by Eric Martin
Daniel Larison exposes the absurdity of the scaremongering-cum-warmongering about the likelihood (or lack thereof) that Iran would be willing to endure nuclear annihilation as an acceptable price to pay for the destruction of Israel (and Palestine and parts of neighboring Muslim nations as well):
The real gem of Netanyahu’s interview was this:
He continued: “You see a country that glorifies blood and death, including its own self-immolation.” I asked Netanyahu if he believed Iran would risk its own nuclear annihilation at the hands of Israel or America. “I’m not going to get into that,” he said.
Massie comments:
Secondly, why does Netanyahu decline to “get into” a discussion on whether Iran would “risk its own nuclear annihilation at the hands of Israel or America”? Might it be because the obvious answer is that they would not? Otherwise why not just say “yes they would be prepared to risk that”?
Netanyahu might have to acknowledge that all the supposed glorification of “self-immolation” is just bluster and empty rhetoric. Let’s be very clear on this point: the only argument in favor of a preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities is that traditional deterrence will not work with the Iranian government, because the “mad mullahs” are supposedly willing to suffer annihilation in exchange for destroying Israel. Not to be too blunt about it, but has it ever occurred to the people who make this argument that they may be making Israel’s fate far more important to Tehran than it actually is? I’m not sure what would offend some people more: the idea that Iran wants to destroy Israel at all costs, or the idea that it doesn’t place enough importance on the fate of Israel to do very much about it. Is Tehran willing to back proxies on Israel’s flanks that can launch rockets on Israeli cities? Yes. Does it follow that this garden-variety proxy warfare and power projection means that the government in question is so dedicated to harming Israel that it would invite nuclear apocalypse? Obviously, it doesn’t, and if I were an advocate of a strategy that takes this ludicrous idea for granted I would try to avoid talking about it in public, too. [emphasis added]
Me too.
And these excellent, insightful points are the reason mainstream conservatism has locked them away in a case that says, “Break glass in case of sanity.”
An opposition party headed by sober conservatives such as Larison would be a great asset to this country.
I meant to say, “…are the reason people such as Larison are locked away…”
The preview button is for fancy men!
Let’s be very clear on this point: the only argument in favor of a preventive war against Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities is that traditional deterrence will not work with the Iranian government, because the “mad mullahs” are supposedly willing to suffer annihilation in exchange for destroying Israel. Not to be too blunt about it, but has it ever occurred to the people who make this argument that they may be making Israel’s fate far more important to Tehran than it actually is?
I feel it would also help to be very clear that the supremest “mad mullah” of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has issued a fatwa that the production, stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons are forbidden under Islam, and that the Islamic Republic of Iran shall therefore never acquire or develop nuclear weapons.
When President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad took office in 2005, he reiterated his support for this fatwa.
Jes, Shhhhhhh! Don’t give away the secret!
a right wing blowhard is playing fast-and-loose with facts and threatening pre-emptive war in order to rally the public around the flag ?
oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. what is the world coming to ?
You know, I think you’re exagerating just a bit with that “only argument. It’s quite conceivable that the “mad mullahs” might think they could nuke Israel without being destroyed, by slipping nukes to an intermediate, to do the dirty work in a deniable fashion. Yeah, sure, everybody assumes that won’t work because Israel wouldn’t care who’d nuked them, and would just turn the entire middle east into a radioactive parking lot.
But would thinking Israel would blink at that deed really be as irrational as not caring whether your country was going to get taken out by a second strike? Or might they think, “Some Israelis would survive our proxy attack, though Israel wouldn’t, and those Iraelis would die as a result of Israel’s counter-attack. So Israel, lacking the moral certainty as to who did the deed, would refrain to spare it’s own survivors.
Now, THAT is a reasonable enough prospect to worry about. Nations mis-calculate all the time what they can get away with.
Sure, that’s slightly more plausible – but just barely.
It still presupposes a monomania that compels Iran’s leaders to risk annihilation – even if the risks are slightly less than simply launching warheads atop missiles.
You just don’t gamble with annihilation like that.
There was once a skit on SNL where a town had decreed that every person had to carry a nuclear weapon to prevent crime. It was a play on mutual assured destruction (sometime in the 70’s I think).
Two gunmen come in and rob a store, completely undeterred by the nuclear weapons, and the townspeople are astounded that they were not deterred: “don’t you understand that we can nuke you?”
Somehow the gunmen determined that the townspeople really would not destroy the town in order to prevent a robbery.
So the question is, do we think that Iran would really use its nuclear weapons to prevent conventional force muscle from being flexed in the region? It seems to me that its actual use for defense is limited to an existential threat to Iran (assuming rational actors).
On the other hand, it provides protection for Iran’s use of conventional force and proxy wars by reducing the likelihood of retaliation against Iran. This seems to me to be the real crux of the issue for Israel: how do you contain a nation that you can’t credibly attack? It is not likely that Iran will nuke Israel. It is more likely that they will use the cover of nuclear defense to increase its conventional weapon support for Israel’s enemies.
The Israelis have used their nukes to ensure conventional weapon pipelines from the US (in order to prevent an existential threat that would necessitate using them). Arguably the existence of nuclear weapons in Israel deterred more aggressive attacks in 67 and 73, and reduced Soviet support for Egypt. We can probably look at Israel to see how being a nuclear power really does reduce the effectiveness of international condemnation and pressure on actions.
Israel knows from its own experience that nukes do more than go boom: they are used as leverage for all kinds of things. And Iran with that leverage would not be good for Israel.
You know, I think you’re exagerating just a bit with that “only argument. It’s quite conceivable that the “mad mullahs” might think they could nuke Israel without being destroyed, by slipping nukes to an intermediate, to do the dirty work in a deniable fashion.
Why would any political leader anywhere trust any intermediary with nuclear weapons? What assurance could any independent intermediary offer you that they weren’t going to turn around and use the weapons against you or sell them on the black market? For that matter, why should you trust the operational competence of any intermediary? I mean, Israel does have an intelligence service and they try to infiltrate various groups…how could Iranian leaders ever trust any intermediary to be free from Israeli surveillance. If they’re wrong, then Iran would be nuked while Israel would not be. This doesn’t seem like a good value proposition.
I guess if you assume that Iranian leadership is spectacularly stupid then handing nuclear weapons off to an intermediary seems plausible, but only if you pretend that Iran has lots of nukes rather than at most a handful. Really, passing nuclear weapons to intermediaries is a luxury that only states with large nuclear arsenals can afford, so I’d worry more about Israel funneling nukes to anti-Iranian terror groups….
On the other hand, it provides protection for Iran’s use of conventional force and proxy wars by reducing the likelihood of retaliation against Iran. This seems to me to be the real crux of the issue for Israel: how do you contain a nation that you can’t credibly attack? It is not likely that Iran will nuke Israel. It is more likely that they will use the cover of nuclear defense to increase its conventional weapon support for Israel’s enemies.
But even with a nuke, Iran will still be constrained by the fact that it has a mediocre, underdeveloped economy, and, thus, not a lot of money for conquest. Conquest is hard, even for a country like the United States. Are we really to assume that little old Iran with its rinky dink military and barely getting by economy is going to do much better?
If Iran’s support for proxies would be a casus belli that Israel would seek to deter with conventional attack, why haven’t they?
What is Israel waiting for if it thinks it has something to gain by attacking a non-nuclear Iran? How much aid would and could Iran really increase?
Further, India and Pakistan’s nukes don’t seem to have engendered increased adventurism on either party’s behalf. I just don’t see how a nuke gets Iran all that much.
There is one possible reason for Netanyahu not to simply say that the Iranian politicians are just blustering. For him to say that might, might, tend to back them into a corner where they feel compelled to show that their bluster was not just bluster.
Further, India and Pakistan’s nukes don’t seem to have engendered increased adventurism on either party’s behalf. I just don’t see how a nuke gets Iran all that much.
India and Pakistan are in a MAD position. India is probably constrained by the existence of Pakistan’s nukes. Without those nukes, India would probably have responded to the Mumbai massacre with force. Instead, it is licking its wounds. India is not better off with Pakistan being a nuclear nation, because it is stuck with either not responding to attacks, or waging its own terrorist attacks through proxies in Pakistan. Pakistan, on the otherhand, is clearly better off having nukes because not only does it constrain India, but it constrains the US in our ability to cross into Pakistan and go after our enemies harbored there.
This is the position Israel will be in: unable to respond.
If Iran’s support for proxies would be a casus belli that Israel would seek to deter with conventional attack, why haven’t they?
Probably because it is not currently at a level where Israel feels it has to. With a nuclear umbrella in Iran, that level that Israel has to take without response will presumably increase.
“I guess if you assume that Iranian leadership is spectacularly stupid then handing nuclear weapons off to an intermediary seems plausible,”
History is in large measure made by the leadership of various nations doing spectacularly stupid and destructive things. The assumption that governments behave rationally is reasonable in the short run, assuming that they’ll always behave rationally is foolish in the extreme.
And again: those “mad mullahs” believe that developing, acquiring, or owning nuclear weapons is against the law of Islam.
One must, therefore, first argue that these “mad mullahs” are such diehard Islamists that they will take any risk at all to annilihate Israel – and yet they are such freethinkers that they will defy a fatwa issued by the Ayatollah who is also the supreme leader of their country: that the President will go back on a religious affirmation that he made less than four years previously.
I suspect one reason why these Christian conservatives don’t take this seriously, is because they themselves would never uphold any precept of their religion over their patriotic belief that their country has a right to inflict destruction on any other country.
But that’s just a guess.
“Or might they think, “Some Israelis would survive our proxy attack, though Israel wouldn’t,”
It should be, but apparently isn’t, needless to point out that “nuking Israel” would take multiple nuclear weapons, not just one (most people have extremely exaggerated notions of the destructive power of even thermonuclear weapons, which are way Iran’s capacity for the long-foreseeable future), and would have to include nuking Jerusalem, specifically.
Nuking the third most important Islamic city, and not incidentally incinerating some 230,000+ fellow Muslims, seems even more unlikely than the idea that Iran’s leaders have a death wish (again, if they were all that fanatic, they’d never have made a peace to end the Iran-Iraq War).
Loose talk of “nuking Israel,” as if it would take only one weapon, and without more specificity as to targets and yields, makes little sense.
“I just don’t see how a nuke gets Iran all that much.”
I agree with the idea that it would have significant deterrent effects, but that’s a quite different argument than OMG, Iran will nuke Israel!
To point to some actual facts, the Nagasaki bomb, which is probably about as large as one might expect a hypothetical Iranian bomb to be constructed in the foreseeable future (and to repeat: there’s still absolutely no sign whatever that the Iranians are making the slightest attempt to enrich uranium to weapons-grade, as opposed to reactor-grade, level), had a yield of approximately 22-23 kilotons.
The largest fission bomb ever constructed, and considered to be the upper possible limit, is ~500 kilotons.
The most wide-spread damage of a nuclear explosion comes from possible firestorm. Firestorm is possible in urban areas, or wooded areas. Desert and farmland, not so much.
A 20 kiloton bomb would have extremely damaging blast for a radius of maybe 3 or so kilometers. Beyond 4 kilometers or so, you’d get no more than 1st degree burns if you were standing in the open. The range of fatal ionizing radiation would be only about 1.5 kilometers.
Try here for a graphic demo. Type in “Tel Aviv” in the search area, and pick “Fat Man” for a specific example, although of thermal radiation only. Then try zooming out. Note how tiny a proportion of Israel is “nuked.” “Nuking” Israel in a widespread way would take either thermonuclear weapons, or a whole bunch of fission weapons, dozens and dozens.
For the record. See here for a more comprehensive estimator of effects by yield. Not that major ionizing radiation damage of a 25 kiloton bomb is about 2.5 kilometers. A found fireball radius is about 400 meters.
As I said, most people have amazingly exaggerated notions of the effects of fission weapons. (And nuclear weapons in general.) I wouldn’t want to be near enough to see a flash, but if you’re 20 miles from a Nagasaki weapons, you’re going to be just fine. To pull one number out of a hat.
“which are way Iran’s capacity for the long-foreseeable future”
Should be “way beyond….”
“A 20 kiloton bomb would have extremely damaging blast for a radius of maybe 3 or so kilometers.”
Should be “extremely damaging thermal blast….”
“Not that major ionizing radiation damage”
Should be “note.”
“of a 25 kiloton bomb is about 2.5 kilometers. A found fireball radius”
I don’t know what happened here: I meant to write “the resulting fireball radius….”
“Pakistan, on the otherhand, is clearly better off having nukes because not only does it constrain India, but it constrains the US in our ability to cross into Pakistan and go after our enemies harbored there.”
How so? Are you suggesting that Pakistan would nuke U.S. troops in Afghanistan? (Not exactly large enough concentrations to be worth it, not to mention that they’d spread fallout over their own country.)
Pakistan doesn’t have capacity to hit U.S. foreign targets significantly further, let alone actual U.S. territory. So how are we constrained by Pakistani nuclear weapons? Because they could nuke an Indian target? Or what?
Gary,
We are constrained because while it is unlikely that they would respond with nukes, it is not impossible. The difference between zero chance because they have no nukes, and 0.1% because they do have them is significant. More importantly, we are constrained because the turmoil we might cause could put those weapons in the hands of people more likely to use them, or increase proliferation activities to other nations that want them.
“We are constrained because while it is unlikely that they would respond with nukes, it is not impossible.”
Again, respond where?
“More importantly, we are constrained because the turmoil we might cause could put those weapons in the hands of people more likely to use them”
That’s a fair point.
Iran cannot credibly threaten US destruction. If it gets the bomb, it can credibly threaten, if not the absolute destruction of Israel, at least the equivalent of taking NYC off the map in the US. Devastating enough in its own right.
Eric’s argument is essentially this: disregard what Ahmadinejad says and further disregard that Iran is pouring tons of treasure into making a bomb (barely rational, in and of itself), and instead place the fate of your country in the belief, supported by ample logic, that no rational country would invite annihilation just to destroy/nuke another country.
No rational country would practice state-sponsored genocide either, but it happens.
But leaving aside the idea that a country of 4 million people surrounded by 100’s of millions of people whose leaders routinely call for its destruction should depend on reasoned logic not to act preemptively to deal with a declared existential threat, there remains the issue of whether Iran can put in place a sufficient fail safe/internal safeguard mechanism to prevent a much smaller group of true lunatics from seizing Iran’s arsenal and acting without state sanction.
The only credible means of deterring Iran is to expressly extend our nuclear umbrella to Israel. Eric, are you up for that? I have no idea how to teach Iran not to ‘lose’ its bomb.
A “near nuclear” Iran would make it hard, even impossible, for Israel to use its own nuclear arsenal as a trump card in negotiations. Whether, or how much, that damaged Israeli interests would depend on the political maturity of Israel’s governing politicians. If the prospect of a “near-nuclear” Iran causes the Israeli government to make a lasting peace, that would benefit most Israelis in the long run, even if it meant a few messianic Jewish communities and end-times Christian churches would have their hopes dashed.
disregard what Ahmadinejad says
You realize, I’m sure, that A-Jad would have absolutely zero say about how, when and where to use a nuclear weapon should Iran obtain one.
You further realize, I’m sure, that A-Jad has never said that he would use such a weapon on Israel. So I’m not sure exactly what he said that I’m supposed to regard.
But leaving aside the idea that a country of 4 million people surrounded by 100’s of millions of people whose leaders routinely call for its destruction
Like who? Jordan? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? Turkey? Lebanon.
None of the leaders of those nations call for such.
there remains the issue of whether Iran can put in place a sufficient fail safe/internal safeguard mechanism to prevent a much smaller group of true lunatics from seizing Iran’s arsenal and acting without state sanction.
Not that worried. Pakistan manages it just fine. Iran would be no different than every other nation that has a nuke in terms of putting a supreme priority on maintaining control over it.
No rational country would practice state-sponsored genocide either, but it happens.
Not true. For many nations, it makes perfect rational – if brutal – sense.
After all, it made rational sense for the US government to purge the nation of the native inhabitants. There was a rationale behind the Turks purging of the Armenians.
The only credible means of deterring Iran is to expressly extend our nuclear umbrella to Israel. Eric, are you up for that?
Sure. We’ve said as much already – albeit not expressly, but it is well understood.
Frankly, it would be irrational for Israel to trust us to carry through on such a commitment. We’re just not that reliable a country.
“and further disregard that Iran is pouring tons of treasure into making a bomb”
No, they’ve poured a bunch of treasure into enriching a bunch of uranium to 3%, low enrichment, enough for reactor fuel: nowhere close to the level of 85% that is weapons-grade (or at least the 20%+ that would make for a very tiny fission explosion).
There are no signs whatever of Iran trying to enrich their uranium beyond this. Nor of their having any active weapons program, (although, to be sure, that could be restarted in a not terribly long time).
Yes, sure, they could have Secret Hidden Facilities doing higher-grade enrichment, but if we’re going to make up complete unknowns, well, anything is possible. Meanwhile, they’re not making nuclear weapons; you’re misinformed.
Neither has Ahmadinejad threatened to use nuclear weapons, and in any case, Ahmadinejad has little to do with Iran’s foreign policy, and isn’t in charge of its defense establishment; the Supreme Leader — as one might guess from his title! — is the guy who matters in Iran. Endless numbers of people obfuscate this key fact, as well.
“No rational country would practice state-sponsored genocide either, but it happens.”
And it’s not at all the same level of irrational as inviting nuclear retaliation. It simply isn’t. There are no signs whatever that Iran’s leadership has any interest in taking such risks, no matter how many folks like to claim otherwise on the basis of pretty much no facts, and one mistranslated quote from a guy without relevant power. (This is below a feeble level of evidence for a claim.)
“The only credible means of deterring Iran is to expressly extend our nuclear umbrella to Israel. Eric, are you up for that?”
If you’re this fearful, why no worries about North Korea?
“…whether Iran can put in place a sufficient fail safe/internal safeguard mechanism to prevent a much smaller group of true lunatics from seizing Iran’s arsenal and acting without state sanction.”
Also mole people from the center of the earth might seize the non-existent weapons. If we’re making up threats out of whole cloth.
You left out that Syria also doesn’t call for Israel’s destruction, but rather has been on the verge of a peace deal with Israel.
In fact, not a single one of the countries surrounding Israel has leaders who threaten or call for the destruction of Israel. Any such claim is 100% false. It’s nonsense.
(Yes, Hamas and Hezbollah make such calls: they’re not countries, and while they have the capacity to distress and frighten Israelis, they don’t at all existentially threaten Israel.)
“Not that worried. Pakistan manages it just fine.”
I’m more worried about Pakistan’s controls and stability than I am about a hypothetical Iranian bomb’s controls. Pakistan is tremendously more unstable than Iran is. (Long article from January about Pakistan’s nuclear controls here, for those interested in the topic.)
Shorter Gary to mckinneyintexas: you’re falling for essentially the same routine as was told to you about Iraq’s WMDs.
Perhaps one Israeli concern with an Iranian nuke is that it could do alot to spur nuclear weapons programs in Sunni Arab states.
The Israelis probably worry that an Iranian nuke could spur nukes by the Egyptians, Saudi Arabia, and the small Gulf States that have little domestic military potential but alot of wealth to protect. (hmm, and if it is not a satellite of Iran….even, *Iraq* might seek to match nuclear capability down the road).
Nuclear weapons in a broader set of countries, vulnerable to coups and with significant popular discontent, increase the risk that in *some* country in the region, probably not Iran, *somebody* who has the interest and the access to hand over a nuke to a terrorist can get to do it.
Such a diversity of nuclear armed states in the region would complicate deterrence quite alot from Israel’s POV. Preparations for them to fight or intimidate each other with nukes might be hard to tell apart from preparations to fight Israel. Chances for attackers to obscure their supply chain increase.
Also, Sunni radicalism generally is less constrained by raison d’etat and political calculations than Shia radicalism. Sunni radicals, either revolutionaries, or small conspiratorial groups of sympathizers in enough of the right places in government, have alot less to lose by abetting nuclear terrorism than the rulers of Iran.
Gary mentioned Pakistan in his last post how much more Pakistan worries him than Iran.
But a medium term result of an Iranian nuke could be four or more nuclear-armed Sunni states, as worrisome as Pakistan.
One reason why nukes in Pakistani or Saudi or Emirati hands might be more dangerous than in Iran’s hands is that the Sunni jihadis that have some support/sympathy among the masses and some of the military officials and aristocrats of those countries are more unlimited in their targeting and bitter than Shia groups ever were. This might be because they have had to chafe so long under the compromises with the west that their rulers felt they had to make. It drives alot of Egyptians nuts that their government gets aid because of a peace treaty with Israel and it drives alot of Saudis nuts that they get their wealth from business with the west and rely on the west for protection against regional neighbors, just as Pakistanis are bitter that their leaders felt they could not say to to cooperation with Washington after 9-11. Living in countries forced to compromise embitters people obsessed with civilizational humiliation.
The Iranians on the other hand, have alot less irksome dissonance, because the radicals became the government and got to fully express its anti-Zionist and anti-western popular sentiments through policy. They’ve been able to prove to themselves that they are authentically pro-Muslim (from a p.o.v. that is thinking in zero-sum terms). This has probably been good for their mental health, and probably allows Iranian leaders to mostly temper their foreign policy defiance with raison d’etat without feeling like schmucks.
Yes, nuclear proliferation is bad.
Attacking and bombing countries is bad, too.
(And absolutely no offense intended, nor sidetrack, but I can’t stand it: there’s no such word as “alot.” It’s “a lot.”)
“Gary mentioned Pakistan in his last post how much more Pakistan worries him than Iran.”
To be clear, that’s not precisely what I said.
Specifically, I wrote: “I’m more worried about Pakistan’s controls and stability than I am about a hypothetical Iranian bomb’s controls.”
Which is to say, I’m not at all worried about the controls put on a hypothetical bomb.
I’m not immensely worried about Pakistan’s controls on their bombs at present: I’m only worried in the context of Pakistan’s government truly splintering.
But more worried about real bombs than non-existent bombs isn’t a high bar to leap.
General questions about Iran and Pakistan are yet wholly different questions.
Last thing Netanyahu may be worrying about.
With avowed nuclear enemies and no dimunition in conflict, more Jewish Israelis may want to emigrate. This would probably be the most concentrated among thoe with the most economic options outside the country.
“I wouldn’t want to be near enough to see a flash, but if you’re 20 miles from a Nagasaki weapons, you’re going to be just fine.”
First let me plead ignorance, Gary. Then let me say I won’t be volunteering to be a human experiment to see the effects of being 21 miles away from such a weapon.
Just out of curiosity: why do we need to extend our nuclear umbrella to Israel when it has its own nuclear weapons?
“Then let me say I won’t be volunteering to be a human experiment to see the effects of being 21 miles away from such a weapon.”
It would hardly be any kind of experiment, given that all the important observations of the testing of the same weapon took place with everyone standing around, ten miles away, and everyone lived happily ever after. Nobody was in the slightest danger at such a considerable distance. I mean, you’re just not in any danger. Not remotely.
I wouldn’t go strolling through ground zero afterwards, but ten miles off: everything is fine, if all you want to do is stand around and watch. (I wouldn’t build my house there, either, but, again, that’s something completely different.)
Just bring good sunglasses.
(Richard Feynman just watched through a truck windshield.)
At twenty miles away, well, you’re in more danger from an overly clear sky because there’s a giant fusion explosion up in the sky! And it’ll give you a lot more radiation than the 20-kt fission explosion twenty miles away. You could get a really bad sunburn from the sun.
This is really simple numeracy.
Just out of curiosity: why do we need to extend our nuclear umbrella to Israel when it has its own nuclear weapons?
The best I can come up with is to eliminate concerns about a first strike destroying Israel’s nuclear retaliatory capacity.
“The best I can come up with is to eliminate concerns about a first strike destroying Israel’s nuclear retaliatory capacity.”
How is a first strike going to eliminate Israel’s nuclear-armed missiles aboard their Dolphin-class submarines?
Hilzoy’s point though reinforces that a nuclear Iran means more pressure for security guarantees to its non-nuclear neighbors. And, if those neighbors don’t want or don’t believe those guarantees, those neighbors are the ones who might proliferate more.
The Iranian bomb would not be especially likely to be used, but it would be more likely to be used against Iran’s muslim neighbors than Israel, as have other unconventional weapons in the Middle East (Iran-Iraq war chem weapons, Egypt’s chem weapons in Yemen).
An Iranian nuke would proportionally have a much bigger impact on the local Persian Gulf balance, than on the Iranian-Israeli or Iranian-US balance.
Israel wouldn’t care who’d nuked them, and would just turn the entire middle east into a radioactive parking lot.
But would thinking Israel would blink at that deed really be as irrational as not caring whether your country was going to get taken out by a second strike?
It depends whether you think Israel’s leaders are rational and moral and will not attack other nations on a pretext or retaliate on insufficient evidence, or whether you think that they’re more like George W. Bush. I suspect Iranians would see the current Israeli leaders as in the ‘shoot first and think later’ US mode.
This is another of those topics that baffles me. Gary Farber and Eric Martin document just why we can be confident there’s no Iranian bomb in the works and Jesurgliac points to the official policy of Iran on the evils of nuclear weapons. Conversation then proceeds in total disregard. I’m going to start worrying about unregistered phlogiston or maybe whether Jack the Ripper was the Loch Ness monster.
I’m going to start worrying about unregistered phlogiston or maybe whether Jack the Ripper was the Loch Ness monster.
Good plan.
I did point out that Iran’s official state policy towards nuclear weapons, backed by the authority of the chiefest of “mad mullahs”, is one of those Great Unmentionables. I called the US’s attitude to Communism psychotic in an earlier thread, and while I do see a difficulty in presenting an entire country’s attitude in terms of individual mental illness (however tempting: as in Great Depression) still: there is something gone deeply wrong when facts in plain view simply become invisible.
Is everyone here very stoned?
Few random thoughts in response:
1. The regional arms race is my chief concern.
2. Although Iran has no weapons program currently, their technology is improving and they might soon be at the point at which they can make the jump quickly. I think it’s a contingency that should at least be considered possible.
3. Any suggestion that they are closer to weaponization due to secret facilities does us no good if we’re planning on conducting air strikes on their nuke facilities because we can only hit the ones that we know are there, and they are not currently a threat in terms of building a nuclear weapon.
I’m not sure I understand the regional arms race concerns. Iran may not be on very friendly terms with its Arab neighbors, but that doesn’t mean anyone seriously thinks a nuclear Iran would assault them. I mean, what motive would Iran have? Some of these countries have no oil and attacks on major oil producing states would definitely bring serious retaliation from the US (or Europe or China). Even if Iran had nuclear weapons, it still lacks the ability to project power: what good is bombing a country if you can’t hold it, especially since bombing it won’t kill the entire population and will guarantee that you’ll get invaded yourself?
To put it another way, I think my neighbor is a jerk, but I’m not going to slit his throat, even if I have the perfect opportunity.
“Gary Farber and Eric Martin document just why we can be confident there’s no Iranian bomb in the works”
Again, I want to be careful here: I’m not saying there’s zero chance of an Iranian nuclear weapon being developed and turned into reality in the next, say, decade. In fact, I think there’s significantly greater than zero possibility of that, and that it’s not something to dismiss.
I’m simply saying that there are no immediate signs of such a bomb being developed, and that if such a bomb program does develop in the near future (or is completely hidden from view), its threat would still be distinctly limited, and there’s no particular reason to think it would be less threatening than the development of the Soviet or Chinese nuclear arsenals.
I wouldn’t go so far as to say I’m “confident” about the future; just that I’m not alarmist.
“I called the US’s attitude to Communism psychotic in an earlier thread”
Sometimes, but not always. It can’t be left out of the equation that Mao’s brand of communism was much more psychotic than U.S. anti-communism ever was (look at the Cultural Revolution, and McCarthyism: which would you rather live through?), or that Stalinism was a vastly graver threat both internally and externally to the Soviet Union than the U.S. has ever been. It’s not as if the Soviet Union was an innocent beast that the U.S. just went nuts over for no reason at all, rather than went over-board and made many tragic and evil errors in dealing with, errors both of analysis, and of commission.
“Is everyone here very stoned?”
I wish; I’d be much happier in that case.
More on Pakistani instability.
One might also note that nukes leave fingerprints. If an Iranian bomb would explode anywhere, it could be traced back (and be it by simple exclusion of other known possessors of nukes).
there is only one state in the middle east that might ever seriously contemplate preventive first use of nuclear weapons in the face of a feared conventional weapons attack. And everyone knows that state is Israel.
A waste of keystrokes, if true.
“It would hardly be any kind of experiment, given that all the important observations of the testing of the same weapon took place with everyone standing around, ten miles away, and everyone lived happily ever after. Nobody was in the slightest danger at such a considerable distance. I mean, you’re just not in any danger. Not remotely. ”
Why are we talking about a Fat Man or Trinity bomb? We aren’t positing that Iran would throw it out of B-29 are we? So why so limiting?
This seems like the flip side of the silly Andrew Sullivan nonsense about Israel having nothing to worry about because Iran couldn’t possibly nuke Israel without destroying the holy city of Jerusalem. He is overplaying the danger of nuclear weapons (you could certainly destroy about 1/2 the population of Israel with nuclear weapons without seriously endangering Jerusalem) but you seem to be dramatically underplaying it by positing nuclear strikes with only the very most basic of 1940s technology.
“Why are we talking about a Fat Man or Trinity bomb?”
I gather you didn’t read the comments, or you’d know.
“you could certainly destroy about 1/2 the population of Israel with nuclear weapons without seriously endangering Jerusalem”
You couldn’t kill 1/2 the population of Israel without killing a lot of the 1/5th of the population that is Arab, no matter that you avoid Jerusalem.
“…but you seem to be dramatically underplaying it by positing nuclear strikes with only the very most basic of 1940s technology.”
I’m sure what you’re talking about: who is “you,” and what comment are you referring to?
In any case, as we discussed above, Iran can’t kill anyone with non-existent nuclear weapons, and can’t make nuclear weapons without highly enriched uranium, which there are no signs whatever of their making. We’re at the “those aluminum tubes are proven to be for Saddam’s nukes!” stage with Iran.
Meanwhile, leading Iranian presidential candidate Mir Hussein Moussavi says Amadinejad is an extremist.
On more alarming fronts, Jane Perlez writes:
This is more worrisome than worrying about non-existent nukes from non-existent fuel in the hands of people who show no signs whatever of being suicidal.