Iran has nuclear weapons!?

[SS-18 ICBM]

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 assumed Hezbollah wasn't a garage start-up. Especially if it receives millions of dollars of funding.

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.

Alright, I am convinced. All of my doubts have been addressed. Now, is someone else willing to put up counterarguments to these? Still not comfortable with Iran getting nukes, but I take some comfort in the fact that they'll mostly be used as a deterrent and not in anger.

 

[christos200]

Everyone has nuclear weapons. So why dont we let Iran has some?

 

[bombshoo]

I assumed Hezbollah wasn't a garage start-up. Especially if it receives millions of dollars of funding.

Well Hezbollah certainly isn't just ten guys in a clown car, but getting a nuke across borders and being able to fully trust everyone involved is difficult when there is so many incentives for someone to squeal and so many ways it can go wrong. Iran's nukes are probably going to be large, cumbersome and unreliable, at least for a while until they get some actual help or a lot of experience. So transportation is difficult, then there is the matter of keeping everyone loyal, keeping it in a safe place until you plan to use it, and then there is all the things that can go wrong in the actual operation (someone not being in the right place at the right time etc). Basically even in the extremely unlikely scenario Hezbollah got the nuke, despite their millions of dollars in funding, it would still be a difficult task. Heck, it would be difficult for most states to secretly move a nuke into a city and set it off without any hiccups. Hezbollah would probably see more value just using the nuke as a deterrent themselves (similar to the holding a city hostage situation), but I doubt Iran would like a puppet having this much independence.

Alright, I am convinced. All of my doubts have been addressed. Now, is someone else willing to put up counterarguments to these? Still not comfortable with Iran getting nukes, but I take some comfort in the fact that they'll mostly be used as a deterrent and not in anger.

Glad you're on board. I agree about being uncomfortable with Iran having nuclear weapons as well, but it's for more pragmatic reasoning. It's always possible that mistakes can happen, and the more nuclear weapons out there, the more likely there will be a mistake. Similarly, like Pakistan and Russia, I don't fully trust a state like Iran to have enough control over its own officials to be able to fully secure its nuclear materials. Not necessarily today, but its totally possible in the near future that they might experience a major period instability. Since Iran doesn't even have a nuclear weapon, its not surprising there is basically no information on how they would go about securing weapons if they manage to get them, but I hope they at least are better about it than Pakistan and use Permissive Action Link technology and keep those in their nuclear chain of command well paid and satisfied. When it comes to nuclear security technology and methods, unfortunately many states are reluctant to accept or give help. China asked for help developing technology for securing their nukes a while back, and the Clinton administration refused for fear of it compromising our own security by revealing too much information. We did offer help to Pakistan with the same sort of technology (I guess we weren't worried about them finding out too much?) but they were worried about the United States having ulterior motives and installing kill switches on their weapons. We finally compromised by just giving some of the officials in their nuclear department extra training at catching suspicious activity and materials. I'm pretty sure China has the technology on their own now, so maybe Iran would trust them enough to let them help them out with methods to secure nuclear material to at least the extent we helped out Pakistan. Better than nothing I suppose.

 

[kochman]

Alright, I am convinced. All of my doubts have been addressed. Now, is someone else willing to put up counterarguments to these? Still not comfortable with Iran getting nukes, but I take some comfort in the fact that they'll mostly be used as a deterrent and not in anger.

I'm glad you aren't in charge.

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

A leader should govern by reason, not emotions. Well, do you have problems with his arguments?

 

[kochman]

Yes, same reasons I didn't want NKorea to get it...
1) nuke tech proliferation... anything for $$$
2) all it takes is one wacky dictator to go crazy one day and shoot one off... Kim Jung Il could have been that guy... the less countries that have nukes, the better... but countries with a seriously questionable government shouldn't be approached with the idea of "they know the repercussions will be bad" as the only saving grace. Hitler, for example, should have known, trying to take on ALL of Europe and America would have bad repercussions... tens of millions of people later, he finally offed himself.

 

[bombshoo]

Yes, same reasons I didn't want NKorea to get it...
1) nuke tech proliferation... anything for $$$
2) all it takes is one wacky dictator to go crazy one day and shoot one off... Kim Jung Il could have been that guy... the less countries that have nukes, the better... but countries with a seriously questionable government shouldn't be approached with the idea of "they know the repercussions will be bad" as the only saving grace. Hitler, for example, should have known, trying to take on ALL of Europe and America would have bad repercussions... tens of millions of people later, he finally offed himself.

Of course that's all true. I agree proliferation is bad, and Iran is certainly on the bottom of the list of countries I think should have nuclear weapons. That doesn't change the fact that there is little evidence that they will shoot off the nukes other than that they have some harsh rhetoric (and you can't say they are the only country that likes to mouth off every now and again) and that some other countries have started dumb wars in the past. On the other hand there is a lot of evidence that if they are rational they don't need to use their nukes. We are already doing about all the effective things we can to slow down/stop the Iranians from building nukes short of invading them, so is that what you actually want us to do? Invade, occupy and kill a lot of people when we are overstretched and underfunded as is, just because maybe the next Iranian leader will be another Hitler? Because I hate to break it to you, but a bombing campaign probably isn't going to enough on its own and it will open up a whole new can of worms everywhere else.

 

[Ajidica]

2) all it takes is one wacky dictator to go crazy one day and shoot one off...

Not if Iran has a half decent launch security system. Iran would likely follow the same method of security as Pakistan: distributing all the different components to the different commanders forcing them all to come together and agree they want to start WWIII.

 

[kochman]

We are already doing about all the effective things we can to slow down/stop the Iranians from building nukes short of invading them, so is that what you actually want us to do?

Therein lies the question.
I have no idea, because I simply don't have all the information/intel.
I would say, bomb, support insurrection/revolution, etc... not invade!

Not if Iran has a half decent launch security system. Iran would likely follow the same method of security as Pakistan: distributing all the different components to the different commanders forcing them all to come together and agree they want to start WWIII.

The commanders of Iran are the clerics... not military. At least military, secular military, can often see that the risks outweigh the benefits. I don't trust the clerics, over time, to do that...

But, as bombshoo said, what can we really do?

I am pretty sure there will be bombs over Tehran before too long. I REALLY hope we don't invade...

 

[Ajidica]

The commanders of Iran are the clerics... not military. At least military, secular military, can often see that the risks outweigh the benefits. I don't trust the clerics, over time, to do that...

I suppose if the clerics in charge didn't pray toward Mecca, and instead worshiped a cosmic Jewish zombie, you would be fine with it?

 

[kochman]

I suppose if the clerics in charge didn't pray toward Mecca, and instead worshiped a cosmic Jewish zombie, you would be fine with it?

I wouldn't be fine with any theocracy, it is the one of the worst forms of government.

 

[kochman]

From that far right reactionary rag known as the Washington Post...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...report-finds/2012/01/30/gIQACwGweQ_story.html

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. said in prepared testimony that an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington that was uncovered last year reflects an aggressive new willingness within the upper ranks of the Islamist republic to authorize attacks against the United States.

I am not saying they are thinking to nuke us (though a dirty bomb attack?)... just pointing out, they are not a paper tiger... and they obviously feel cornered (due to alienating themselves by being the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world for years).

 

[Dachs]

Therein lies the question.
I have no idea, because I simply don't have all the information/intel.
I would say, bomb, support insurrection/revolution, etc... not invade!

Supporting an insurrection only works if there's a viable basis for an insurrection in the first place. Right now, there isn't. And if there's to be a bombing campaign, there is likely to be even less of one.

 

[bombshoo]

Therein lies the question.
I have no idea, because I simply don't have all the information/intel.
I would say, bomb, support insurrection/revolution, etc... not invade!.

Well at least you admit to being troubled by what path we should take and not pretend to have answers you don't, like many on the war-train seem to be doing. I am dubious a bombing campaign would really work very well though. It's been estimated that a huge number of bombing strikes would be need (enough that Israel alone couldn't accomplish it and land based craft would be needed as well) and even then it wouldn't give any guarantee as most of the Iranian nuclear facilities are hidden and scattered. If we bombed them, it would pretty much prove the Iranian leadership's point that a nuclear weapons program is definitely needed and would probably force them to speed up development. See the Iraqi response to Operation Opera in 1981 for an example of this phenomenon.

As for supporting an insurrection, there is a few problems there. First who do we support? The Baluch and Arab nationalists are not really much more than a thorn in the government's side and they wouldn't care much about the nuclear program anyways. I suppose it could draw the Tehran's attention away a bit, but I doubt enough. If it became public we were helping them, again, it would probably prove to the leadership they need a nuke even more.

As for the Iranian opposition. Supporting them wouldn't do much either except maybe give them even less legitimacy in the eyes of the average Iranian. Even if they took power in a revolution, most of them want a nuclear weapon anyways, so while they may be more democratic, in terms of preventing a nuclear Iran, nothing really has been accomplished. I think there is some misconceptions that the entire opposition is the polar opposite of the ABII and RG. This isn't necessarily the case.

I am not saying they are thinking to nuke us (though a dirty bomb attack?)...

I don't see a dirty bomb attack happening. For one thing they can probably already do it so if they were going to in a terrorist style attack they probably would have. For another it would be easy to trace with nuclear forensics and our response would basically be the same as if they actually nuked us. If they wanted to launch a nuclear attack, they might as well go full out and use a real nuke.

just pointing out, they are not a paper tiger... and they obviously feel cornered (due to alienating themselves by being the number one state sponsor of terrorism in the world for years).

I certainly don't think we should underestimate them, but again not much we can do short of invading them.