I Have Yet To Hear A Good Reason Why Iran Would Risk Its Own Destruction By Launching Nukes

[EEO]

Specifically at Israel. One of the worst kept secrets is that Israel has had nukes since the 1960s. Frankly, I am more concerned about a preemptive strike being launch by Israel on Iran, because we don't have too much control over Israel as history has proven again and again. Oh, and the Israelis have known for years that no air assault can reasonable be thought to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

Additionally, I don't think Putin would give Iran permission for a nuclear attack on Israel, because it would require his blessings. Pretty sure he isn't ready for a nuclear war.

I am also concerned about Saudi Arabia getting nuclear missiles from Pakistan, which it helped payroll. Pakistan is in possession of missiles that can bring nuclear payloads to targets at up to 1,300 kilometers away. And Saudi Arabia will probably ask for some of those if Iran's program produces the nuclear technology. How's that for a balance in the region?

One way or another every major power in the Middle East may have nukes soon - except Iraq. How's that for irony?

[seveneyes]

1. I doubt the people of Iran would choose suicide by nuke

Let's hope they implement a well researched multi person trigger on the nukes they eventually will acquire.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

2. All it would take is an Ayatollah Huckabee, Santorum or McCain.

[jberryhill]

3. Relative size and proximity

MAD worked between the US and the USSR partly because the US and USSR both have large territories and are far apart.

First, the early warning systems of both countries could detect incoming with enough margin to check false positives and with something like a 30 minute window to "use it or lose it".

Secondly, the size and arrangement of each side's force rendered a devastating counterstrike possible, even if a first strike landed. Missile installations were dispersed, redundant and hardened, in addition to the constant airborne and submarine forces.

Even if there was uncertainty in the 30 minute window, bomber forces could get up and head to their failsafe points.

Israel is a small target. Iran has a size and terrain advantage.

[Whiskeytide]

4. That's a valid analysis...

... But I suppose you would also have to factor in the prospect of retaliation by Israel's allies - like the US. I could see fanatics calculating that they could take out Israel before Israel could launch, but there would still be the threat of counter annihilation even if they accomplished that.

The real concern is that there might be people with access to the weapons who, due to religious conviction, don't really care about the prospects of a counter launch, and might even welcome it. MAD only works if both sides want to survive. (And I understand the overwhelming majority of Iranians don't think like that - but it's still a legit risk).

Eventually, just because, numerous middle eastern counties will have them, and the lack of stability in their governments means that, in time, someone will use them. There is no doubt in my mind what ISIL would do if they acquired one.

[jberryhill]

7. Yes, there could be an irrational belief in counterstrike survival

An acquaintance of mine who spent a number of years maintaining aircraft in Saudi Arabia suggests it is a common belief that an air strike on Mecca, for example, would not be possible, since a divine agency would protect it from attack. Similar beliefs among Iran's leadership may be sincere, and they used similar "spiritual" protection arguments to inspire human wave attacks in the Iran/Iraq conflict. Specifically, they would distribute little plastic "keys to heaven" to the troops, which would gain them access to paradise in the event of death.

Even assuming rationality, I don't think the prospect of allied counterstrike is as credible a threat as it seems. If Iran had the ability to mount an effective first strike launch against Israel, obtaining effectively some measure of complete annihilation, then even if there had been a promise of an allied counterstrike, it would not be rational at that point to actually launch the promised counterstrike.

To put it another way, having threatened an allied counterstrike on Iran, what would be the point of actually doing it if they succeeded in a first strike annihilation of Israel? In the US/USSR context, a counterstrike by the US on the USSR is at least rational to the point of evening the post-exchange political and military balance. Presumably, the point of the USSR strike is to eliminate the US for the purpose of obtaining global domination. But if the US, which can't really be taken out in a first strike, retaliates, then the USSR is still inhibited from the goal of their first strike.

In the allied counterstrike situation, it really comes down to a "revenge" strike more than a "retaliation" strike. An effective counterstrike on Iran would have greater atmospheric consequences, Iran is not going to reach global domination anyway, and the consequences of launching the allied counterstrike are more of a downside for the alliance at that point, since Israel is already gone.


That doesn't mean the allied counterstrike wouldn't be launched, but there is enough reason to doubt the rationality of it, such that it is not as credible a deterrent to a first strike than in the US/USSR context. That doubt is risk.

Plus, there are models in both the 1967 war and the 1972 war. Both of those were imminent existential threats to Israel, and there was no significant intervention by any force allied with Israel.

[Krytan11c]

11. I won't go into as much detail

But I believe that in the event of a strike on Israel the allied counter strike would be used as a reaffirmation that we will retaliate against attacks on our allies. Perhaps not the most effective strategy.

[jberryhill]

17. And if Russia is Iran's ally for nuclear deterrent purposes?

That ensures escalation of an Iranian first strike, and puts the craziest guy in the driver's seat...

How about everyone agrees to let China pound the ever-loving crap out of any nation engaged in first use?

[Fast Walker 52]

5. they wouldn't -- it's all BS demagoguery on the part of neocons who need an enemy

good interview here:
http://www.democracynow.org/2015/8/20/the_danger_of_a_failed_iran

[EEO]

9. Yup. Another excuse to make war profiteers richer by sending middle class and poor kids to die.

[Art_from_Ark]

6. Israel has taken out a nuclear facility in the past

In 1981, it launched an air strike against a facility in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm

I am thinking that was one of the reasons why Saddam launched some Scud missiles at Israel some 10 years later.

[EEO]

8. I remember a few reports citing the Mossad, which concluded the underground facilities...

were too far underground to destroy.

[lancer78]

10. there isn't any

Iran wants nukes because after the man-childs' "axis of evil" speech, the only member of the axis of evil with nuclear capabilities was treated with kid gloves while one of the remaining two members without nuke capabilities was invaded. If I was the remaining member without any nuclear capability I would try to develope it asap. Especially after a senile old man who ascended to within one step of the presidency sings "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, iran".

[EEO]

14. It amazes me how people cannot think from their opponent's perspective.

Would Americans stop a nuclear program if they were threatened by the largest nuclear power. I fucking doubt it.

[Whiskeytide]

23. I agree with everything...

... you posted. THAT is the fundamental problem.

But the immediate concern is real. When Iran goes nuclear, that will domino to other ME counties following suit. If ISIL gets one, or several, I'm not confident they will only rattle the sabre. MAD worked because the governments really didn't want to end the world. Sooner or later they will be in the hands of a lunatic who does.

[Recursion]

12. The argument is that you know "they" are crazy. And you know just what I mean by "they"

Nobody will ever say it in as many words, but the whole premise is based on the idea that Muslims are too crazy for the standard logic of MAD to work on them.

100 years ago, the racist colonial line was "the only language these barbarians understand is force". Now that "the barbarians" have some force of their own, the new line is, "they are so barbaric they don't even understand force". Sigh.

[EEO]

13. We've been suffering from their arbitrary drawing of lines and creation of countries ever since.

[jberryhill]

19. 30 October 1918

[jberryhill]

18. MAD doesn't work between Iran and Israel

See upthread.

Israel is a small and nearby target.

It's small size provides a greater level of confidence in the prospect of a decisive first strike. There is not enough distance for reliable launch-on-warning, because the warning window, if any, is way too small to be reliable. So Israel has to be on a fallible hair-trigger.

And if the US is supposed to provide Israel's retaliatory capability, then I guess we'll have to give Russia a courtesy heads up before we launch - just so they don't get, you know, flustered, by our nuclear shit heading over their territory from North Dakota.

But if Russia agrees to provide Iran's retaliatory capability, for the same reasons, then we are down to hair triggers in Israel and Iran leading to escalation.

[jeff47]

26. Part of Israel's rumored nuclear arsenal is subs.

If that's true, then they would have a second-strike capability.

[jberryhill]

31. Kinda hard to build those in secret

[jeff47]

33. They didn't build them in secret. They bought them from Germany.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin-class_submarine

The only "secret" required is putting a nuclear warhead on the cruise missiles.

[whatthehey]

22. Not just Muslims, any religious fundamentalists are that crazy

I wouldn't trust any end times Christian cult with nukes either. Would you? When you actually truly believe in eternal paradise (not just fake it like that nice little mosque/church on the corner that functions more like a social club with semi-embarrassed prayers) what exactly is the downside to MAD in the name of whatever genocide you believe your god wants?

[jberryhill]

32. Yeah, they think "Here's the button that brings Jesus back" if they get control

[Behind the Aegis]

35. If you haven't seen it, I suggest watching the comedy "The Brink."

It is currently on HBO, and if you have the HBOGo app, you can watch the entire season. The finale is this Sunday.

[jberryhill]

41. Omg

thanks

[closeupready]

37. Boom, there it is. Thank you.

I'm liking this new Recursion, hehe. ("Who are you and what have you done with Recursion!?&quot

[kelliekat44]

15. Don't hold your breath. You won't hear it. nt

[davidn3600]

16. I don't think that's necessarily the main concern

The worry is that they will have a nuke for defensive purposes but will finance terrorist activity. That way it would be impossible to stop them unless you risk nuclear war.

They have financed the rebels in Yemen who the Saudis are fighting right now. They also have links to Hezbollah. Which is why Israel is angry.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

20. It's not that they would launch nukes but rather they would use the threat of nukes to

insulate themselves as they pursue an expansionist agenda at their neighbors' expense.

[davidpdx]

21. I don't see a reason either

But I could be wrong. Any Middle Eastern country with a nuke is dangerous. I'm not so sure Iran would ask Putin for permission. They may be allies, but I doubt he has them under his finger.

[GummyBearz]

24. I don't think the country of Iran would nuke anyone, but

they do supply terrorist organizations... what if one day, someone 'accidently' sends such an organization the wrong weapon.

Then Khameni gives a speech along the lines of "Hey world, we were doing inventory and some how we have 49 nukes instead of 50... *shrugs*".

That would be quite frightening

[Mosby]

25. Plausible Deniability.

Iran will never shoot a nuclear ICMB or whatever at Israel. What would happen is that they would "lose" a nuke or bribes would free one up. Then the nuke would be moved to Israel and exploded in a suicide mission.

Iran would then say that there is no way to prove they did it.

And no one will be able to prove it.

[Behind the Aegis]

30. A more likely situation.

However, I don't think if they did launch nuclear weapons against it would signal their destruction. Everyone would be clamoring, demanding Israel NOT respond and let the situation "de-escalate". The idea that all these countries would come rushing in with their nuclear weapons and strike back is almost laughable.

[closeupready]

38. "no one will be able to prove [the bomb's not Iran's]" - chemical signatures

and other kinds of radiological identifiers - don't those exist? That is, isn't it possible to identify which country produced a bomb based upon explosive residue, and/or explosive heat or bloom size? I'm sure there's a way to do that.

[Mosby]

40. I think they can identify isotopes

But that's where plausible deniability comes in, the Iranians will trot out a couple nuclear scientists who "collaborated" with terrorists who made and then stole a nuke. "Sorry about Tel Aviv, we will be happy to send these criminals to Israel for prosecution."

[Gothmog]

27. MAD works

Mutually assured Destruction kept the US and Russia from a nuclear war

[hifiguy]

28. Indeed.

The mullahs very much like being alive and in power.

Hard to maintain either if you start firing nukes around the neighborhood and large chunks of your own country get turned into glowing glass parking lots by Israeli nukes.

They're not suicidal.

[brooklynite]

29. Because politicians are not always rational...

Now, I believe the politicians in Iran ARE largely rational, and I support the deal. But substitute "North Korea" for "Iran" and ask the same question.

[realFedUp]

34. Just arming themselves so we and Israel don't mess with them

Duh

[EX500rider]

36. I have yet to hear a good reason why Germany would risk its own destruction by attacking Russia...

.....and yet they did. And declared war on the US when they didn't have to.
People in charge can do stupid stuff.

[closeupready]

39. Yes. Germans enthusiastically supported Hitler's "Total War!" speeches

in Nuremberg and at other Nazi rallies. Prior to WWI, Germany was a scientific and economic powerhouse, probably the most advanced in the world. 20 years from the outset of WWI, they were then eagerly gambling on their very existence, as a nation - admittedly at Hitler's urging, but you can't deny the film footage that survives showing how they loved him and his calls for 'Total War'.

So yeah, I can imagine a nation risking everything, including the use of nukes, in order to get the other side to back down so that they can get their way.