The connundrum is that once Iran possesses a nuclear weapon, redress is almost nonexistant. To my knowledge, South Africa is the only nation to have voluntarily dismantled a proven nuclear-weapons capability.
And who was it that gave them the tech?
I tend to agree with this analysis.
:2razz:
A low-yield tactical nuclear weapon detonated underground is not in the destructive class of an atmospheric warhead or a Chernobyl type disaster. Although all three contain a nuclear element, their respective engineering designs (or mis-design in the case of Chernobyl) yield vastly different radiological/topological/destructive results.
I know, but thats still not the point. You cant debate such things on a grand scale or explain such differences to a global population.. once they see the word "nuclear weapons used", pictures of Nagasaki and Hiroshima will come to mind (and be printed) and the condemnation will pour in.
Plus a nuclear bunker buster with all the safegaurds in place, can not avoid spreading nuclear material over a large area, either above ground or in the water table, if said bunker buster hits a nuclear reactor that then goes critical.
If one is to discuss such a topic with honesty, it is incumbant to understand and appreciate the specified parameters. To assume more - or even less - would be tantamount to artificially altering said parameters. Such an exercise is actually anathema to credibly putting one's arms around the object of inquiry and discussing specific consequences and/or viable alternatives.
And I am saying it wount matter. The headlines will still say "Isreal uses nuclear weapons" and that will have wide spread consequences. The same will be if the headlines said "Iran uses nuclear weapons" or "US uses nuclear weapons"
Semantically and usage-wise this is correct. Even though the physics utilized and the engineering designs can yield vastly different results, a low-yield nuclear weapon cannot be less than a nuclear weapon in both scientific and colloquial terms.
I agree, however there are 2 aspects here that make this argument null and void in the eyes of most people. First there is the headlines with the word nuclear weapon in, and secondly its like opening pandoras box. If Isreal can use nukes against its enemy, even small ones, then we can also. In many ways its like saying that you are a little pregnant... its either pregnant or not..
I do take a panorama of aspects into consideration. But you only mentioned oil and economic consequences and thus I only responded to these specific concerns.
And you seemed to dismiss them or ignore them :2razz: . Using nukes, small or big will have consquences beyond the middle east, economical, socially, politicaly and ecologically.
I can assure you that any competent physicist would agree with the IAEA... the only viable purpose in building uranium-hexaflouride centrifuge-cascades is to produce weapons-grade (HEU) uranium. This is exactly what the Iranians are doing.
And here you are being a bit dishonest, no offense. You say "competent physicist".. which means you dismiss anyone contradicting the idea that they are building nukes. As I understand it, it all depends on how far they enrich the uranium. Experts have said if they go past a point then they can use it for fuel and for nukes. If they stop before that point then they can use it for fuel only.
And to be honest the whole debate between Iran and the world has gone over to be similar to a stuborn spolit teenage brat wanting something he does not need, just because someone said he could not have it. The more the west has pressured Iran in giving up their nuclear technology, the more stuborn and proud/nationalistic the Iranians have become. Even the idea that the Russians enrich the Iranian uranium was first agreed on in principle and the dismissed after some more pressure by certain western goverments and over zealos media.
Believe none of the above then. However, the UN funded IAEA has found Iran to be in profound violation of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of which Iran is an original signatory.
And many nations have been in violation of said treaty and even some who never agreed to it have spread nuclear tech around the world, including Isreal. And Iran has used and will continue to use the Isreali nuclear arsenal as an excuse. So as long as Isreal is outside the NPT or even offically denies its got nukes (similar to Irans denial it wants nukes btw).
On principle we can not deny Iran nuclear technology, when we allow other nations to develop nuclear technology outside the normal channels and dont punish them for it.. its simply a huge double standard and hypocritcal.
The best would be to scrap all nukes frankly.
From Israel's point of view, relying on a retaliatory nuclear strike (MAD) is not an option. In military parlance, Israel is what is known as a 'one bomb nation'. In other words, just one nuclear warhead detonated over Tel Aviv would be a mortal and fatal blow to the nation. Such a tantalizing window of opportunity cannot then be allowed to materialize and hang over Israel each day like a nuclear Sword of Damocles. In this sort of analysis, survival trumps the vagarities of history. Just to be clear here, I do not personally advocate a nuclear solution.
I agree, Israel is in a delicate position and its good you put the last bit in. However Isreal must understand, that if they do use nukes, even small ones, any sympathy what so ever to their cause will disappear and they could find themselvs on the end of a much bigger threat. It seems to me that all Isreal does these days is to maintain and escalate tensions at every possible junction (and that goes for the palestinians too) and it pisses me off.
I am not saying this will happen, but the chances of it happening to some degree or another escalate big time when the words "nuclear weapon used" are printed.
The same goes for Iran or any other nation. They know that if they ever get the bomb and use it, that the consequences for the nation would be extreme (not to mention the planet).
Iran has thus far refused every peaceful initiative put forth by many independent nations and the United Nations. In addition to being in violation of the NPT, Iran is now also in violation of a UN Security Council resolution. In response to Shiite Iran's nuclear-weapons program, Sunni Arab nations such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt have threatened to begin their own WMD programs. Such proliferation in a region as volatile as the Middle East is untenable, and the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran are thus profound and time-exponential.
Iran has not refused every peacefull initiative. They have infact agreed on quite a few, but each time been forced into a corner by certain nations demanding they give up nuclear tech all together.. as I mentioned the spolit teenage brat syndrom.
Isreal is also in violation of several resolutions and has not signed NPT, plus is known to have exported nuclear technology to other countries. Even Iran uses Isreali nuclear weapons as a reason to have its own.. the same bullshit of the cold war.
It all comes down to again, why do we not want Iran to develop its nuclear program when we have allowed Isreal to do so without any punishment. Iran and every other nation who has developed nukes and nuclear technology against the "will" of the international community has used this excuse.
For the record, I dont want Iran to develop nukes, and I want the Iranian mullahs out of power and sent to the moon to die, but I also dont want to feed them more and more excuses to spread their hate and solidify their position inside their own country, not to mention outside.
Totally unnecessary. You know better than this.