Nobody likes to be called a dummy by a dummy.

Iran, nuclear war

What will happen if Iran launch a pre-emptive strike of its own (due to threat from US or Israel), of which one target could be the U.S. forces next door in Iraq ? Or Israel?
What countries will be affected directly (involved in the big war) and indirectly (economic, nuclear fallout, etc). What will be the effect?
Permalink Mike 
January 18th, 2006
meh. wont happen. Iran has got nothing to gain by doing so, and everything to lose.
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 19th, 2006
This is an easy one. Anyone launching nukes against US interests will be given 4 hours to unconditionally surrender and then they will be completely eliminated.
Permalink Art Wilkins 
January 19th, 2006
Given that you are the President of the United States, you just learned that Iran has launched a nuke against us (or an allied) with 100% certainity within a very short period of time, what would you do?

Or

You weren't certain at the time of the launch, but learned who did it, after a week, what would you do?

Personally, in either case, the end result will be the Regime change in Iran, North Korea, Syria and every other countries that we don't like, while they may or may not have anything to do with it. The Question is how many will have to die for it - a few Thousands(TM) to a few Millions(TM). And for a long time, there will be absolute backlash against all Muslims.
Permalink RM 
January 19th, 2006
I like the regime change idea. If 9/11 awakens the US to the notion of preemptive war and expands the empire to Iraq and Afganistan, then nuclear detonation might be the spark toward world domination.

Nuclear device is detonated in Miami, killing 300,000 people. The stock market plunges, but the economy copes. Within a few months, credible intelligence has it that the device was Iranian origin. US invades Iran in a scissor movement from Afganistan and Iraq. China invades North Korea to prempt US takeover of that state.  Tensions rise between India and Pakistan. India considers invasion, secret negoitiations with India for India to invade and passify pakistan. Indian border tensions with China rise. Japan begins immediate development of nuclear weapons. An advanced technological economy and secret supplies of uranium mean iran has several hundred nuclear devices within a year.
Permalink Kasey 
January 19th, 2006
"Anyone launching nukes against US interests will be given 4 hours to unconditionally surrender..."

what kind of moron are you? why would any president in his right mind give an enemy 4 hours to launch further strikes?

anyone launching nukes against america would be fucked in exactly the time it takes for a nuclear strike to arrive on their doorstep.

Then another innocent child said:

"Nuclear device is detonated in Miami, killing 300,000 people. The stock market plunges, but the economy copes. Within a few months, credible intelligence has it that the device was Iranian origin."

(a) we would retaliate within days, not months...if we happened to get the wrong person, then too bad...we'd just keep going until we got the right one.

"...US invades Iran in a scissor movement from Afganistan and Iraq...."


christ you two between you have the intelligence of a squashed frog.

we wouldn't invade. we'd glaze the sands of Iran.


how stupid are you? were you *watching* the bush reaction to 9/11?
christ, you both are more moronic than the usual ?off crowd. what happened? did you get lost on the way home from the clinic?
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 19th, 2006
"christ, you both are more moronic than the usual ?off crowd."

I'm not sure I've ever seen someone refer to themselves in the third, second, and plural person at the same time...

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 19th, 2006
::snorts coffee::

damn philo, I think thats the single funniest thing youve ever said...
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 19th, 2006
...or maybe Im just a little knackered...
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 19th, 2006
Hey, if it gets you to wash your monitor (even with coffee...)

Philo
Permalink Philo 
January 19th, 2006
whats the story philo? this is a late night even for you....
Permalink Jesus H Christ 
January 19th, 2006
++Jesus

They want nukes because nukes will immunize them from invasion.

Look at the precedent:

* DON'T have weapons of mass destruction, get blamed for having them and invaded.
* DO have weapons of mass destruction... go to roundtable talks with China.

Sadly, Bush has made developing nukes a logical decision.
Permalink Colm 
January 19th, 2006
I suspect they've been reading cold war strategy text books - particularly the section called "Mutually Assured Destruction".
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 19th, 2006
Iran would attack Israel...its their only enemy they would be willing to fuck with in their feasable missle range. Israel would certainly respond with nuclear weapons, if Iran used nukes initially, we would probably also use nukes. However, Russia is still a large ally of Iran, and Pakistan probably wouldn't be too happy about the fallout. Our troops are right next door and would probably run accross the border for an attack.

It's not gonna happen though.
Permalink Phil 
January 19th, 2006
There was an interesting interviewee on "Newsnight" (BBC 2) a few nights ago with a friend of the Iranian President.

His argument was that they don't want nuclear weapons but they do want their own independent nuclear research programme as that is one of the things which gets you international respect and onto the diplomatic top table.

*If* true I would not be surprised to find them complying with the letter of international treaties while being publically bolshie.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 19th, 2006
cynic, thats just silly though. Besides the fact they have vast wealth and oil resources, and thus don't need nuclear power, they have also refused offers for others to run the plants and control the spent uranium. I think they want nuclear weapons for bragging rights. The Persian people are very proud, they are the "Aryan" (Thus the name Iran) people, who have never been defeated. But their neighbors have nukes, and now they are surrounded by US controlled countries (Afghanistan, Iraq), and thus they want to maintain this pride and not be walked over.
Permalink Phil 
January 19th, 2006
Sorry, you said "research program" not "power program", the same points basically apply, I'm sure we could arrange for them to do lab work in a third party controlled lab, if thats all they wanted.
Permalink Phil 
January 19th, 2006
I think cynic is right. Iran wants to be treated as a major power for all sorts of reasons. So does Pakistan, so does India and so does North Korea amongst others.
Permalink Simon Lucy 
January 19th, 2006
I agree Simon, I just think they want to accomplish that by having actual functioning nuclear weapons. And I think thats their right.
Permalink Phil 
January 19th, 2006
Yes, it's silly.

Just because it's silly doesn't mean it's not true.
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 19th, 2006
Mutually Assured Destruction.

Maybe, the U.S. doesn't need to be assured it will be destroyed to prevent us from using our nukes. Certainly, there's nobody left in the world (except China, of course) rattling swords at us who has a credible chance of doing more than killing a few thousand.

Still, MAD prevented us and the Russians from destroying civilization for 50 years or so. I think it should be made clear that it still applies.
Permalink AllanL5 
January 19th, 2006
In general terms I agree - but read the thread "Why an Early Warning System is useless".
Permalink a cynic writes... 
January 19th, 2006
"...US invades Iran in a scissor movement from Afganistan and Iraq...."
Iranians retaliate by sinking a carrier group in the gulf with a nuclear mine. Further reductions in shipping by silkworm missiles resulted in a complete stoppage of oil exports from the Persian Gulf. By the time oil passed $1000/barrel, rising gas prices made "big box" merchants in the US wildly unprofitable. Since the rise in natural gas prices in the fall of 2005 and europe killing off most of the poultry flock due to avian flu worries, most of the soybean farmers sat out the 2006 growing season. This lead to a collapse of the rural regions as all the retailers had gone out of business due to walmart's predations, and finally walmart closed their stores due to $25/gallon diesel and the trade war with China cutting off all their supplies. Shortages of food lead to the food riots in late 2006, early 2007 when 12,000,000 Americans died in the combination of starvation and civil unrest.
Permalink Peter 
January 19th, 2006
Peter, I don't even know where to begin picking on the problems with that wet dream of yours...
Permalink Phil 
January 19th, 2006
We can't allow it to happen.

That area is vital to Europe's oil supply. I expect the EU will bring the issue to the security council. Israel might not wait that long though.

Iran already has enough material and know-how. The question is whether or not the new iranian prez is bluffing.

Looking at his actions, it looks like he wants to get hit with conventional weapons so he can say to his in-house nutjobs "can't get you nukes sorry"
Permalink flash91 
January 19th, 2006
I don't think we have the ability to preemptively stop Iran's nuclear program, short of glazing the sands. Our conventional military is worn out from fighting a two-front war.

My concern is not a missle attack on neighboring countries (including the US troops in Iraq & Afghanistan), but a shipping-container bomb that arrives at a port in the Northeast.

The Soviets supposedly had nukes in place in US cities from the 1970's. They smuggled them in and set them up at safe houses. One of their top KGB generals spilled the beans when he defected in the early 1990's.
Permalink example 
January 19th, 2006
"The Soviets supposedly had nukes in place in US cities from the 1970's. They smuggled them in and set them up at safe houses."

I don't believe this.

The Russians wouldn't take such a risk. They never did with nukes. At least not politically.

A defector is not nescessarily a trustworthy source.

The chances of detection are too great. There are detectors that can spot nuclear weapons through quiet a lot of material cover. (X-rays can pass through a lot of concrete, and weapons grade material radiates very specific radiation, different from the background radiation of rock and concrete).
Permalink Erik Springelkamp 
January 19th, 2006
I _do_ believe the reports I heard in the early nineties that the Russians had 'backpack nukes' and that some 50 were missing. The murdered general Lebed has been on this case.
Permalink Erik Springelkamp 
January 19th, 2006
Erik -
The bombs were here, and may still be here. There may even still be some in the Benelux countries.

>> Lunev is a former Soviet military intelligence officer, a defector who's now in the federal witness protection program. He claims that before the Cold War ended a decade ago, Soviet agents planted so-called "suitcase nuclear bombs" in the United States and other Western countries — nuclear bombs that could be triggered if war broke out.

"They were designed to destroy extremely highly protected American targets," he said. <<

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/05/archive/main317014.shtml
Permalink example 
January 19th, 2006
I am not convinced.

"They were designed to destroy extremely highly protected American targets,"

Highly protected American targets need heavy warheads to destroy, and you cannot smuggle a suitcase bomb into a highly protected - ie a deep bunker - target.

_Politically_ highly protected targets are easy to destroy with missiles.

High payload bombs cannot be carried in a suitcase.

They are more suitable for terror attacks.
Permalink Erik Springelkamp 
January 19th, 2006

This topic was orginally posted to the off-topic forum of the
Joel on Software discussion board.

Other topics: January, 2006 Other topics: January, 2006 Recent topics Recent topics