Why Iran Should Get The Bomb

[Skjellyfetti]

Interesting take and makes some well reasoned arguments.

Why Iran Should Get the Bomb

Nuclear Balancing Would Mean Stability

The past several months have witnessed a heated debate over the best way for the United States and Israel to respond to Iran's nuclear activities. As the argument has raged, the United States has tightened its already robust sanctions regime against the Islamic Republic, and the European Union announced in January that it will begin an embargo on Iranian oil on July 1. Although the United States, the EU, and Iran have recently returned to the negotiating table, a palpable sense of crisis still looms.

It should not. Most U.S., European, and Israeli commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the current standoff. In fact, it would probably be the best possible result: the one most likely to restore stability to the Middle East.

POWER BEGS TO BE BALANCED

The crisis over Iran's nuclear program could end in three different ways. First, diplomacy coupled with serious sanctions could convince Iran to abandon its pursuit of a nuclear weapon. But this outcome is unlikely: the historical record indicates that a country bent on acquiring nuclear weapons can rarely be dissuaded from doing so. Punishing a state through economic sanctions does not inexorably derail its nuclear program. Take North Korea, which succeeded in building its weapons despite countless rounds of sanctions and un Security Council resolutions.

If Tehran determines that its security depends on possessing nuclear weapons, sanctions are unlikely to change its mind. In fact, adding still more sanctions now could make Iran feel even more vulnerable, giving it still more reason to seek the protection

The second possible outcome is that Iran stops short of testing a nuclear weapon but develops a breakout capability, the capacity to build and test one quite quickly. Iran would not be the first country to acquire a sophisticated nuclear program without building an actual bomb. Japan, for instance, maintains a vast civilian nuclear infrastructure. Experts believe that it could produce a nuclear weapon on short notice.

Such a breakout capability might satisfy the domestic political needs of Iran's rulers by assuring hard-liners that they can enjoy all the benefits of having a bomb (such as greater security) without the downsides (such as international isolation and condemnation). The problem is that a breakout capability might not work as intended.

The United States and its European allies are primarily concerned with weaponization, so they might accept a scenario in which Iran stops short of a nuclear weapon. Israel, however, has made it clear that it views a significant Iranian enrichment capacity alone as an unacceptable threat. It is possible, then, that a verifiable commitment from Iran to stop short of a weapon could appease major Western powers but leave the Israelis unsatisfied. Israel would be less intimidated by a virtual nuclear weapon than it would be by an actual one and therefore would likely continue its risky efforts at subverting Iran's nuclear program through sabotage and assassination-which could lead Iran to conclude that a breakout capability is an insufficient deterrent, after all, and that only weaponization can provide it with the security it seeks.

The third possible outcome of the standoff is that Iran continues its current course and publicly goes nuclear by testing a weapon. U.S. and Israeli officials have declared that outcome unacceptable, arguing that a nuclear Iran is a uniquely terrifying prospect, even an existential threat. Such language is typical of major powers, which have historically gotten riled up whenever another country has begun to develop a nuclear weapon of its own. Yet so far, every time another country has managed to shoulder its way into the nuclear club, the other members have always changed tack and decided to live with it. In fact, by reducing imbalances in military power, new nuclear states generally produce more regional and international stability, not less.

Israel's regional nuclear monopoly, which has proved remarkably durable for the past four decades, has long fueled instability in the Middle East. In no other region of the world does a lone, unchecked nuclear state exist. It is Israel's nuclear arsenal, not Iran's desire for one, that has contributed most to the current crisis. Power, after all, begs to be balanced. What is surprising about the Israeli case is that it has taken so long for a potential balancer to emerge.

Of course, it is easy to understand why Israel wants to remain the sole nuclear power in the region and why it is willing to use force to secure that status. In 1981, Israel bombed Iraq to prevent a challenge to its nuclear monopoly. It did the same to Syria in 2007 and is now considering similar action against Iran. But the very acts that have allowed Israel to maintain its nuclear edge in the short term have prolonged an imbalance that is unsustainable in the long term. Israel's proven ability to strike potential nuclear rivals with impunity has inevitably made its enemies anxious to develop the means to prevent Israel from doing so again. In this way, the current tensions are best viewed not as the early stages of a relatively recent Iranian nuclear crisis but rather as the final stages of a decades-long Middle East nuclear crisis that will end only when a balance of military power is restored.

UNFOUNDED FEARS

One reason the danger of a nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated is that the debate surrounding it has been distorted by misplaced worries and fundamental misunderstandings of how states generally behave in the international system. The first prominent concern, which undergirds many others, is that the Iranian regime is innately irrational. Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, Iranian policy is made not by "mad mullahs" but by perfectly sane ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other leaders.

Although Iran's leaders indulge in inflammatory and hateful rhetoric, they show no propensity for self-destruction. It would be a grave error for policymakers in the United States and Israel to assume otherwise.

Yet that is precisely what many U.S. and Israeli officials and analysts have done. Portraying Iran as irrational has allowed them to argue that the logic of nuclear deterrence does not apply to the Islamic Republic. If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, they warn, it would not hesitate to use it in a first strike against Israel, even though doing so would invite massive retaliation and risk destroying everything the Iranian regime holds dear.

Although it is impossible to be certain of Iranian intentions, it is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of providing for its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities (or destroy itself). Iran may be intransigent at the negotiating table and defiant in the face of sanctions, but it still acts to secure its own preservation. Iran's leaders did not, for example, attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz despite issuing blustery warnings that they might do so after the EU announced its planned oil embargo in January. The Iranian regime clearly concluded that it did not want to provoke what would surely have been a swift and devastating American response to such a move.

Nevertheless, even some observers and policymakers who accept that the Iranian regime is rational still worry that a nuclear weapon would embolden it, providing Tehran with a shield that would allow it to act more aggressively and increase its support for terrorism. Some analysts even fear that Iran would directly provide terrorists with nuclear arms. The problem with these concerns is that they contradict the record of every other nuclear weapons state going back to 1945. History shows that when countries acquire the bomb, they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware that their nuclear weapons make them a potential target in the eyes of major powers. This awareness discourages nuclear states from bold and aggressive action. Maoist China, for example, became much less bellicose after acquiring nuclear weapons in 1964, and India and Pakistan have both become more cautious since going nuclear. There is little reason to believe Iran would break this mold.

As for the risk of a handoff to terrorists, no country could transfer nuclear weapons without running a high risk of being found out. U.S. surveillance capabilities would pose a serious obstacle, as would the United States' impressive and growing ability to identify the source of fissile material. Moreover, countries can never entirely control or even predict the behavior of the terrorist groups they sponsor. Once a country such as Iran acquires a nuclear capability, it will have every reason to maintain full control over its arsenal.

After all, building a bomb is costly and dangerous. It would make little sense to transfer the product of that investment to parties that cannot be trusted or managed.

Another oft-touted worry is that if Iran obtains the bomb, other states in the region will follow suit, leading to a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. But the nuclear age is now almost 70 years old, and so far, fears of proliferation have proved to be unfounded. Properly defined, the term "proliferation" means a rapid and uncontrolled spread. Nothing like that has occurred; in fact, since 1970, there has been a marked slowdown in the emergence of nuclear states. There is no reason to expect that this pattern will change now. Should Iran become the second Middle Eastern nuclear power since 1945, it would hardly signal the start of a landslide. When Israel acquired the bomb in the 1960s, it was at war with many of its neighbors. Its nuclear arms were a much bigger threat to the Arab world than Iran's program is today. If an atomic Israel did not trigger an arms race then, there is no reason a nuclear Iran should now.

REST ASSURED

In 1991, the historical rivals India and Pakistan signed a treaty agreeing not to target each other's nuclear facilities. They realized that far more worrisome than their adversary's nuclear deterrent was the instability produced by challenges to it. Since then, even in the face of high tensions and risky provocations, the two countries have kept the peace. Israel and Iran would do well to consider this precedent. If Iran goes nuclear, Israel and Iran will deter each other, as nuclear powers always have.

There has never been a full-scale war between two nuclear-armed states. Once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply, even if the Iranian arsenal is relatively small. No other country in the region will have an incentive to acquire its own nuclear capability, and the current crisis will finally dissipate, leading to a Middle East that is more stable than it is today.


For that reason, the United States and its allies need not take such pains to prevent the Iranians from developing a nuclear weapon. Diplomacy between Iran and the major powers should continue, because open lines of communication will make the Western countries feel better able to live with a nuclear Iran. But the current sanctions on Iran can be dropped: they primarily harm ordinary Iranians, with little purpose.

Most important, policymakers and citizens in the Arab world, Europe, Israel, and the United States should take comfort from the fact that history has shown that where nuclear capabilities emerge, so, too, does stability. When it comes to nuclear weapons, now as ever, more may be better.

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ ... t-the-bomb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[CitadelGrad]

Drivel.

[AZGrizFan]

Most important, policymakers and citizens in the Arab world, Europe, Israel, and the United States should take comfort from the fact that history has shown that where nuclear capabilities emerge, so, too, does stability. When it comes to nuclear weapons, now as ever, more may be better.

Yeah. I don't think we'll ever be using "Iran" and "stability" in the same sentence.

[Chizzang]

Iran with "the Bomb" isn't actually that dangerous...
They are more of a threat to their own civilization that any outside or foreign country
They would more likely use it on themselves than anybody else

[JohnStOnge]

You know I think there is something to the idea that nuclear weapons bring a "stability " of a sort for a time. But the problem is that if a disturbance does occur the consequences are pretty darned severe. Yes, for example, the United States and the USSR stayed at arms length and were very careful about what they did because they were both armed to the teeth with nukes and knew what the consequences would be if things escalated. But things did almost escalate once. It came pretty close.

I lived a lot of my life during a time when a misunderstanding or a mistake would have meant the end of the world. No thanks. I'd like it better if there were no nuclear weapons. That's in spite of the fact that we have the advantage over everyone else in that area. It's a constant Sword of Damocles.

And nobody's going to convince me that if Iran gets nuclear weapons it's not going to increase the probability that Muslim whack jobs that are perfectly willing to martyr themselves won't at some point get ahold of some of them.

[Chizzang]

You know I think there is something to the idea that nuclear weapons bring a "stability " of a sort for a time. But the problem is that if a disturbance does occur the consequences are pretty darned severe. Yes, for example, the United States and the USSR stayed at arms length and were very careful about what they did because they were both armed to the teeth with nukes and knew what the consequences would be if things escalated. But things did almost escalate once. It came pretty close.

I lived a lot of my life during a time when a misunderstanding or a mistake would have meant the end of the world. No thanks. I'd like it better if there were no nuclear weapons. That's in spite of the fact that we have the advantage over everyone else in that area. It's a constant Sword of Damocles.

And nobody's going to convince me that if Iran gets nuclear weapons it's not going to increase the probability that Muslim whack jobs that are perfectly willing to martyr themselves won't at some point get ahold of some of them.

Right but you understand what it takes to "set off" a nuclear bomb right..?
I mean it doesn't just go boom by touching a button like in the movies
We could give them a bomb and the likelihood of them figuring out how to actually use it is almost zero


and when I say "Them" I mean the whacko's not the Iranian scientists

[JohnStOnge]

Right but you understand what it takes to "set off" a nuclear bomb right..?
I mean it doesn't just go boom by touching a button like in the movies
We could give them a bomb and the likelihood of them figuring out how to actually use it is almost zero


and when I say "Them" I mean the whacko's not the Iranian scientists

I do not understand what it takes to successfully cause a nuclear detonation beyond knowing that it's not easy. However, I am also not confident that nobody who does understand what it takes would be among the whakos who would be willing to do it.

[YoUDeeMan]

Interesting take and makes some well reasoned arguments.

Why Iran Should Get the Bomb


Once Iran crosses the nuclear threshold, deterrence will apply, even if the Iranian arsenal is relatively small. No other country in the region will have an incentive to acquire its own nuclear capability, and the current crisis will finally dissipate, leading to a Middle East that is more stable than it is today.

This is an idiot who believes that the Middle East revolves around Israel versus the Muslins. Is he/she even remotely paying attention to what is happening in the Muslin world? If the Shiites get the bomb, then the Sunnis will want the bomb.

[BlueHen86]

Right but you understand what it takes to "set off" a nuclear bomb right..?
I mean it doesn't just go boom by touching a button like in the movies
We could give them a bomb and the likelihood of them figuring out how to actually use it is almost zero


and when I say "Them" I mean the whacko's not the Iranian scientists

I do not understand what it takes to successfully cause a nuclear detonation beyond knowing that it's not easy. However, I am also not confident that nobody who does understand what it takes would be among the whakos who would be willing to do it.

I am not also not confident that nobody who does not understand what it takes would not be among the whakos who would not be willing to do it.

[CID1990]

You know I think there is something to the idea that nuclear weapons bring a "stability " of a sort for a time. But the problem is that if a disturbance does occur the consequences are pretty darned severe. Yes, for example, the United States and the USSR stayed at arms length and were very careful about what they did because they were both armed to the teeth with nukes and knew what the consequences would be if things escalated. But things did almost escalate once. It came pretty close.

I lived a lot of my life during a time when a misunderstanding or a mistake would have meant the end of the world. No thanks. I'd like it better if there were no nuclear weapons. That's in spite of the fact that we have the advantage over everyone else in that area. It's a constant Sword of Damocles.

And nobody's going to convince me that if Iran gets nuclear weapons it's not going to increase the probability that Muslim whack jobs that are perfectly willing to martyr themselves won't at some point get ahold of some of them.

Right but you understand what it takes to "set off" a nuclear bomb right..?
I mean it doesn't just go boom by touching a button like in the movies
We could give them a bomb and the likelihood of them figuring out how to actually use it is almost zero


and when I say "Them" I mean the whacko's not the Iranian scientists

Actually, the old "pistol" style trigger is relatively simple and also most likely what will be used in any early Iranian devices. Triggering one of those would be the same as triggering a conventional bomb. The bomb itself needs to be manufactured properly and then even a trained monkey could trigger it.

[Chizzang]

Right but you understand what it takes to "set off" a nuclear bomb right..?
I mean it doesn't just go boom by touching a button like in the movies
We could give them a bomb and the likelihood of them figuring out how to actually use it is almost zero


and when I say "Them" I mean the whacko's not the Iranian scientists

Actually, the old "pistol" style trigger is relatively simple and also most likely what will be used in any early Iranian devices. Triggering one of those would be the same as triggering a conventional bomb. The bomb itself needs to be manufactured properly and then even a trained monkey could trigger it.

To deliver and detonate a fission (old Style) weapons package of any substance would require that the subcritical mass be maintained (stable) prior to detonation

So it can't be delivered in a minivan
You'd literally need the enemy to come to your facility while you trigger it



The more stable advanced models of nuclear device require elaborate trigger mechanisms
The older Fission stuff that Iran is closing in on that Ted Taylor detonated aren't easy to "move around"

[BlueHen86]

Right but you understand what it takes to "set off" a nuclear bomb right..?
I mean it doesn't just go boom by touching a button like in the movies
We could give them a bomb and the likelihood of them figuring out how to actually use it is almost zero


and when I say "Them" I mean the whacko's not the Iranian scientists

Actually, the old "pistol" style trigger is relatively simple and also most likely what will be used in any early Iranian devices. Triggering one of those would be the same as triggering a conventional bomb. The bomb itself needs to be manufactured properly and then even a trained monkey could trigger it.

If they can obtain and refine the required materials, and then build the bomb, then I think they will be able to detonate it. That is assuming that they build it right, the construction process requires a lot of precision (from what I've been told and read, I've never built one). Without being able to test it there's a chance it won't detonate.

[Skjellyfetti]

Is he/she even remotely paying attention to what is happening in the Muslin world? If the Shiites get the bomb, then the Sunnis will want the bomb.

Are you remotely paying attention?

Sunnis already have the bomb.

[YoUDeeMan]

If the Shiites get the bomb, then the Sunnis will want the bomb.

Sunni's have the bomb.

Pakistan, although technically on the border of the Middle East, has not been actively involved in what everyone, inclucing this author, is defining as the balance of power issues of the Middle East. I can't recall any serious issues betweent Iran and Pakistan...except for their backing of different sides in the Afghan war, and I am too tired to bother looking it up, but prove me wrong if you can. The two countries have had solid relations and no real border incidents. It is doubtful that Pakistan would even come to the aid of the Sunnis on the western side of Iran...nothing in Pakistan's past indicates an active interest in that area.

If Iran gets the bomb, the threat will be towards their western borders where Shiites will not bow to an agressive Iran.

[SuperHornet]

Define "get the bomb."

[BlueHen86]

Define "get the bomb."

Your attempt a humor bombed, is that what you meant?

[CID1990]

Actually, the old "pistol" style trigger is relatively simple and also most likely what will be used in any early Iranian devices. Triggering one of those would be the same as triggering a conventional bomb. The bomb itself needs to be manufactured properly and then even a trained monkey could trigger it.

To deliver and detonate a fission (old Style) weapons package of any substance would require that the subcritical mass be maintained (stable) prior to detonation

So it can't be delivered in a minivan
You'd literally need the enemy to come to your facility while you trigger it



The more stable advanced models of nuclear device require elaborate trigger mechanisms
The older Fission stuff that Iran is closing in on that Ted Taylor detonated aren't easy to "move around"

I know. That's what really worries me about Iran having the bomb. They won't be able to just sit it on top of any of their existing missiles (unless China or Russia help them). It will be an old pistol type bomb, like the one we dropped on Hiroshima. They also won't be able to just shove it out the back if an airplane (well they could, but that airplane would actually have to reach its target).

What worries me is it winding up on a container ship or even a long distance trawler.

[89Hen]

UNFOUNDED FEARS

One reason the danger of a nuclear Iran has been grossly exaggerated is that the debate surrounding it has been distorted by misplaced worries and fundamental misunderstandings of how states generally behave in the international system. The first prominent concern, which undergirds many others, is that the Iranian regime is innately irrational. Despite a widespread belief to the contrary, Iranian policy is made not by "mad mullahs" but by perfectly sane ayatollahs who want to survive just like any other leaders.

Although Iran's leaders indulge in inflammatory and hateful rhetoric, they show no propensity for self-destruction. It would be a grave error for policymakers in the United States and Israel to assume otherwise.

Yet that is precisely what many U.S. and Israeli officials and analysts have done. Portraying Iran as irrational has allowed them to argue that the logic of nuclear deterrence does not apply to the Islamic Republic. If Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, they warn, it would not hesitate to use it in a first strike against Israel, even though doing so would invite massive retaliation and risk destroying everything the Iranian regime holds dear.

Although it is impossible to be certain of Iranian intentions, it is far more likely that if Iran desires nuclear weapons, it is for the purpose of providing for its own security, not to improve its offensive capabilities (or destroy itself). Iran may be intransigent at the negotiating table and defiant in the face of sanctions, but it still acts to secure its own preservation. Iran's leaders did not, for example, attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz despite issuing blustery warnings that they might do so after the EU announced its planned oil embargo in January. The Iranian regime clearly concluded that it did not want to provoke what would surely have been a swift and devastating American response to such a move.

This entire section seems suspect to me.

[Ivytalk]

Foreign Affairs is a great read, because it does print both sides of key issues. I'm a subscriber. I don't agree with this one, because the logical corollary is that the Middle East would be most stable if every pissant sandhole had its own nukes, but it is a point of view.

[Chizzang]

To deliver and detonate a fission (old Style) weapons package of any substance would require that the subcritical mass be maintained (stable) prior to detonation

So it can't be delivered in a minivan
You'd literally need the enemy to come to your facility while you trigger it



The more stable advanced models of nuclear device require elaborate trigger mechanisms
The older Fission stuff that Iran is closing in on that Ted Taylor detonated aren't easy to "move around"

I know. That's what really worries me about Iran having the bomb. They won't be able to just sit it on top of any of their existing missiles (unless China or Russia help them). It will be an old pistol type bomb, like the one we dropped on Hiroshima. They also won't be able to just shove it out the back if an airplane (well they could, but that airplane would actually have to reach its target).

What worries me is it winding up on a container ship or even a long distance trawler.

So you agree they'll build something U238 and fission based / old style unstable
which means it's going to have a signature that can be picked up from 30 miles
I thought we were all over that kinda sh!t..?

[CitadelGrad]

No, we aren't all over that shit. Homeland Security would rather allocate its resources to the threat from people who have libertarian bumper stickers on their cars.

[DSUrocks07]

Define "get the bomb."

Your attempt a humor bombed, is that what you meant?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bn1MbU9jOeA[/youtube]

[CID1990]

I know. That's what really worries me about Iran having the bomb. They won't be able to just sit it on top of any of their existing missiles (unless China or Russia help them). It will be an old pistol type bomb, like the one we dropped on Hiroshima. They also won't be able to just shove it out the back if an airplane (well they could, but that airplane would actually have to reach its target).

What worries me is it winding up on a container ship or even a long distance trawler.

So you agree they'll build something U238 and fission based / old style unstable
which means it's going to have a signature that can be picked up from 30 miles
I thought we were all over that kinda sh!t..?

Well, that is what they appear to be enriching towards. That said, they have to take baby steps like everyone else did. That is what makes what they are doing right now so suspect. It would be very easy for the Iranians to convince the world that all they want is peaceful nuclear energy, but they are doing all the wrong things. It is as if they want us to know they are going for the bomb. It just makes so little sense, unless they really are these eschatological maniacs some people think they are. Or, do they have a larger plan for the Middle East? If Saddam had the bomb, I don't think we would have liberated Kuwait. Is Iran thinking that they can move on their neighbors more safely if they have the bomb? To me, that seems a more likely scenario than them sailing the thing into New York harbor. In that respect, I think the real threat from Iran is to their immediate neighbors. Who profits from an Iran-controlled Middle East? (Another reason energy independence is so important)

Is it any wonder it is so hard to get cooperation from Russia and China when it comes to controlling Iranian influence in that region?

I think the whole "Iran is crazy and would use a nuclear bomb if they have one" is a little specious, but their mere possession of one can be just as bad for the West.

[expandspanos]

One thing's for sure.. Israel having the bomb destabilizes the entire Middle East.. Now Israel acts like they can tell every single neighboring country what to do..

We can trust Israel as far as we can trust them napalming the USS Liberty.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RF_6k1c_0ds[/youtube]