Why does anyone care if Iran has nuclear bombs?

[jay gw]

Time Magazine

On a visit last month to Tehran, International Atomic Energy Agency director Mohamed ElBaradei announced he had discovered that Iran was constructing a facility to enrich uranium — a key component of advanced nuclear weapons — near Natanz. But diplomatic sources tell TIME the plant is much further along than previously revealed. The sources say work on the plant is "extremely advanced" and involves "hundreds" of gas centrifuges ready to produce enriched uranium and "the parts for a thousand others ready to be assembled."

Iran announced last week that it intends to activate a uranium conversion facility near Isfahan (under IAEA safeguards), a step that produces the uranium hexafluoride gas used in the enrichment process. Sources tell Time the IAEA has concluded that Iran actually introduced uranium hexafluoride gas into some centrifuges at an undisclosed location to test their ability to work. That would be a blatant violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, to which Iran is a signatory.

The IAEA declined to comment. A senior State department official said he believed El Baradei was trying to resolve the issue behind the scenes before going public. But experts say the new discoveries are very serious and should be handled in public.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,430649,00.html

Why does it matter that Iran may build nuclear bombs? About 10 or so countries have them, including China, America, France, Israel, Pakistan etc.

What's one more country with nukes?

 

[Grammatron]

Because they signed the NPT(nuclear non-proliferation treaty) which gave them access to certain technologies and nuclear power plant assistance in exchange for them not pursuing nuke building. Other countries you listed have not.

 

[a_unique_person]

All the world needs, more nukes. The countries have them, the greater the odds one will be stupid enough to set one off.

Read an interesting article on nukes. It summed them up as
'The most useless weapon ever invented'.

As it pointed out, India probably wishes it had never developed them, because as soon as it did, so did Pakistan. As soon as Pakistan did, their mad scientest was out selling the technology to the usual suspsects.

 

[LucyR]

Read an interesting article on nukes. It summed them up as
'The most useless weapon ever invented'.

So in your opinion the thinking behind the concept of mutually assured destruction is invalid?

 

[Donks]

So in your opinion the thinking behind the concept of mutually assured destruction is invalid?

It is valid as long as 2 (at least) assumptions hold true:
-Neither side is willing to die in order to kill the other side
-Both sides can monitor the other side with little or no false positives.

 

[LucyR]

It is valid as long as 2 (at least) assumptions hold true:
-Neither side is willing to die in order to kill the other side
-Both sides can monitor the other side with little or no false positives.

So is there a case to be made that the existence of nuclear weapons prevented the Cold War from turning hot?

Edited to correct uncharacteristically bad grammar.

 

[demon]

There is something awful happening at the moment. The public is being softened up for an attack on Iran.
First, there are leaked stories about the possibility that the US or Israel might attack. This prepares the event in people's minds, so that when it happens it's not shocking or strange.
It's sort of, 'Oh yes, well we knew that was going to happen.'
The softening up is supported by comments sneaking under people's radar without their noticing - the 'threat' is casually declared an obvious fact in the middle of some report and goes unnoticed. People know no better so they accept it; it makes an imprint on their minds. This is a kind of Stealth propaganda.

Then, when the attack happens, the thought is: 'Well, we knew that was coming. It's awful! Mind you, they are a threat - what else could they do?'

These casual statements are vital in preparing the public and stifling outrage. There is genuine complicity in mass murder here.

 

[Grammatron]

Demon, that's all good and well but Israel can't pull it off. There's no 1 reactor that they can blow up like in Iraq, there's a system of facilities through-out Iran. Most of them are hidde and in population centers. It would require a long-term campaign that US might pull off but at too great a cost, IMHO.

 

[CapelDodger]

Read an interesting article on nukes. It summed them up as
'The most useless weapon ever invented'.

They did support, for a long time, a massive misdirection - that only nuclear weapons make you a credible power in the modern world. They are very difficult to make, and very few nations have the industrial resources to create them from scratch without the effort showing up. In truth (and Saddam's Iraq, I think, was the first to spot this), chemical and biological weapons are much easier and cheaper to make and just as terrifying. And you can also use them without repurcussions, as Iraq demonstrated against the Iranians and Kurds. OK, not since the invasion of Kuwait, but prior to that - impunity.

So the truth was out. Suddenly every junta finds a need for pesticide factories. And they're positively Jonesing for medical reearch facilities - purely out of concern for their disease-racked peons, of course.

 

[LucyR]

They are very difficult to make, and very few nations have the industrial resources to create them from scratch without the effort showing up. In truth (and Saddam's Iraq, I think, was the first to spot this), chemical and biological weapons are much easier and cheaper to make and just as terrifying. And you can also use them without repurcussions, as Iraq demonstrated against the Iranians and Kurds. OK, not since the invasion of Kuwait, but prior to that - impunity.

I wonder what would have been the repercussions if Iraq had used them on Iran.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I think I read somewhere that the real reason the dinosaurs disappeared is because they developed nuclear weapons. One day a pissed-off pteradactyl got upset and used his. It started a chain reaction and the other dinosaurs started using theirs as well.

The upside of this, is that it allowed us "sensible" hairless apes to evolve and invent wonderful things like "Reality TV" and twinkies.

Charlie (stupid dinosaurs) Monoxide

 

[SezMe]

So in your opinion the thinking behind the concept of mutually assured destruction is invalid?

I think the idea is that if nukes are the "most useless weapons" and so nations had not developed them, the concept of MAD would not have even existed.

So is there a case to be made that the existence of nuclear weapons prevented the Cold War from turning hot?

You're confusing causation and correlation. Both sides in the Cold War had nukes and the Cold War did not turn hot does NOT lead to the conclusion that nukes prevented a hot war.

Mind you, I am not making an argument either way. I'm just saying that if you want to conclude that nukes prevented the Cold War from turing hot, you need to provide evidence beside the acknowledged correlation.

 

[jay gw]

There is something awful happening at the moment. The public is being softened up for an attack on Iran.

That's why I brought it up. I've noticed all the small stories appearing here and there, definitely coordinated by the US government/friendly media about 'proposed' attacks on Iran. It's not an accident that they keep appearing.

I think somebody really wants the United States military to attack every Arab country. If the public doesn't say "no" now, they won't get a chance to do it later.

 

[LucyR]

I'm just saying that if you want to conclude that nukes prevented the Cold War from turing hot, you need to provide evidence beside the acknowledged correlation.

Can't. On the basis of precedent, however, I think it suggestive that two highly belligerent nations having diametrically opposite political systems did not directly come to blows in the course of half a century.

 

[Ed]

The ex-president of Iran was widely quoted as saying that one delivered nuke would wipe out Isreal whereas they don't have the capability of wiping out Islam.

Fundimentalist Moslems would not hesitiate to use them.

 

[jay gw]

The ex-president of Iran was widely quoted as saying that one delivered nuke would wipe out Isreal whereas they don't have the capability of wiping out Islam.

Source?

Fundimentalist Moslems would not hesitiate to use them.

I know some fundamentalist Muslims who would not use nuclear bombs.

 

[dsm]

Demon, that's all good and well but Israel can't pull it off. There's no 1 reactor that they can blow up like in Iraq, there's a system of facilities through-out Iran. Most of them are hidde and in population centers. It would require a long-term campaign that US might pull off but at too great a cost, IMHO.

I'm interested -- sources?

 

[dsm]

There is something awful happening at the moment. The public is being softened up for an attack on Iran.
First, there are leaked stories about the possibility that the US or Israel might attack. This prepares the event in people's minds, so that when it happens it's not shocking or strange.
It's sort of, 'Oh yes, well we knew that was going to happen.'
The softening up is supported by comments sneaking under people's radar without their noticing - the 'threat' is casually declared an obvious fact in the middle of some report and goes unnoticed. People know no better so they accept it; it makes an imprint on their minds. This is a kind of Stealth propaganda.

Then, when the attack happens, the thought is: 'Well, we knew that was coming. It's awful! Mind you, they are a threat - what else could they do?'

These casual statements are vital in preparing the public and stifling outrage. There is genuine complicity in mass murder here.

Then what do you make of this?

 

[Grammatron]

I'm interested -- sources?

I didn't know I was stating something incredible, which part do you need a source for?

 

[varwoche]

What's one more country with nukes?

Picture it: Virulent fundamentalists who seek the elimination of a nearby nuclear nation. A country with an abysmal track for supporting terrorism. Religious fanatics who believe in martyrdom.

Plus nukes.

They say that Saudi would follow suit. (What's one more afterall)? No reason to think the rest of the world would sit on the sidelines. (Nigeria, Belarus, and Kazakhstan...)

"Why does anyone care?" ???