Iranian Nukes

John · Senior Member

Iranian Nukes

GoogleNaut · Guru

...on the other hand, the "nuclear Genie" is kind of out of the bottle. Despite everyone's almost universal distaste for a nuclear Iran--they are a reasonably large country with extensive mineral resources. They do possess uranium deposits that they are already exploiting--despite international pressure for them not to, I believe that a nuclear Iran is inevitable.

Also, despite its inefficiency, a gun type uranium bomb is technically very straight forward. Despite being unwieldy, it is nonetheless very effective. If they have the national will to go nuclear, then they will do so--despite what anybody else says.

And just for the record, I think the Iranian leader is "nuts." (And ours is just way too Cow Boy!) A very bad mix for international relations!

I suspect that in the long run, the only way to deter the use of nuclear weapons is by the threat of nuclear weapons...so if Iran were to become a nuclear 'power' with a handfull of nukes similar to Pakistan or India, then we can only continue to rely on our current nuclear forces to deter them. But we should make it very, very clear to them in diplomatic channels that if they choose to smuggle nuclear weapons or otherwise provide terrorist organizations with the means to foment nuclear terror--then we will hold them PERSONALLY responsible. If they want to run with the big dogs, fine--then they can take the heat for it.

I don't believe in swapping cities--nuclear tit-for-tat isn't going to work. All or nothing is the only thing that has worked in the last 60 years of nuclear deterrance.

The real trouble I suppose is that if Iran gets some nukes, then every country in the Middle East will want them (of course they already do anyways!) On the other hand, there really isn't anything stopping them technically--the basic information is out there in any decent college engineering library. The technology isn't that hard--it's just "Infrastructure Intensive." Reasonably industrialized countries with a few tens of billions of dollars in petty cash would find a nuclear weapon not very technically difficult to make. However, you can't hide the infrastructure very well--it's like putting a hanky on the tip of the Empire State Building and saying the entire building is hidden from view...

John · Senior Member

The issue is will the basic uranium bomb be deliverable with the Iranian missiles? I assume that they have the designs from the Pakistani bomb network which are plutonium implosion devices.

I issue I have is that our NIEs are so unreliable. The best case is one in three on the Iraq/Iran WMD issues. The said the Iraq had WMD and were wrong. The they said in 2005 Iran was working on a nuclear weapon and now in 2007 they say that Iran ceased its work on nuclear weapons in 2003. This means they were wrong in 2005! And, the may be total wrong if my idea are correct in that they thing the purpose of the uranium enrichment is to reach bomb quality.

It seems the the U.S. out of game for the next few years unless Bush exceeds your expectations Googlenaut! The issue now is what will Israel do. I never thought they had any real capability against the uranium program. It would take a U.S. air campaign to knock that back a few years. However, Israel could target the reactor before it goes hot. That issue is coming up soon. Bush might just let them do it given that the Intel community has undercut him with an NIE.

If Iran gets a nuclear capability, we can deter it with our vast arsenal. But, the issue is will this be successful? If not, are will really up to doing what would be required if deterrence fails? Also, a nuclear war, say between Israel and Iran, might be a lot more destructive to the world economy that it might look at first. If this resulted in a complete shut down of oil for the Gulf all at once, we are talking world depression with vast consequenes. Another real issue is just how flexible Israel's second-strike capability is...my guess is not very.

I think that very surgical preemptive strikes against key facilities might not lead to the dire reactions that many fear. Consider that fuel-scale war was waged between Iran and Iraq for years and yet neither side disrupted the oil flow either though either one could have. The one thing we don't want to do is to get into a ground occupation/nation building effort like in Iraq.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

I think what's missing in discussion is the notion there exists a sizable population in both Iran & Israel to take two countries in the middle east region as an example, would like cooler heads prevail on the nuclear issue. Both are under pressure politically to work arrangements out through any number of international mechanisms we all know the commissions and agencies etc.
As soon as the policy of violent intervention stops in favor of economic development for the region then these two countries might make more sense in participating on making the middle east an expanding market and prosperity for their citizens and the region besides balancing the world market place.

GoogleNaut · Guru

I suspect that, as far as the Middle East is concerned, the killing on both sides (especially in the Israel/Palestinian struggles) will continue until both sides are so sick of it that they will be willing to do anything to avoid more conflict. Only then will anything close to peace or understanding occur. Sadly, they have yet to reach that point...

There are many folks on both sides who are more rational than the current administrations of all parties involved--perhaps someday we will see a statistical 'confluence' of cooler heads who all happen to be in positions of power at the about the same time--perhaps then we will actually see progress...

Atleast, that is my hope!

One thing that I am absolutely certain about: as long as we continue to buy oil from the the Middle East, nearly a trillion of dollars flows into the region every year--so whether we kid ourselves into thinking we are not supporting the Iranians--indirectly we are. And because of that, we indirectly further their interests. Thus, it is in our collective national interests (here I mean all countries who are net consumers of oil) to find ways to eliminate petroleum from our energy budgets. Sure it will be expensive--but ultimately the R&D monies will be spent domestically, and domestic energy sourcing will have to be greatly expanded. Energy independence alone ought to be one of the US' highest national security priorities--and to reach that goal it is WORTH spending hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars...

-- Edited by GoogleNaut at 13:33, 2007-12-19

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

I've misplaced my middle east political calculator. So I'll just wing it.
U.S. middle east policy in short...is screwed. We have managed to piss off just about every country in the region. OPEC seems to offer no relief on high priced oil. Gun running for oil doesn't seem to be paying off. U.S. energy independence policy is still a pipe dream.

U.S. withdrawal from Iraq is a first step in reducing tensions then deal with each country entangled in the mess by offering realistic goals on economic development.

GoogleNaut · Guru

Yeah,
I think you're right there, Bruce. It is one great big, bugger all mess. And I think that getting out of Iraq is only one teeny, tiny bit of it....

I think I sound like a broken record though: the US needs to take steps to become independent--as do most other countries in the world. I would like to see the US take a leadership position in this--and expanded domestic nuclear power supplies are going to be an essential part of this. That and synthetic fuels...

When the pressure is off for rampant international consumption of crude oil for energy supplies this will naturally tend to reduce international tensions around the world. I'm not sure what influence it will have in the Mideast--possibly little or none. But atleast we (the US and other Western Nations) will be in a better position energy wise. i guess what I am saying is that we have too much of an interest in the region (Petroleum Energy) and that if we can change our interests but chaning our own domestic energy needs, this can only have a positive impact on our economy, and reduce tensions internationally...perhaps I am naive, but that is how my ameteur 'eye' sees it!

Dusty · Veteran Member

One of the things (Indeed, the only thing!) that has irked me about this issue right from the start is the nonsense idea promoted by the American Government that because Iran has large oil reserves they dont *need* nuclear power and that therefore any nuclear programe *must* be for building bombs to destroy Isreal with.

Yes , iran does have large oil reserves But..

1) nobody is an oil producer for ever! (See http://www.dieoff.com/42Countries/Iran.htm) It is not unreasonable that a government with long term vision (Uncommon in the west unfortunatly) would wish to ensure that they have some other energy system up and running when that day comes.

2) Irans main source of forign currency is oil exporting. every barrel consumed domestically is $100 worth of lost export. All of a sudden Nuclear power looks much better for iranian electricity generation over oil doesnt it! And we havent even started on synthetic fuels yet

3) Oh, Synthetic fuels! Consider. a Really far sighted government would be investing its current oil income on large scale synthetic fuel production. So large that they can export it i much the same way they currently export oil.

Short sighted western governments would be unlikly to make the large scale infrastructure investment in syn fuel plants if the middle east has already done so. They would just carry on importing as "Buisness as useual". I am sure that the Iranians are cute enough to realise this!

John · Senior Member

Dusty, I think that you are a bit optimistic if you think the current Iranian government has farsighted progress policies for economic development. The amount of oil they would have to use to produce the electricity they will get from the nuclear plant is minimal. Iran is almost certainly out to get a nuclear bomb. It is a good question as to will they really attack Irsrael when get it or whether they will be deterred by the reality of Israeli retaliation.

NUKE ROCKY44 · Senior Member

Good points Dusty! Could not have expressed it as eloquently as you put it.

I'd say current leadership in Iran will have to tread softly politically as there's a growing demand, young voice in Iran that would like to see their county as focal point for economic development and expanding markets in the region besides oil exports. This includes selling electrical power in the region much like France selling nuke electrical power in Europe. I'm sure Iranian business interests would also rather sell electrical power at competitive rates than just oil and pomegranate juice.

That might be the paranoid fear NeoCons in Europe/U.S. have when the region is dependent on electricity from an Iranian power grid, since Euroamerican business interests don't participate in the region's market except maybe gun running. And in retaliation point an accusatory finger of building a bomb.