Why Shouldn't Iran Have Nukes?

Just as America's ability to stop Iran getting nukes is limited, its case for doing so is flimsy. One question which the US, or Britain, or France, or Israel have never satisfactorily answered is this: If you can have nukes, why can't Iran? There is, it seems to me, a quite startling hypocrisy at the heart of each of these country's posture towards Iran. What is so terrible about Iran having the big one, as opposed to say France? Is it because the Iranian regime is belligerent? Well, let's do a little comparison. Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has only been involved in one conflict, with Iraq in the 1980s. Tehran went to war on that occasion on the far from unreasonable grounds that the world's largest Arab army had turned up at its door looking for a scrap. This is hardly the record of a prerennial warmonger.

These are very good arguements. But lets take it a bit further shall we? Is the US or the UK likely to use those nukes? I don't think so. Will N Korea? Step on their toes and I bet they would a least threaten to do so if not actually do it. For all our *war-mongering* when have we ever used or threatened to use a nuke besides Japan in WW2?

Once Iran gets the big one though, the old Cold War "logic" of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) comes into effect. Iran can wipe out Israel but Iran won't because Israel can wipe out Iran. Israel can wipe out Iran but Israel won't because Iran can wipe out Israel. And they'll all live happily ever after! Or at least in the short to medium term they will. MAD has a certain demented logic to it, but in the long-term, possessing nuclear weaponry is all demention, no logic. I rue the day that a species as singularly destructive as ours acquired the power to end all life on this planet. As an incurable pessimist, I can't help thinking that one we'll utilise this capability. If the ice-caps don't get us, the mushroom clouds will.

This is also good thinking. But will those hotheads over there see it *before* some idiot pushes the button? With us it takes more than just the presidents say so to use nukes. Not so with a dictator.

Technology, weaponry, economic, and political position in international affairs, are all tools of the "diplomatic" arsonal. Failure in the diplomatic arena leads to war. Since wars are also fought on the technological, weaponry, economic and political positioning battlefield, there is always an incentive to prevent enemies gaining in any of these arenas.

O G San, you have banished all hope of my getting a restful nights sleep. Yet I thank you. This may well be the most thought-provoking post I have ever read on JU.

I can't think of a rational rebuttal. Not only does Russia have nuclear weapons now, it had them under Stalin, the man who killed 43 million. China had them under Mao, who killed 100 million. They never used them, prefering to kill people the old fashioned way, one bullet to the head at a time.

I guess that Iran's mutual assistance pack with Syria only makes it slightly more terrifying. Sure, if Iran can have them, wouldn't it only be fair to share with Syria? I guess the up-side is that living under the threat of a mushroom cloud might actually accelerate Mid-East peace talks.

Ah, no rest tonight for sure.

Sorry about disturbing your sleep patterns, Larry. I never thought of that, it's lunch time over here

It would not take very much effort on the US's part militarily to upset Iran's plans.  The issue is a lack of political will, not a lack of military capability. 

Ownership of nuclear weapons is all about giving out threats.
And the only nation who has used it is USA, the one who said they are the "Defender of Democracy".
Why can't Iran has nuclear weapons? Cause it is a muslim nation and an Oil rich country. A very sexy looking body to rape for america.

I tend to oversimplify, I suppose, but I see a difference. The issue isn't with Iran giving nukes to al-Qaida.

1) War by proxy. You are both correct and incorrect when you say Iran has only been in one war in the past few decades. In addition to their war with Iraq, they have fought a proxy war with Israel through Hamas and Lebanon. There has been a decrease in attacks since Syria has been in military control, sure, but the fact remains that Iran materially supports Hizbullah's rocket and terrorist attacks against Israel.

To me, the term "State sponsers of terrorism" says it all. Radical Islam, whether shiite or sunni, has shown itself capable of any act, even that of self destruction. The Middle East basically got a free ride after WW2, where Nazi-aligned supporters of genocide and hate were allowed to continue with a "clean slate". Egypt's Nasser, the "Palestinian Hero" the Grand Mufti, and many others were allowed to thrive. Saudi Arabia has sheltered many since, like Edi Amin, who praised Hitler as a Hero.

This, in my opinion is enough of a dark cloud over their society to create a situation where trust should be earned, not simply granted out of fairness.

2) Instability. Iran is an inherantly instable nation, only a few decades old, with numerous factions hoping for "change". That change could be peaceful Democracy, and that change could be toward the radical violence of the 1970's and 80's. If we do trust the current government enough to allow them weapons technologies, there's no way for us to know if their teetering power will last another 5 years.

The fall of the Soviet Union highlighted this, as small, desperately poor break-away republics were suddenly left with the weapons of superpowers, and little or no obligation as to what to do with them.

3)Our own sins are warnings. "Law Enforcement" is the most hypocritical act, and yet the most necessary. People always list the sins of the US and other nuclear nations when they talk about new nuclear powers. Sins are sins, though. If a policeman breaks the law, that doesn't give everyone the right to, or the moral obligation to his powers. The wrongs commited by the US and others shouldn't be used to validate the wrongs by other nations.

The whole "They are no worse than us" arguement relies on a lot of faith. Intent, the attitude toward the wrong in question, has much more to do with it. Sure, China has no more moral reason to have nukes than North Korea. Frankly, China shouldn't have them. They do, though, which creates untold problems when we try to deal with their human rights issues, and Taiwan, and all the rest.

I think you have to cut through the veil of "equitability", and subjectively judge. North Korea and Iran are basically hateful nations, who have used almost every opportunity since their beginning to thwart the will of the international community. North Korea is a nation which kidnapped Japanese citizens, test fires missiles by firing them over Japan. Iran has been an open proponent of the idea that Isreal should simply not exist, and materially supported any means to harrow and harm them by terrorist organizations.

Sure, it is hypocritical. Pakistan shouldn't have had nukes, but they do. China shouldn't have them, but they do. Maybe we shouldn't have them, but we do. DIS-arming a nation is next to impossible, but preventing them from becoming armed is pro-active.

It's not like the world is a better place with more nuclear weapons. There shouldn't be any. To say that because your neighbor has a closet full of WMDs gives you the moral right to have them falls flat. To say that because the police sometimes abuse their authority that you should also have the trappings of that authority, the weaponry to impose your OWN abuse, falls flat.

Sure, it is hypocritical. Pakistan shouldn't have had nukes, but they do. China shouldn't have them, but they do. Maybe we shouldn't have them, but we do. DIS-arming a nation is next to impossible, but preventing them from becoming armed is pro-active.

It's also impossible. How do you 'prevent' someone from developing weaponry without going to war with them? It's unlikely Iran would subject itself to weapons inspections. And if someone starts bombing nuclear reactors, or starts attacking weapons stockpiles (most likely to be positioned in civilian areas) then there is going to be considerable international fallout. Cynicism is too rife world-wide to really support that kind of action without seriously damaging reputations - although of course Israel and to a lesser extent the US don't particularly care about reputation.

But still it would require a considerable exertion of effort to achieve an outcome that wouldn't further any particular goal. As OG said, Iran hasn't shown itself to be particularly belligerent, and for a nation in that region it's practically saintly. To me it seems like a waste of effort to bother disarming them, particularly as the power of the religious establishment in Iran has been weakening for decades. Even the current resurgence seems likely to subside again. Why bother? We may as well just wait 20 years or so.

As OG said, Iran hasn't shown itself to be particularly belligerent, and for a nation in that region it's practically saintly.

I'm sorry, but that deserves an "are you on crack" look. Sure, you don't have much to worry about from Iran. Have you ever worried about Hizbullah rockets fired from Lebanon falling on your town?

What about the HUGE shipload of weapons from Iran that were intercepted on their way to Palestine. Not jsut a car trunk full, but "long range Katyusha rockets, Sagger and LAW anti-tank missiles, mortars, mines, advanced explosive equipment, weapons and sniper rifles, bullets and much more."

"And if someone starts bombing nuclear reactors, or starts attacking weapons stockpiles (most likely to be positioned in civilian areas) then there is going to be considerable international fallout."

Bank on it. Israel will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. The conflict is enevitable, and we will support Israel. So, do you do it before, or after they have a big one-shot weapon that could kill hundreds of thousands of people?

"To me it seems like a waste of effort to bother disarming them, particularly as the power of the religious establishment in Iran has been weakening for decades. Even the current resurgence seems likely to subside again. Why bother? We may as well just wait 20 years or so.

But what comes next? You just assume that those who seize power will be less dangerous. You assume that a government on the verge of collapse will be able to protect their nuclear arsenal.

How many in the Iranian military are sympathetic to Hizbullah? Does it really take an official mandate to get nuclear materials into the hands of terrorists? Hardly. The odds of an overt nuclear attack are small compared to materials being diverted to a terrorist organization.

I hae to sit back in awe of people who can't see the overt dangers involved with a nation like Iran having this technology.

Let me ask my esteemed colleagues if the alliance of Iran and Syria changes anything?

"Iran and Syria on Wednesday said they would unite against any challenges or threats to their nations' livelihoods, a move that could raise the stakes in the ongoing international dramas involving both countries." Source: Fox News (among many others) at http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147764,00.html

Iranian Vice President Mohammed Aref said "This meeting, which takes place at this sensitive time, is important, especially because Syria and Iran face several challenges and it is necessary to build a common front."

In view of the new government in Iraq and what seems like hope for the beginnings of a settlement between Palestinians and Israelis, what challenges are there except for the United States?

Is it just me, or is this reminiscent of the beginnings of World War I, where a series of mutual aid pacts drew the nations of the world into a conflagration?

"Is it just me, or is this reminiscent of the beginnings of World War I, where a series of mutual aid pacts drew the nations of the world into a conflagration?"

The main difference I see is that none of the nations aligned have the abililty to strike the US in any tangible, conventional military manner.

I think a better analogy would be Europe during the 1950's cold war. The real conflict was between the US and the USSR, but the most reasonable threat was to all the little nations in Eastern Europe. There was a lot more chance of Soviet tanks involved in "expansion" than all-out nuclear conflict.

One has to wonder how the crumdgeons in Iran and Syria view peace between Israel and Palestine. Could they see the lack of an Islamic "Cause" to be the end of their covert power? Now, faced with the chance that they will no longer be able to exert influence through terrorist organizations, they have to make themselves overtly powerful?

I dunno. WHen I first heard about the bombings in Lebanon, I thought it was maybe a sign of tension between Iran, who has great influence there through terrorist organizations, and Syria, who has military control there. I guess not.

What F__K you are talking about, Americans are bas---rd, they are the first Maker of NUkes, and they are first user also. Did u forget about Nakasaki and Hiroshima? to those people who support blindly US to have nuke and rest not? I say Every country has right to make one!!! Or NON!!!

Great article, Barry!

Is the US or the UK likely to use those nukes? I don't think so. Will N Korea? Step on their toes and I bet they would a least threaten to do so if not actually do it. For all our *war-mongering* when have we ever used or threatened to use a nuke besides Japan in WW2?

You answered your own question--the US is the only country to use WMD on another country. We are the only one with a record.

This is also good thinking. But will those hotheads over there see it *before* some idiot pushes the button? With us it takes more than just the presidents say so to use nukes. Not so with a dictator.

For starters, Iran is a theocracy. The supreme leader would also need the consultative assemblies permission to detonate nukes. The consultative assembly (or parliament) is elected by popular vote to four year terms--not appointed by the supreme leader. So, it is not just one person holding their hand over the button.

"The supreme leader would also need the consultative assemblies permission to detonate nukes."

That ignores all the "Iran's system of government is probably going to change soon anyway" arguements that proponants here make.

Anyway, like I said, they won't allow any scrutiny on how they handle the storage and security of their nuclear program. You can't vouch for them when you have no idea how they will handle it.\

A lot of these excuses are based on the "sins" of the US. In any other arguement, there is an opposite reaction. Look at gun control here in the US. Would you, shadesofgrey, say that because the government and police have abused the ownership of, say, automatic weapons, that everyone should have them?

Iran won't tolerate regulation. Iran's government, according to those OPPOSED to the US stance, is doomed to change sooner or later.

In that light, what and who do you have faith in?

And the only nation who has used it is USA, the one who said they are the "Defender of Democracy".


--Sure the US used them first, but take a good look at diplomacy and general ideaology back then and compare it to now...Back then truman used them to make peace and prevent greater casualties for the US, if we had done our alternative [ japan refused peace talks BTW] which was to invade japan, the projections of loss of lives for the americans alone was catastrophic....., Of course now if those same circumstances came about, things would likely be done differently.., but thats just what i've looked at...

Also, I personally feel that iran or N.korea, shouldn't have nukes, well most nations actually...if you think about it, out in the public these "friendly" countries say that the nuclear programs are for peace, and that the nukes are for _____ [input whatever] But in private they can build these weapons,

also, the weapons inspectors wouldn't find anything , these alleged "weapon producing" countries could just as easily [if they have made them] move them, or hide them underground in Cilos [forgive my spelling]

Just some thoughts.......[oh, and let the bashing begin....]

BRILLIANT PIECE ... BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Some points I wish to make:
>l the sabre-rattling from the US on this issue can't disguise the fact that the world's only hyperpower has limited options
>when it comes to confronting Iran. America can't give Iran a taste of Iraq's medicine because the current patient has the
>doctor by the throat.

Amen, something the pro-war "turn them into glass" side has yet to understand. Look at the affect of the "explosion" this
week in Iran a few miles from the Bushre reactor ... and the affect on the world market (stocks and oil).

Some are now suggesting Iran did it on purpose JUST to show that messing with it has costs NOT only in soldiers lives but
other economies.

>Once Iran gets the big one though, the old Cold War "logic" of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) comes into effect. Iran
>can wipe out Israel but Iran won't because Israel can wipe out Iran. Israel can wipe out Iran but Israel won't because Iran
>can wipe out Israel. And they'll all live happily ever after!

Once more "logic" being applied.
Something the "nuke them off the face of the Earth" crowd cannot fathom.

Its a shame all the other Middle East countries STILL fail to get the message ... your way of life will always be threatened
until you acquire the means to return "the favor".

>These are very good arguements. But lets take it a bit further shall we? Is the US or the UK likely to use those nukes?
>I don't think so. Will N Korea?

Says who?
Every four years bring a new regime into power ... with their own "interests"

>For all our *war-mongering* when have we ever used or threatened to use a nuke besides Japan in WW2?

How about the development of "bunker busters"???
The "Depleted Uranium Shells" used to decimate Fallujah is pretty close ... Did you read news reports claiming witnesses
seeing U.S soldiers scrubbing the place with water tanks?

What were they trying to "clean up"?

>But will those hotheads over there see it *before* some idiot pushes the button?

Listen, they are getting it for THEIR defence. If you dont attack them they dont use it.
So, DONT THREATEN THEM AND YOULL BE FINE!!!

>With us it takes more than just the presidents say so to use nukes.

How about the guy walking around with the brief case with the "launch codes" ... if theres any truth to that then it only
takes HIM to stop a madman

MAD .. its all thats keeping us alive. I vote for more countries joining the Nuclear Club.

>It's not like the world is a better place with more nuclear weapons. There shouldn't be any.

Good "charity begins at HOME". Start by ridding the world of YOUR stockpiles.
FIRST.

>To say that because your neighbor has a closet full of WMDs gives you the moral right to have them falls flat.

???
The first concern of every living thing is "SELF PRESERVATION". Muslim, Christian or Jewish ... its all the same.

>To say that because the police sometimes abuse their authority that you should also have the trappings of that authority,
>the weaponry to impose your OWN abuse, falls flat.

Its a system of checks and balances. Governments with a dis-armed populous tend to ABUSE authority. History has shown
that. Ask the NRA members why they have guns ... its not always for hunting.

Finally, who made you the WORLD POLICE. I dont remember a vote being taken? So if you can have it, ALL OTHERS should
as well.

there is a very great difference between a nation having nuclear weapons and the Islamic militants possessing these devices. For the most part, a country especially a dictatorship will not risk using these weapons on a major power for fear of losing what is most important -- their power base. The greatest danger in any of the Moslem countries obtaining nuclear weapons is if they choose to give them to the Islamic terrorist organizations which do not have a country to lose if they use them.

This was the subject of a paper written by Professor Record at the Army War College. He pointed out, that the tactics we must use with a terrorist organization such as Al Qaeda, Islamic Jihad or Hezbollah is very different from the tactics we would use with a country such as Iraq, Iran, Syria or North Korea. So the real danger to the United States by allowing other Moslem countries to obtain these weapons is there possible distribution to Islamic terrorists who are not inhibited to use these weapons against the United States or other Western nations.

>Bank on it. Israel will not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons.

Its not Israels decision to make. Iran is not Iraq.
1) their program is cleverly hidden and placed in "strategic locations"
2) there are a lot of mountainous region on their land (plenty of places to hide Surface to Air missiles) and
the distance between them and Israel is greater
3) any attack on them will SEAL the DEAL and gurantee the following
a) the Ayatollahs grip on power
b) the FULL SUPPORT of their youth in sacrifising (anything) to acquire said weapons

Look, even the SHAH wanted them ... WHAT GOVERNMENT IN IRAN HAS NOT WANTED A NUCLEAR PROGRAM (peaceful
or otherwise)???

>The conflict is enevitable, and we will support Israel.

Good, then be prepared for the fallout. They arent
1) hobbled by 12 years of sanctions
2) divided ethnically
3) have the means to affect the global economy
4) and have quite a few "allies" with vested deals and interests (Russia, India and China)
5) and most importantly they now have a supportive government in Iraq and a proxy army
in Lebanon

GOOD LUCK TO YOU!!!
The next war you start will add 5 more to the list of Nuclear Nations.

By the way what MESSAGE does leaving the CTB Threaty and starting research on "NUK LEAR" bunker busters give?

rombios: go back to your ward, please, noone is listening.

OG San: I've said before that I would feel safer with Iran holding a few nukes rather than N. Korea, who I, too, feel is more likely to use them in anger.
What I would worry about, though, would be Iran's tendency to support terrorism; I think it more than likely that they just might slip a bomb or two to some whacko group with the right amount of cash, or even on credit, if they promised to use it against Isreal (or even the US). After all....though Iran probably (or maybe) wouldn't use nukes on Isreal themselves for fear of retaliation,, if an independent terror group did it, who would Isreal have to fire on? Unless, of course, they eventually found that Iran had given the weapon(s) out for use.

You all keep implying (some of you on two threads now that I've been following) that the US somehow uses its nuclear arsenal and the fact that we are the only ones to have actually used a nuke in war to hold the rest of the world in thrall.
When was the last time we actually used our nukes to pressure anyone into seeing things our way? The 1980s, with Reagan's buildup in Europe that eventually brought down the Soviets?
Until recent years, with N. Korea and now Iran actively seeking a nuclear option to their war chests, our nuclear weapons were incidental carryovers from the Cold War. Now, however, by going out and looking to build a nuke arsenal for themselves, these two rogue states are bringing them to the forefront once more.
Don't blame us; we've had them for decades, yes, but we haven't used them in 60 years, and don't want to.
The closest we actually came to using them was in October of 1962, with the Cuban Missle Crisis, and it was averted by Kennedy when his firm stand on the issue made the Soviets back down. That was 43 years ago.
In fact, we've all but ignored them since the early 90s, despite..DESPITE...recent conflicts in which they could easily have been used to wipe our enemies off the face of the Earth.
The activities of Iran and N. Korea are making us dust off and oil up our ICBMs once more, though, warily watching the emerging threat. Don't blame us. Blame them.

Rightwinger ... ill go back to my ward, if you take you PILLS!

>you all keep implying (some of you on two threads now that I've been following) that the US somehow uses its nuclear
>arsenal and the fact that we are the only ones to have actually used a nuke in war to hold the rest of the world in thrall.

I am not implying, I am stating that as FACT!!!

>When was the last time we actually used our nukes to pressure anyone into seeing things our way?

What time is it?

>In fact, we've all but ignored them since the early 90s, despite..DESPITE...recent conflicts in which they could easily have
>been used to wipe our enemies off the face of the Earth.

You would have used them but CANNOT.
Because you are no longer the only ones with such weapons ... the affect of repeating the mistakes with Hiroshima and
Nagaszki could have dire consequences NOW.

Lets say a criminal contemplates robbing a convenient store (of its oil )
Would said criminal be more or less likely to do this if
1) the store owner or cashier has a gun
2) SOMEONE else in the store has a gone and might come to the cashier's aid?

a gun is a gun ... in the end both do the same, whether you have a glock or a bushmaster.

>The activities of Iran and N. Korea are making us dust off and oil up our ICBMs once more, though, warily watching the
>emerging threat. Don't blame us. Blame them.

Leave them alone and you have nothing to worry about!!!
They need this to protect themselves from your POLICIES of pre-emptive attack and regime change

LEAVE THEM ALONE AND YOU NEEDED WORRY ABOUT YOUR SAFTEY