Do you believe Iran is attempting to develop nuclear weapons?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

I voted Option 4 (most likely not).

I'm not much of an expert on this issue, but it seems to me that rather than become a nuclear weapons state outright, Iran is genuinely developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, but a secondary motive is to become a nuclear weapons-capable state (much like Canada, Germany, and Japan are capable of developing nukes).

Despite Ahmadinejad's insane rhetoric back in the day, the Iranian President is not the equivalent of the American President, and the Ayatollahs (the real leaders of Iran) have made comments against nuclear weapons.

And really, given how the U.S. and European powers have such a long and rich history of meddling in other nations' affairs, it's really not surprising Iran is trying to become capable of developing them.

[politicus]

Option 1 and they should be stopped if at all possible.

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

I don't care if they do or don't build nukes. Israel, India, and Pakistan are all nuclear powers in their area.

Do you guys really think Iran is actually going to use these nukes? They were supposed to wipe Israel off the map like ten years ago. What happened to that?

[Lief 🗽]

I more or less agree with Clark's analysis.

Considering that Iran is surrounded by hostile nuclear states (Israel, Pakistan, India) it makes strategic sense for them to have that capacity as well. And obviously every state has the right to develop nuclear energy. That said, nuclear proliferation is obviously not a good thing.

[bedstuy]

Of course they are.  

Iran has been subject to serious economic sanctions because they wouldn't cooperate with international inspections and halt their enrichment program.  If they were fine with a peaceful nuclear program they could have easily reached an agreement to have nuclear energy without the capability of developing nuclear weapons.  

As for the problem of Iran developing nukes, you just have to consider the politics of this area of the world.  Iran is the major Shia nation and we've seen where the Sunni-Shia split can go in terms of insane violence.  And, in fact, Iran has used chemical weapons before against Iraq.  Iran getting nuclear weapons could also start an arms race where the gulf states develop nuclear weapons.  And, then think of the worst case scenarios, what if a middle eastern nation has nuclear weapons and then falls under the control of an ISIS-like group?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

but it seems to me that rather than become a nuclear weapons state outright, Iran is genuinely developing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes...

Even if this were the case, I would point out that Iran should be heavily discouraged from doing any nuclear anything for certain... er... tectonic... reasons...

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

The international community must act against any country developing nukes, while working to reduce their own stockpiles. If Iran does start a military nuclear program, they should be stopped - militarily if need be (that said the West are major hypocrites by not placing similar pressure on Israel to uncover and deactivate its own shadowy nuclear operation).

Basically nuclear weapons are a cancer and the sooner the world rids itself of them, the better.

I think certain elements of the Iranian government would be quite happy with nuclear weapons, but the powers-that-be in the government aren't fans.

[politicus]

Basically nuclear weapons are a cancer and the sooner the world rids itself of them, the better.

Getting rid a nukes all together is a utopian goal and trying to do it is dangerous, if some rogue state develps nukes covertly the rest of the world may discover it too late to react. Better keep a reserve in the established great powers.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Basically nuclear weapons are a cancer and the sooner the world rids itself of them, the better.

Getting rid a nukes all together is a utopian goal and trying to do it is dangerous, if some rogue state develps nukes covertly the rest of the world may discover it too late to react. Better keep a reserve in the established great powers.

I used to think that way until:

a) I read Eric Schlosser's new book about the American nuclear programme and its cavalcade of errors, security lapses and accidents. The sheer of multitude of staggering errors in just one country's programme (and from a developed, well-off country at that) suggested that the mere presence of nuclear weapons are a hazard.

b) The presence of nuclear weapons in the hands one of "great powers" builds resentment and is brazenly unfair; giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse to develop their own programmes.

c) No nuclear programme can develop in a vacuum. Intelligence services and even scientific measurements are powerful enough that we can tell if a country is flirting with nuclear programmes. Rouge states are not able to develop any sort of programme without the community finding out, if they are even able to get hold of any of the needed raw materials and expertise. (North Korea, a country pretty much fully dedicated to their military, can't even hit Seoul with their tech)

d) Nuclear weapons are effectively useless as a form of a combat. They are only good against civilians and on that grounds alone should be illegal. The idea that a rouge nuclear state can only be defeated by nukes is a bit dodgy to say the least. If North Korea invaded the South now, they could be wiped out without a single nuclear device being touched.

e) I don't see what is so different between existing bans on chemical, biological or cluster weapons and a potential ban on nuclear weapons.

f) Just because existing states seem stable with rational leaders, doesn't mean they will in the future. Imagine, say, a President Le Pen of France with nukes. Who is to say a Curtis LeMay figure won't come back into the scene in America? And the less said about Russia the better...

[The Mikado]

They'd be crazy not to be pursuing nuclear capacity. Nuclear weapons have amazing deterrent capabilities. As our forays into Iraq and Afghanistan the past decade have shown, the only countries that still get invaded in the 21st century are those that can't defend themselves with nuclear weapons.

[TDAS04]

They probably are. 

[dead0man]

Basically nuclear weapons are a cancer and the sooner the world rids itself of them, the better.

Getting rid a nukes all together is a utopian goal and trying to do it is dangerous, if some rogue state develps nukes covertly the rest of the world may discover it too late to react. Better keep a reserve in the established great powers.

I used to think that way until:

a) I read Eric Schlosser's new book about the American nuclear programme and its cavalcade of errors, security lapses and accidents. The sheer of multitude of staggering errors in just one country's programme (and from a developed, well-off country at that) suggested that the mere presence of nuclear weapons are a hazard.

Sure, there have been some screw ups, but the US has never been on the razors edge of launching.  The USSR were a couple of times, but thankfully a couple of level headed dudes (potentially) saved the world.  Yes, it's a risk.  Yes, laws of something mean eventually a screw up will lead to a launch, but it doesn't mean wwIII will start either.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You say that as if these countries wouldn't want nukes if nobody else had them.  Seems to me that would be MORE reason to want them.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Say what?  That's easily the dumbest "theory" so far.  Why do you think nukes wouldn't be good against the other guys troops?  Military people aren't magic ya know.  It's the reason the vast majority of US nukes are of the tactical variety.  Post Cold War nuclear war policy is to just go after military installations and assets.  Population centers are of dubious military value.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Chemical and biological weapons aren't very good weapons, too much risk to your own side when using them....but we still train on how to defend against them.  Nuclear weapons, especially when used tactically, are excellent weapons.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But the cats out of the bag and it ain't going back in.  It would be great (maybe) if we could snap our fingers and live in a world without nuclear fission, but it's not going to happen.  We live in the world we live in and in this world the best thing is for good guys to keep the nukes to keep the bad guys from using them.


<shakes head>...effectively useless as a form of a combat....the hell?

[ElectionsGuy]

I'm going to lean on no, but even if they are, there's no threat coming from them. Mikado brings up a great point, why be defenseless when everybody else has one, and why equate it as a threat? Considering Iran's history, its not surprising that they might want to develop one.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

Probably not.

[Rockefeller GOP]

Duh...

[Person Man]

It's really hard to tell. I'd imagine if they wanted them and could get them, they would of had them by now. However,  they definitely have a motive to get them and they aren't really cooperating on nuclear development at this point.

I think we have a good strategy in dealing with Iran right now and if they did get nukes or close to getting nukes, it could provide a reasonable impetus for a broad coalition for regime change. Just having like 10 nukes really isn't enough to deter enemies and thus regime change could still be possible.  That's why we would have had trouble fighting the USSR directly in the early cold war days even when we had the clear atomic advantage.

This of course assumes Iran can't have nukes under any circumstances and that is predicated  under any consensus that they shouldn't. Without consensus or any overt aggression,  I don’t think anything would or immediately should be done about Iran getting nukes.

[© tweed]

I certainly would if I were them -- it's their only shot at actual leverage on the world scene.  as of now they only exist at the mercy of US/Israel.

[NewYorkExpress]

Yes... Whether they desire to use them, is of course, something entirely different and should be treated as such.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

@dead0man

I know it's your "schtick" to fetishise the most military hardware and everything; but you're parodying yourself. Nuclear disarmament is not some crazy idea that only hippies support. Basically everyone and their grandmothers support the principle - including grand Cold Warriors like Bush Sr, Robert McNamara, Henry Kissinger and Reagan. In fact the US and Russia are legally obliged to reduce their stockpiles. The only reason it isn't being done is diplomatic bungling and laziness. (More Putin's fault than Obama's at this point)


I don't trust bureaucracy as far as I can throw it; and nuclear programmes are essentially the worst examples of bureaucratic hells . Because they by nature have to be a) large b) centralised c) complicated and d) secretive (for obvious reasons) they are a recipe for potential disasters and paralysed in the event of any serious event. The US's system is slightly better than the Kremlin's in that it is somewhat less centralised - Russia's missiles are ridiculously vulnerable to a first strike, so I imagine they might be more "bullish" at the threat of attack.

Sure "nothings happened so far" -  a remarkably cavalier attitude I would think for something so clearly dangerous. The thing is, is the mere existence of these bombs put humanity in danger. Cyberwarfare. Sabotage. Negligence. Genuine mistakes. Terrorism. The latter is most important for me. If danger comes to the West from nuclear warfare (and it isn't ourselves), it won't be from Korea's or Iran's hillbilly nukes. Pyongyang has a greater risk of blowing up itself than South Korea. It will be from non-state actors, and the only real way to reduce the chance of nuclear terrorism is major arms control and regulation of fissile materials.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What to you do if your opponent brings a knife to a fistfight? You get a knife, of course. Countries act in their own self-interests. Nuclear weapons in the hands of the West (especially Israel's mysterious one) are enormous incentives to get your own nuclear programme. We need to de-escalate conflicts, not poke existing conflicts with sticks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

White elephants. I understand why "Tactical nuclear weapons" (which are all B-61's, I think) are one of NATO's prizes, but they are entirely about optics Eastern Europe would be infinitely better served with the money ploughed into conventional forces. I'm highly surprised you seem so surprised at my dismissal of the tactical worthiness of nukes. It's not a particularly controversial statement. You are blinded by your love of progress and impressive weaponry, but nuclear weapons don't really make much sense in modern wars. You think they would have helped in Afghanistan? Libya? Iraq? ISIS? I doubt it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not my point at all, but whatever. I was arguing against this dumb idea of "nuclear peace", where somehow if everybody disarms and some random country decided to build a nuclear bomb, every other country would be completely powerless to stop them.

[Frodo]

*Votes 'hell, yes', and then looks at poll results*

I didn't realize this was in dispute, as if anyone was actually taking Iran's denials seriously.  

[The Dowager Mod]

#1
And i don't care.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I more or less agree with Clark's analysis.

Considering that Iran is surrounded by hostile nuclear states (Israel, Pakistan, India) it makes strategic sense for them to have that capacity as well. And obviously every state has the right to develop nuclear energy. That said, nuclear proliferation is obviously not a good thing.

Exactly. Five "recognized" recognized nuclear powers has an unfair and sometimes dangerous advantage over a rest of the world. "I have divine right to posess nuclear capability, but when someone from outside the club does that, it's dangerous and we must stop them" mentality is pure hipocrisy.

[dead0man]

@dead0man

I know it's your "schtick" to fetishise the most military hardware and everything;

You missed the ...ahem...."update".....my schtick is Bushie and Israel dontchaknow.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Hey guess what, I support fewer nukes too!  They're expensive and worthless right up until the point you need them, just like insurance.  Yes, we could and should (and are) cut back on the number of them, but getting rid of them entirely would be foolish and dangerous.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Aren't the nuclear powers doing those very things?  Isn't that the main reason nobody but Iran and it's cronies wants Iran to get the bomb?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well no, that would be stupid.  You bring a gun or you run and let the bad guy with a knife do what ever horrible thing he was planning on doing.  Bringing a knife to a knife fight is silly.  That's how people get hurt.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Agreed...mostly.  We'd have had to drop a lot fewer bombs in Iraq if we could have tactically nuked two or three key places at the start.  I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE SHOULD HAVE, just saying they could have helped.  But they are great against standing armies, groupings of tanks, large airfields, Command and Control facilities and the like.  Sure, the wars we tend to fight now don't really have much of those things and we can deal with most of them in a slower, riskier and less effective way, but despite all their faults and risks, it's still better to have that great trump card in our back pocket.

I will admit biases here though (I work in Stratcom).

[Hifly]

Probably not, and even if they do it should not matter; They would not use them (it would only be a unilateral display of "look at the size of my dick"). I find it hilarious how right wingers and reactionaries throw hissy fits over something that doesn't exist and won't happen, yet are content with the Zionist state of Israel using their own weaponry and developing nuclear weapons, and at the same time being disingenuous.

[they don't love you like i love you]

dead0man should watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Y1ya-yF35g