The USA can't stop the world from nuking up

[Circe]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

Many speculate that as soon as Iran nukes up, all the countries in the area will acquire nukes in defense against the Persian Empire, which does NOT have a peaceful history over the last 3,000 years.

After that, will nuclear war become common, or will deterrence hold as it has for nearly 70 years?

We could say, well, it's not our problem if Africa goes up, but it is not in our national interest to have the oil fields of Arabia become radioactive wastelands. Or Europe's, either.

A lot of commentators have been saying that there is nothing to stop Iran and North Korea, or indeed any other country rich enough to purchase nukes. Pax Americana seems to have run its course. Anyone?

 

[martybegan]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

Many speculate that as soon as Iran nukes up, all the countries in the area will acquire nukes in defense against the Persian Empire, which does NOT have a peaceful history over the last 3,000 years.

After that, will nuclear war become common, or will deterrence hold as it has for nearly 70 years?

We could say, well, it's not our problem if Africa goes up, but it is not in our national interest to have the oil fields of Arabia become radioactive wastelands. Or Europe's, either.

A lot of commentators have been saying that there is nothing to stop Iran and North Korea, or indeed any other country rich enough to purchase nukes. Pax Americana seems to have run its course. Anyone?

More than likey they will aquire nukes, and unfortunately I think we will see them used in Anger for the first time since 1945.

Nuclear weapons are a paradox in the fact that having too many is a better proposition than having just a few. With the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction the superpowers during the Cold War realized that any attempted first strike would have to be completely overwhelming, or the retaliatory strike would make any inital victory hollow.

When both sides only have a few of the things, it leads one side to think it could possibly get all the other side's stockpiled weapons in a suprise first strike, or at least enough to make the retaliatory strike suriviable.

Lets look at the Israel/Iran balance. Israel actually has quite a few weapons, however they suffer from a demographical liability as much of thier population is clustered around a few cities. Iran may only get 10-20 intial weapons, but could be tempted into thinking they could wipe out most of Israel's population and stockpile with a quick full out strike.

 

[Circe]

More than likey they will aquire nukes, and unfortunately I think we will see them used in Anger for the first time since 1945.

Nuclear weapons are a paradox in the fact that having too many is a better proposition than having just a few. With the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction the superpowers during the Cold War realized that any attempted first strike would have to be completely overwhelming, or the retaliatory strike would make any inital victory hollow.

When both sides only have a few of the things, it leads one side to think it could possibly get all the other side's stockpiled weapons in a suprise first strike, or at least enough to make the retaliatory strike suriviable.

Lets look at the Israel/Iran balance. Israel actually has quite a few weapons, however they suffer from a demographical liability as much of thier population is clustered around a few cities. Iran may only get 10-20 intial weapons, but could be tempted into thinking they could wipe out most of Israel's population and stockpile with a quick full out strike.

Israel is said to have about 30 nukes, I have read: it's just speculation, of course. Still, they canNOT be the second people in the world to set off a nuclear bomb. Especially not as unpopular generally as they are. So that leaves only conventional arms to take out Iran's nuke sites, and it seems either they don't believe they can do it --- Iran has hardened its sites, putting them under mountains and so on --- or we are not letting them do it.

Israel normally takes out nuke-up powers around it, Iraq and Syria both got bombed out with NO reply from those countries, they just swallowed the loss. Amazing, if you think about it: both Saddam and Assad recognized their countries are no match for Israel without nukes.

But Iran? Iran is too big and too dangerous, I'd guess. Though that big explosion at Iran's nuke sites a couple years ago.......I never believed it was an accident. It didn't stop the nuking up, however.

Israel badly wants the USA to defend the nuclear status quo; pretty clearly we don't mean to, whatever Bush or Obama SAY about it. Or am I wrong?

 

[Sallow]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

Many speculate that as soon as Iran nukes up, all the countries in the area will acquire nukes in defense against the Persian Empire, which does NOT have a peaceful history over the last 3,000 years.

After that, will nuclear war become common, or will deterrence hold as it has for nearly 70 years?

We could say, well, it's not our problem if Africa goes up, but it is not in our national interest to have the oil fields of Arabia become radioactive wastelands. Or Europe's, either.

A lot of commentators have been saying that there is nothing to stop Iran and North Korea, or indeed any other country rich enough to purchase nukes. Pax Americana seems to have run its course. Anyone?

It can..but it won't in the forseeable future.

Because it involves giving up hypocrisy.

 

[editec]

The USA can't stop the world from nuking up

Technology is Pandora's box

 

[martybegan]

More than likey they will aquire nukes, and unfortunately I think we will see them used in Anger for the first time since 1945.

Nuclear weapons are a paradox in the fact that having too many is a better proposition than having just a few. With the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction the superpowers during the Cold War realized that any attempted first strike would have to be completely overwhelming, or the retaliatory strike would make any inital victory hollow.

When both sides only have a few of the things, it leads one side to think it could possibly get all the other side's stockpiled weapons in a suprise first strike, or at least enough to make the retaliatory strike suriviable.

Lets look at the Israel/Iran balance. Israel actually has quite a few weapons, however they suffer from a demographical liability as much of thier population is clustered around a few cities. Iran may only get 10-20 intial weapons, but could be tempted into thinking they could wipe out most of Israel's population and stockpile with a quick full out strike.

Israel is said to have about 30 nukes, I have read: it's just speculation, of course. Still, they canNOT be the second people in the world to set off a nuclear bomb. Especially not as unpopular generally as they are. So that leaves only conventional arms to take out Iran's nuke sites, and it seems either they don't believe they can do it --- Iran has hardened its sites, putting them under mountains and so on --- or we are not letting them do it.

Israel normally takes out nuke-up powers around it, Iraq and Syria both got bombed out with NO reply from those countries, they just swallowed the loss. Amazing, if you think about it: both Saddam and Assad recognized their countries are no match for Israel without nukes.

But Iran? Iran is too big and too dangerous, I'd guess. Though that big explosion at Iran's nuke sites a couple years ago.......I never believed it was an accident. It didn't stop the nuking up, however.

Israel badly wants the USA to defend the nuclear status quo; pretty clearly we don't mean to, whatever Bush or Obama SAY about it. Or am I wrong?

Israel actually probably has about 80-300 warheads, delivered via cruise missile, ballistic missile, or bomber.

Nuclear weapons and Israel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

They are desgined around a retaliatory strike, however as the article states, they lack strategic depth, leaving them vulnuerable to classica decimation or worse in a suprise first strike scenario.

 

[Swagger]

Has it occured to anyone that Iran wants a nuclear arsenal simply because having nukes at your disposal is the only way that you're taken seriously on the international stage?

Either way, they're probably more interested in giving any potential invaders - like the U.S. and the UK - serious pause for thought if they considered repeating what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan in Iran than provoking Israel.

 

[Sallow]

Has it occured to anyone that Iran wants a nuclear arsenal simply because having nukes at your disposal is the only way that you're taken seriously on the international stage?

Either way, they're probably more interested in giving any potential invaders - like the U.S. and the UK - serious pause for thought if they considered repeating what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan in Iran than provoking Israel.

Yup.

Exactly.

 

[Circe]

Has it occured to anyone that Iran wants a nuclear arsenal simply because having nukes at your disposal is the only way that you're taken seriously on the international stage?

Either way, they're probably more interested in giving any potential invaders - like the U.S. and the UK - serious pause for thought if they considered repeating what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan in Iran than provoking Israel.

This is a good point, IMO. Certainly everyone knows that this is NK's aim, to be taken seriously, that and wanting to sell nukes and nuke technology to everyone else, as they apparently did with Syria.

Our troops massed on the border of Iraq in Kuwait before going in for the three-week Shock and Awe rapid maneuver to Bagdhad. Tactical nukes could have taken out that troop emplacement, if Saddam had had nukes. Same with Iran: presumably we would muster in Kuwait again, if we decided to go in.

 

[Circe]

It can..but it won't in the forseeable future.

Because it involves giving up hypocrisy.

I don't understand your post? Would you like to expand on that?

 

[ConHog]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

Many speculate that as soon as Iran nukes up, all the countries in the area will acquire nukes in defense against the Persian Empire, which does NOT have a peaceful history over the last 3,000 years.

After that, will nuclear war become common, or will deterrence hold as it has for nearly 70 years?

We could say, well, it's not our problem if Africa goes up, but it is not in our national interest to have the oil fields of Arabia become radioactive wastelands. Or Europe's, either.

A lot of commentators have been saying that there is nothing to stop Iran and North Korea, or indeed any other country rich enough to purchase nukes. Pax Americana seems to have run its course. Anyone?

I have always favored helping Iran and N Korea obtain nuclear weapons.

Toss a few hundred their way and tell them they can keep anything they catch.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

This is, of course, false.
The only thing that keeps us from stopping anyone from building their oen nuclear weapons is the lack of political will to do so.

 

[Underhill]

It has become apparent that nothing at all that we can -- or will -- do can stop either Iran or North Korea from becoming nuclear-armed powers.

This is, of course, false.
The only thing that keeps us from stopping anyone from building their oen nuclear weapons is the lack of political will to do so.

Technically you may be correct. But in reality there is no way we can continually and indefinitely keep them from that goal. They have too many resources, too much area and, you are right, we do not have the political gumption to keep them from attaining them.

The parallels with the gun argument are everywhere. Do we want crazy people to get a hold of weapons? What are we willing to do to stop them?

 

[Circe]

[
...in reality there is no way we can continually and indefinitely keep them from that goal. They have too many resources, too much area and, you are right, we do not have the political gumption to keep them from attaining them.

The parallels with the gun argument are everywhere. Do we want crazy people to get a hold of weapons? What are we willing to do to stop them?

Good analogy! I didn't think of that one. But it works, and I'd say this is why:

Waiting, waiting, and waiting some more is always the best move for government, if it possibly can wait. At least that is what the people in power think, because if they wait, the problem very likely will pass on to their successors and they won't have to deal with it, the friction of history takes so long to work through. That is, things don't happen as soon as most people see the pattern, and often don't happen at all.

If government moves to confiscate assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, which I would LOVE to see in theory, there will certainly be a revolution, IMO. Gun control has for probably two decades been the most fractious issue in America, worse even than abortion, which IMO is mostly just male resentment of women becoming independent of male control. Last time this country had as fractious an issue as gun control, the government had to stop the draft for cannon fodder for Vietnam. The time before that, Civil War broke out.

So the government will not do much to deal with the terrible problem of crazy paranoid shooters, because more disorder would be caused by doing anything effective.

Same deal with North Korea, I think. If we go in, we have a big war with a LOT of militarized North Koreans and very likely a war with China, and since China alone has FIVE TIMES our population, we would lose. Talk about Red Dawn --- that could happen. We regularly lose to Iraqis and Afghans, so how could we possibly win a war with China?

Whereas if we wait, their crazy nutso government could well fall like Cecesceau's equally crazy Romanian government did, and the North Koreans hang the latest Kim from a lamppost and turn --- just normal Koreans, like the East Germans turned just Germans.

Remember how so many people wanted to bomb the Soviet Union? Waiting worked out better because in time, they fell on their own. That is actually what we are doing, administration after administration, with North Korea: just waiting them out.

 

[Underhill]

[
...in reality there is no way we can continually and indefinitely keep them from that goal. They have too many resources, too much area and, you are right, we do not have the political gumption to keep them from attaining them.

The parallels with the gun argument are everywhere. Do we want crazy people to get a hold of weapons? What are we willing to do to stop them?

Good analogy! I didn't think of that one. But it works, and I'd say this is why:

Waiting, waiting, and waiting some more is always the best move for government, if it possibly can wait. At least that is what the people in power think, because if they wait, the problem very likely will pass on to their successors and they won't have to deal with it, the friction of history takes so long to work through. That is, things don't happen as soon as most people see the pattern, and often don't happen at all.

If government moves to confiscate assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, which I would LOVE to see in theory, there will certainly be a revolution, IMO. Gun control has for probably two decades been the most fractious issue in America, worse even than abortion, which IMO is mostly just male resentment of women becoming independent of male control. Last time this country had as fractious an issue as gun control, the government had to stop the draft for cannon fodder for Vietnam. The time before that, Civil War broke out.

So the government will not do much to deal with the terrible problem of crazy paranoid shooters, because more disorder would be caused by doing anything effective.

Same deal with North Korea, I think. If we go in, we have a big war with a LOT of militarized North Koreans and very likely a war with China, and since China alone has FIVE TIMES our population, we would lose. Talk about Red Dawn --- that could happen. We regularly lose to Iraqis and Afghans, so how could we possibly win a war with China?

Whereas if we wait, their crazy nutso government could well fall like Cecesceau's equally crazy Romanian government did, and the North Koreans hang the latest Kim from a lamppost and turn --- just normal Koreans, like the East Germans turned just Germans.

Remember how so many people wanted to bomb the Soviet Union? Waiting worked out better because in time, they fell on their own. That is actually what we are doing, administration after administration, with North Korea: just waiting them out.

Problem is, who is going to fall in this waiting game. North Korea, China or the US.

 

[Intense]

Has it occured to anyone that Iran wants a nuclear arsenal simply because having nukes at your disposal is the only way that you're taken seriously on the international stage?

Either way, they're probably more interested in giving any potential invaders - like the U.S. and the UK - serious pause for thought if they considered repeating what they did in Iraq and Afghanistan in Iran than provoking Israel.

I believe that Iran's interest, at least what it is selling to the masses, is the concept of "The Last Day", "Armageddon". Think Abaddon, the Angel with the key to the bottomless pit.

 

[Circe]

Problem is, who is going to fall in this waiting game. North Korea, China or the US.

It can hardly be China or the US! We're both a lot bigger than North Korea. Even if NK somehow managed to nuke Los Angeles, God forbid, the USA would survive and at that point, the politicians do recognize the necessity of moving.

NK may or may not fall, but it's certainly not going to be us that falls, not because of little, impoverished NK.

Until they either bomb us or stop up important national interests such as oil, nothing has actually happened and we can afford to wait.

That's how the world really works.

Note WWII: we didn't go in till Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war. That was correct timing, IMO. Wait till something actually HAPPENS.

 

[Circe]

I believe that Iran's interest, at least what it is selling to the masses, is the concept of "The Last Day", "Armageddon". Think Abaddon, the Angel with the key to the bottomless pit.

Very likely. And that's an excellent reason to wait till that crazy regime falls, too. I can't believe the people of Iran are as enthusiastic about staging Armageddon on their own homefront as their psychotic imams are.

NK and Iran are both attacking the world because they are so badly governed they need to distract their people from their really bad government. We should wait and see if their own people take them down, like in Soviet Russia, Romania, Italy under Mussolini, etc. It's a pretty common fate, though not nearly common enough.

Until they actually start lobbing bombs at us, or stop up our shipping or oil and such, like Saddam made the big mistake of doing, nothing has actually happened.

There is no need to do anything till something actually happens. And we won't, either. First rule of foreign policy, I suspect, Dem or GOP.

 

[Politico]

They could. Our leaders are just too spineless.

 

[FA_Q2]

They could. Our leaders are just too spineless.

Spineless to do what?

What, exactly, are we supposed to do in order to stop nations from 'nuking up.'


To all of those that believe that we are capable of such a thing, you really need to take a hard look at reality. The fact is the OP is completely correct in that regard. There is little to nothing that we can do to stop nations like Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. We certainly can de-incentivize the practice as we are doing through economic hardships but there is only one real course that we can take to stop it entirely and that is invade.

Far from a rational option, that is simply nuts. There is no net gain from killing hundreds of thousands, destroying the livelihood of millions, spending trillions and starching our military to the breaking point to stop many of these nations from attaining nuclear weapons. It is simply piss poor policy to start wars up on these grounds. Iraq *should* have been a learning experience for us. these wars simply do not work and they certainly do not leave us in a better position than we started with. Face reality, most of these nations are going to get nuclear weapons. We are going to have to learn how to deal with it.