can use it to leverage some more power for themselves in the region, stake themselves as the only "anti-western" country there, maybe turn a few countries from Saudi or Turkish influence.

 

[asbestos]

Why would Iran care what happened to some Israeli city?

Presumably because they aren't as cynical as you are about their religious heritage.

That's an interesting provocation. I wonder how Israel will attack Iran.

Israel has a stockpile of hundreds of nukes and wouldn't hesitate to use them.

Plenty of doubt would still exist... at least for the rest of the world, considering ex soviet nukes. Me thinks Israel would commit a holocaust against Iran and ask questions later if one of its cities were wiped off the map.

I think you mean Soviet and Pakistani nukes, esp. Al-Qaeda getting a hold over the latter. If we really cared about nuclear non-proliferation, we wouldn't be massively destabilizing chunks of Pakistan with drone strikes that cause collateral damage, or having Blackwater yahoos running around massacring local populations.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Presumably because they aren't as cynical as you are about their religious heritage.

So what is in Tel Aviv-Yafo that is as holy as the Dome of the Rock?

Israel has a stockpile of hundreds of nukes and wouldn't hesitate to use them.

Hundreds? How do you know that?

 

[bombshoo]

Why not? How do you know how many they want to have?

Because getting the materials and support without attracting too much attention is both expensive and quite difficult. Once you get a nuclear program really rolling it isn't as difficult if you have access to the materials, but most programs have a very difficult time producing very many nukes at first. North Korea probably only has a couple, South Africa only ever managed to make six in the span of a decade. Pakistan has a decent handful but they only really did a large build up within the last few years (and from the beginning were not watched nearly as well as they should have been).

Interesting. Go on.

Not sure what you want, so some examples: in 2007, the CIA and Georgian intelligence services were able to do a sting operation and catch a Russian criminal attempting to sell weapons grade nuclear material. Similarly, look up "red mercury", which was a material supposedly needed to make nuclear weapons that (might have been) invented by the KGB for the purpose of deceiving terrorists and rogue nations attempting to acquire nuclear material as well as helping out in sting operations. Point is, that setting up a sting has been done in the past for similar reasons and with success.

What else do you think they might do with it? And why would they say who they got the weapon from? Are they stupid or something?

Sell it themselves, use it in an attempt to take a city hostage, use it to blackmail the Iranian government, use it on a target that the Iranians never intended for completely different reasons.

As for why they would reveal where they got it, in addition to attempting to use it to blackmail the Iranian government (which could easily lead to them revealing the original source), we also have to remember that terrorist organizations are just groups of people. There is no guarantee someone would not defect and give everything up.

 

[asbestos]

So what is in Tel Aviv-Yafo that is as holy as the Dome of the Rock?

Nothing as holy as Dome of the Rock, though that's irrelevant. There are a number of [admittedly not Shiia] Mosques there. But I think they'd perceive the desecration of the "holy land" itself as an offense, especially given that Khamenei has publicly called Nukes un-Islamic.

Hundreds? How do you know that?

Federation of American Scientists

 

[NickyJ]

Can you explain this to me? Why would they casually take aim at the most powerful state in the region then? What do they gain out of it all?

So if Iran really doesn't care about Palestine, whats the source of enmity between Iran and Israel?

Iran 'totally rejects' Palestine U.N. statehood bid. Shows how much they support the Palestinians.

Wipe Israel 'off the map' Iranian says.

Iranian government entities began to erect billboards and signs with the "wipe off" phrase in English. Joshua Teitelbaum of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs compiled an interesting collection of photographs of these banners, such as one on the building that houses reserve military forces of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. "Israel should be wiped out of the face of the world," the sign reads in English.

I know that a lot of people here will have a relativist retort involving the USA and Nuclear weapons, Self Defense, etc. However, I still think my point is valid.

It is extremely dangerous for a regime that explicitly hopes and prays for the end of days to have such weapons, when it thinks it can hasten the emergence of the end.

Put simply, it can cripple the world economy if it aimed to. Whats to prevent it from strategically nuking some Arab oil fields, along with setting off a bomb in the straights of Hormuz, making it glow in the dark (figuratively speaking) ?

It isn't rational for Iran to do that, but religious belief is know for bringing out the irrational in people.

Precisely. When dealing with insane, unpredictable people who have professed their hatred of someone in the household, it's best not to leave sharp knives lying around.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

. But I think they'd perceive the desecration of the "holy land" itself as an offense,

Jerusalem, sure. But probably not the rest of Israel.

Federation of American Scientists

Interesting read, thank you. "Hundreds" is an exaggeration, but 100-200 is still a powerful deterrent.

Because getting the materials and support without attracting too much attention is both expensive and quite difficult. Once you get a nuclear program really rolling it isn't as difficult if you have access to the materials, but most programs have a very difficult time producing very many nukes at first. North Korea probably only has a couple, South Africa only ever managed to make six in the span of a decade. Pakistan has a decent handful but they only really did a large build up within the last few years (and from the beginning were not watched nearly as well as they should have been).

Why do they have to sell the nukes as soon as they get them? Can't they bide their time?

Not sure what you want, so some examples: in 2007, the CIA and Georgian intelligence services were able to do a sting operation and catch a Russian criminal attempting to sell weapons grade nuclear material. Similarly, look up "red mercury", which was a material supposedly needed to make nuclear weapons that (might have been) invented by the KGB for the purpose of deceiving terrorists and rogue nations attempting to acquire nuclear material as well as helping out in sting operations. Point is, that setting up a sting has been done in the past for similar reasons and with success.

Learn something new everyday. Thanks for that. My only concern is I'm just not seeing them having any infiltrators in these groups.

Sell it themselves, use it in an attempt to take a city hostage, use it to blackmail the Iranian government, use it on a target that the Iranians never intended for completely different reasons.

Well, I don't presume to know what other ulterior motives Hezbollah have, so I don't know whether to disagree or agree with this.

 

[bombshoo]

Why do they have to sell the nukes as soon as they get them? Can't they bide their time?

I suppose you're right, but my point was that more them giving a nuke to terrorists would at least not be something of immediate concern upon confirmation of a successful Iranian test.

Learn something new everyday. Thanks for that. My only concern is I'm just not seeing them having any infiltrators in these groups.

Actually from my understanding there is a fair amount of infiltration into Hezbollah. Last November some Hezbollah weapons depots were blown up. Supposedly this was by CIA or Mossad agents who had infiltrated the group.

Well, I don't presume to know what other ulterior motives Hezbollah have, so I don't know whether to disagree or agree with this.

That's sort of why I see Iran not willing to give up a nuclear weapon to them. How can they know an ulterior motive, or even know if who they are giving them up to can be trusted? I don't necessarily think any of the actions mentioned earlier would have to be performed by Hezbollah directly, but it's highly possible an individual or a sub-group within the organization could do something drastic if they got a hold of a nuke. Most nations don't let their nuclear weapons too far out of their sights and require the authorization of multiple people to enable their use. This is for a reason. It's simply reckless to be throwing around the ability to press the button. There is so much that can go wrong.

Edit: Mostly unrelated, but I also found a good little snippet for more about "red mercury":

Spoiler :

Apparently (according to the blog I found that image on) the red Mercury ploy was also used to catch some Algerians who were attempting to purchase it in Spain a couple of years ago. The story was sourced as being from a CNN but the link was dead so I'm not going to say this is fact.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

Actually from my understanding there is a fair amount of infiltration into Hezbollah. Last November some Hezbollah weapons depots were blown up. Supposedly this was by CIA or Mossad agents who had infiltrated the group.

My next question would then be if those infiltrators get into meetings with the Iranians. That would involve even the top echelons being compromised and with Iran being unaware of the whole charade.

That's sort of why I see Iran not willing to give up a nuclear weapon to them. How can they know an ulterior motive, or even know if who they are giving them up to can be trusted? I don't necessarily think any of the actions mentioned earlier would have to be performed by Hezbollah directly, but it's highly possible an individual or a sub-group within the organization could do something drastic if they got a hold of a nuke. Most nations don't let their nuclear weapons too far out of their sights and require the authorization of multiple people to enable their use. This is for a reason. It's simply reckless to be throwing around the ability to press the button. There is so much that can go wrong.

The ultimate question then is the level of trust Iran has in its groups.

 

[bombshoo]

My next question would then be if those infiltrators get into meetings with the Iranians. That would involve even the top echelons being compromised and with Iran being unaware of the whole charade.

I'm not sure they would have to be at the meetings themselves to get wind of what was going to transpire. Nonetheless, there has been more than a few cases of high ranking officials within an organization being double agents.

The ultimate question then is the level of trust Iran has in its groups.

I suppose that is what all this comes down to isn't it? How much trust would Tehran be willing to put into an organization over which it doesn't have direct oversight or a means of fully controlling? Personally, I think they would be absolute idiots to be reckless enough allow a nuclear weapon to be in the hands of anyone but their most trusted scientific and military officials.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

I'm not sure they would have to be at the meetings themselves to get wind of what was going to transpire. Nonetheless, there has been more than a few cases of high ranking officials within an organization being double agents.

A nuclear device would be entrusted to those who have earned the right to be trusted.

I suppose that is what all this comes down to isn't it? How much trust would Tehran be willing to put into an organization over which it doesn't have direct oversight or a means of fully controlling? Personally, I think they would be absolute idiots to be reckless enough allow a nuclear weapon to be in the hands of anyone but their most trusted scientific and military officials.

I don't think it would be a good idea to cut off a significant portion of your funding and equipment by doing something rash. How would it be in their interest to turn on Iran? Are they going to suddenly offer their aid to the West?

 

[kochman]

on the core it was. WW2 was disagreement on who should rule the global market.

Is that what they teach you in Turkey? Or did you come to this conclusion on your own?

Israel has a stockpile of hundreds of nukes and wouldn't hesitate to use them.

Estimates of most likely between 100-200 by a group of American scientists HARDLY constitutes a good source for Israel stockpiling "hundreds" of nukes...
And, if they wouldn't hesitate to use them, why didn't they use them in previous wars when the chips were down? I mean, without hesitation, they would have... no?

It makes me laugh inside when I see people trying to demonize Israel, the kid in class just sticking up for himself... the interesting part is, they do such a good job sticking up for themselves that some folks actually try to make Israel out to be the aggressor.

Anyone who knows their own head from a watermelon knows that Israel would prefer to live in peace, real peace, with its neighbors... It doesn't want to wipe Syria from the map or make Jordan a permanent part of Israel...

 

[Ajidica]

And, if they wouldn't hesitate to use them, why didn't they use them in previous wars when the chips were down? I mean, without hesitation, they would have... no?

Because that would have resulted in either a)putting Israel inside the blast radius or fallout radius or b)doing absolutely nothing to change the tactical situation.
If Israel used nukes on a tactical scale back during Yom Kippur (or that other war I can't remember the name of) it would have resulted in them irradiating half of Israel. If they were to use them against strategic targets, it wouldn't have changed the fact there were still Arab armies marching toward Jerusalem who are now extremely mad with reinforcements from other countries on the way and would probably have resulted in America cutting off supplies.
Israeli nukes are like Iranian nukes, impressive on paper, but they wouldn't actualy use them.

Anyone who knows their own head from a watermelon knows that Israel would prefer to live in peace, real peace, with its neighbors

They say that, but then it raises a very real question when compared to their actions. Is the Israeli government engaging in doublethink, or -more worryingly- incompetant?

 

[muhtesem insan]

Is that what they teach you in Turkey? Or did you come to this conclusion on your own?

that's how marxists see it. And hardcore marxist in Turkey refuses to call it second world war but "second sharing war". (I wonder if this terminology used abroad)

 

[de Maistre]

Wipe Israel 'off the map' Iranian says.

Ahmadinejad spoke in Farsi, not English. His words, verbatim: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad." Translated: "Imam [i.e. Khomeini] has said that the regime [rezhim] occupying Jerusalem [Qods] must disappear from the page of time." He even made a parallel to the communist regime in Russia in the preceding sentence.

 

[bombshoo]

A nuclear device would be entrusted to those who have earned the right to be trusted.

That sounds great, but how does one earn the right to be trusted beyond doubt and how do you find enough of these people to do the fairly major operation of secretly transporting a nuke across the Middle East and successfully detonating it in Israel?

I don't think it would be a good idea to cut off a significant portion of your funding and equipment by doing something rash. How would it be in their interest to turn on Iran? Are they going to suddenly offer their aid to the West?

Again, the issue wouldn't necessarily be Hezbollah itself turning on Iran, but rather individuals within Hezbollah doing so once they had a nuclear weapon. There would be a lot of incentive for an individual or subgroup to try to use the nuke for their own ulterior motives. For one thing, the United States and Russia offer huge rewards for loose nuclear material, so getting a hold of some of the components just to turn it over could very well be worth it for someone.

Even after that, I'm inclined to think if Iran were dumb enough to give Hezbollah a nuclear weapon that Hezbollah would be very hesitant about using it as described (on Tel-Aviv) as many of the people they claim to represent would be in the potential fallout zone and it would be very damaging to their credibility as a legitimate political party. They might not directly turn on Iran, but they might not use it in the intended way either. They might dissemble it to make several dirty bombs, which would be much more suitable for their goals but also would be much more traceable using nuclear forensics, or they could even attempt to reverse engineer the design in order to sell it to other terrorist organizations (some of which Iran might not like- regardless no country wants their nuclear secrets out on the black market).

Now what I suppose could happen is that an official in the Iranian nuclear chain of command could sell or give a nuclear weapon to Hezbollah or another organization without the support of Tehran. It would still probably be difficult for this to be accomplished successfully, but it could happen. Then again, this is basically the biggest concern about the Pakistani and Russian arsenals as well, so it's something we are already worrying about.

I just don't see the Iranian government knowingly giving a nuke to a non-state actor. Sure they might not get caught, but there is an awful lot chances for them to get caught and if they did they would be absolutely screwed. Not only would this basically guarantee them getting the bejeezus bombed out of them, but it would probably be enough for China and Russia to end any of their tacit support for the regime as well as they certainly fear the terrorists organizations in their own country acquiring loose nuclear material as much as anyone else.