What would happen if Iran did get the bomb?

[fazers_on_stun]

From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46434250/ns/world_news-christian_science_monitor/:

Are you afraid of Iran yet? Shrill warnings of war or imminent apocalypse over Iran's nuclear program have never been so strident, or so ominous.

A window is closing fast, the narrative goes, to prevent a fanatical and suicidal religious regime from acquiring the ultimate tools of Armageddon: nuclear weapons. Within months, some politicians claim, either Israel, the United States, or both may have no choice but to attack Iran to remove this "existential threat" to the Jewish state.

The world is facing another Hitler, declares Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and this moment of decision is akin to the eve of World War II. Iran is a threat to Israel and "a real danger to humanity as a whole," warns Israeli President Shimon Peres.

The tone on the US presidential campaign trail is no less dire. GOP hopeful Rick Santorum recently told a crowd that if Iran gets nuclear weapons, "let me assure you, you will not be safe, even here in Missouri." One of his opponents, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, claims an Iranian strike on the US is "a real danger" that would make the 9/11 attacks look small. "Now imagine an attack where you add two zeros, and it's 300,000 dead," he said in early February. "This is not science fiction."

Yet it is also far from likely – even if Iran were to build a nuclear arsenal. In fact, say analysts and nonproliferation experts who have studied the effect of the bomb on countries, coexisting with a nuclear-armed Iran – or at least a nuclear-capable Iran – may well be possible, even inevitable, whether a military strike delays that outcome or not.
Analysts say Iran is not an irrational, suicidal actor that can't be deterred. Nor do they believe it is determined to destroy Israel at all costs. A recent Israeli think tank simulation of "the day after" an Iranian nuclear test came to the same conclusion: that nuclear annihilation will not automatically result.

Yet a nuclearized Iran would precipitate some profound changes across a chronically unstable region. Military balances would shift. Political relations among antagonists – and allies – would become more complicated. Israel would lose its nuclear hegemony in the Middle East.

Underlying it all loom major questions. Would Iran, implacable foe of the US and Israel, suddenly become beyond attack, like North Korea? Would Iran and Israel settle into a decades-long regional cold war, like that between India and Pakistan? Would Iran's jittery Persian Gulf neighbors rush to become nuclear powers themselves, setting off a dangerous and irreversible new arms race?

Personally, my opinion is that the above is far too simplistic a view. From what I've read, Iran is basically ruled by two semi-autonomous entities - the political party including the president Ahmadinejad and the mullahs who are much more isolated from the rest of the world. While Ahmadinejad talks and acts tough (probably attention-getting plus posturing for the home audience to take their minds off the economic problems caused by the sanctions), the mullahs are much more likely to miscalculate and are more stringent in their viewpoints, including the willingness to risk all for their religious doctrine.

Also, there's the little fact that Iran is a major sponsor of terrorism (Hezbollah, etc) and I would not be surprised to see them give nuke weapons to their terrorist cohorts. Imagine a suidice bomber armed with an actual nuke or a dirty bomb.

I've read that one of the major driving forces behind the Islamic fundamentalists who advocate jihad, is that they want to return to the time when Islam ruled much of the world during the time of the Ottoman empire. Maybe Iran's fundamentalists would like to return to when Persia ruled a major portion of the world, too.

 

[Reynod]

I agree something needs to be done .. what I am not sure.

 

[JAYDEEJOHN]

From my older perspective, meaning I no longer have the friends, make that Muslim friends I had, and mindsets change, I still believe the vast majority of Islamic nations do not wish to procure atomic weapons, since within their own religion, the Shia and the Sunni, and varying factions therein, all differ, and also, since they know the demands they put upon themselves to keep their beliefs at the level they wish, those that disagree within their own religion scares them as well, even tho their kinship is strong.

Isolation will happen if Iran or any other Islamic nation does something so horrendous, even amongst themselves, IMPOV

 

[jsc]

Realistically, we cannot stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons if they really want to. What I am concerned with is elements of the Iranian government turning over one to terrorist proxies.

 

[dogman_1234]

I can only speculate a second cold war. I will let you guys decide for yourselves.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Strangelove

 

[wanamingo]

Considering someone *Cough*Israel*Cough* keeps on killing all their head nuclear scientists and that little stuxnet worm bringing down Iranian centrifuges someone is doing something somewhere......

 

[dogman_1234]

mingo...it is a game. We don't understand it because of our 'ways'

We need to just stand back and pop some kettle corn for this show...

 

[riser]

I agree something needs to be done .. what I am not sure.

I am going to have a beer.

 

[dogman_1234]

I am going to have a beer.

Hey while you are in the fridge...can you get me my half-eaten sandwich I left this afternoon. I would like to finish it.

 

[riser]

Not a problem. I have to find someone to send to the fridge to get my beer first though.

 

[Reynod]

I'll give that person directions but can someone change the channel on the TV first?

 

[riser]

I doubt they'd use it. They would face certain destruction. Their bomb wouldn't be powerful enough to accomplish their goal. It would take a lot of testing on their end to create and design a bomb(s) large enough to create security after using it.

Likely it would give Iran a stronger foothold in the region. Israel and Iran would be locked in a cold war type condition, probably like the Koreas but leaning more towards actual fighting.

The problem is that even if they have the bomb, they lack the forces to extend outside of their own borders. They can damage Israel and the population, but they cannot accomplish their goal. Therefore, it would be utterly stupid for them to use the bomb prior to being able to fully destroy Israel and create a puppet state.

In the end, they'll have more leverage and more say with the looming threat of nuclear action. Assured Mutual Destruction is not on their side at this point. But, we in the US and wider world wouldn't use a nuke on them because we're pansies and wouldn't want to kill civilians. Whereas Israel would likely retaliate with a nuke and face the world's ridicule later.

That is a problem. Israel stands for something and the international community holds them to a higher level than Iran. Iran doesn't stand for much in human rights and whatnot. Because of this, the international world doesn't hold them to the same standards.

It is more feasbile for Iran to use the nuke first than Israel to use the nuke second.

 

[Reynod]

You don't really understand Israel very well in terms of the power of the conservatives and their history.


Never again means just that ... should they feel there is just cause to launch a pre-emptive strike they will.

Iran has repeatedly stated on numerous public displays that they will wipe the Zionist regime from the surface of the planet.

Israel won't wait for Iran to nuke them ... thats for sure.

When it comes it will be all over in 4 hours.

 

[riser]

Israel will suffer greatly if they nuke first. Which they won't. They may use conventional bombs, but in no way will they use a nuke.

Iran on the other hand is more likely to use the nuke, but they won't either because as you say, they'll be gone in 4 hours.

What I was trying to convey is that the only way Israel will use a nuke is after they've been nuked. The international community holds them to different standards than Iran. Iran has a stronger chance at a pass, in terms of the international community, at using a nuke aganist Israel.

Now, while I believe Iran is embelishing their nuclear achievements in order to entice Israel to attack them, I do believe Israel will do so. In doing this, Israel will be isolated from the International Community for their attack. This paves the way for Iran to openly attack (non-Nuclear) Israel. This ideally will level the playing ground for Iran since neither army has the ability to occupy the land of the other. Being that Israel will most likely attack first, the US and other countries will back off and essentially allow a fair retaliation between the two countries. This again is in favor to Iran.

Now, Israel can't go drop a nuke on Iran. That would be bad. Iran could go drop a nuke on Israel and it wouldn't be as bad, in terms of being viewed by the international community. Israel would suffer heavily by using a nuke. Iran probably would get a pass but the country would be patrolled by NATO and essentially taken over by peaceful forces.

In the end, Iran is positioning themselves to turn their enemies (Israel's) strength into a weakness.

 

[riser]

Actually, I'm going to say that without significant changes in current posturing, Israel attacks in the first half of April. Summer hits Israel, the conditions will be likely the most beneficial for targeting and assessing the damage done from their attack.
April 1st to April 16th is my current thought. Should almost start a new thread on this to change my personal assessments of the situation.

 

[Reynod]

I am more inclined to think next week ... refueling the planes is the major issue and no friendly airstrips nearby.

 

[dogman_1234]

Guys, think about it. If Iran strikes Israel with a nuclear device...think of the damage to satellite countries that are allies with Iran. what about Palestine? would Palestinians be happy their home, friends and family got nuked under a mushroom cloud?

 

[audiovoodoo]

And Israel has been around for how long? I'm guessing about at long as Palestine if you're using the same measure. Let us also not forget that the Israel we hear crying about neighbours with nukes was the same country that was trying to sell nuclear technology to South Africa back when the rest of the world was avoiding so much as a game of cricket with them.

 

[riser]

Guys, think about it. If Iran strikes Israel with a nuclear device...think of the damage to satellite countries that are allies with Iran. what about Palestine? would Palestinians be happy their home, friends and family got nuked under a mushroom cloud?

That's a fair argument for a non-middle eastern, educated person. Do you think many people in Palestine understand what the fall out would be? Do you think they understand what they may be exposed to?

Even if you believe they did, they would be martyrs.

 

[riser]

I am more inclined to think next week ... refueling the planes is the major issue and no friendly airstrips nearby.

Positioning. Fill them up, do a dry run... let it be known that they're filling them up. In a few weeks, go through with it.

Feign inferiority and encourage their arrogance.

 

[audiovoodoo]

The state of Israel is that old sure, but Judea is thousands of years old. So, by any measure, the Jewish people can lay claim to that land, much of which was legally purchased from wealthy Arab land owners in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

I think many of those deals were made null and void post WW2. It was a new start with a border agreed by the allies, it was never a deal that was going to please everybody. While I agree they have a claim I'm not so sure that much of the west bank is part of it and that water isn't a lot of the driver behind some of the moves they make. Those moves help neither side and just perpetuate death.

 

[audiovoodoo]

I think we should park 4 carrier battle groups right off their coast and let them get a good look at around the clock carrier air operations looks like.

Because that's been such a successful approach in the rest of the middle east...

 

[riser]

The Middle East only responds to violence. My friends in Iraq used to carry around IKBs. -- Iraqi Kid Beaters.

They wouldn't listen, you couldn't stop them.. you had to actually hurt them in order for them to respond.

Read Generation Kill - they talk about that same issue in Iraq.
Read Truth in Iraq - Michael Yon discusses it as well
Read Michael Yon in general, he discusses it in Afghanistan as well

 

[Reynod]

If you remember, Iran halted its nuclear enrichment program in 2003 after they saw what we did to Saddam's military. So yeah, a big stick does work in that part of the world as long as we have a real leader with resolve running things.

I think we are lucky at present we have Obama there who is smart enough to take tough economic sanctions rather than military ones.

I just don't know how well that will work ... look at North Korea for instance.

Plus the ruskies seem to not want any military strike made in Iran.

I think they might have sold more nuclear material and technology to Iran than they have declared ...

 

[audiovoodoo]

The Middle East only responds to violence.

Where as America and Europe respond to threats to oil prices...

That some of the Middle East nations have decided that they could do with a sizeable twig in response to all the big sticks being brandished around them is kind of understandable.