Why I'm Not Concerned About The U.S. Being Nuked By Any Country

[cali]

or terrorist group, and thus, by extension, why I'm not worried about Iran getting the bomb. It takes more than one nutty leader to launch an attack. It takes a number of people in the military. I find it almost impossible to believe, that even if he was determined to do so, Ahmadinejad wouldn't be stopped. He'd also be refrained from bombing Israel or any other state. The possible exception to this would be if Iran was engaged in a hot war with one of its neighbors and on the verge of a decisive loss.

Any country with a small arsenal of nuclear weapons is fully cognizant that should they lob one at the U.S. or any of its allies, it would be completely annihilated. That's a powerful deterrent.

As for Iran handing over a nuke to a terrorist group, that's a much overblown fear. How would said group deliver such a weapon? And if by some stretch of the imagination, a terrorist group could deliver a nuke, Iran or any other country surely knows that the weapon would be traced back to them and they'd suffer the consequences.

Do I want to see a proliferation of nuclear weapons? Of course not, but even if Iran did develop a small arsenal of nukes, I can't see that there would be the threat that we're being warned about.

[China_cat]

1. You can't see the threat?

Hell, the threat isn't in Iran, it's in the White House.

[HereSince1628]

2. How do you trace the origins of a detonated atomic bomb?

I'm just wondering about how that is done. Physical evidence from the blast site?

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. I think that Cali is saying that the bomb would never reach its

destination before they were stopped, in the off chance that terrorists actually get their hands on one.

A good argument, but one that presupposes that any attempt is made to stop it. 9/11 could have been stopped, but someone decided not to stop it.

If a bomb in a container in an American port does go off, the powers that be will know all about it, and know exactly who to bomb in retaliation. Whether they know or not.

[HereSince1628]

13. Yes, the US would attack all the usual suspects.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. M.A.D. Doesn't Require Traceability

The Soviets could have used a surreptitious approach to using a nuke in the U.S. if they wanted to. But, they knew that if a nuke went off in the U.S., they & the Chinese were going to be blamed no matter who did it, and they would be those against whom we'd retaliate. They were HIGHLY motivated to assure that their bombs stayed THEIR bombs. The traceability responsibility falls on the holders of the weapons.

So, it doesn't matter if the weapon can't be traced after detonation. (You're certainly right about that.) It would be contingent upon the holders of those weapons to see that they weren't used against someone who could incinerate the entire country in retaliation.

It's the founding premise of M.A.D.
The Professor

[The Stranger]

22. Excellent post.

[ProfessorGAC]

24. Thanks

You're so kind.
The Professor

[chicofaraby]

3. K&R

[stray cat]

4. It takes a handful of people for a dirty bomb or suitcase style.

With a few of the right connections almost anyone can do it.

[Imperialism Inc.]

7. That will always be a threat.

Stopping Iran from building a bomb won't decrease the threat of that happening. We certainly should not ignore the threat of a dirty bomb , but we should also not live our lives in so much fear that we completely shut down. And, if we cause a global conflict by say attacking Iran then we will have actually increased the threat, not decreased it. In much the way as invading Iraq increased terrorism, not decreased it.

[stray cat]

11. That I agree with.

Iran has alot of terrorist networks who they can give nuclear materials to but I agree that by using any type of nuclear weapon we open the door even wider to having it used on us.

[treestar]

25. This is the most sensible way to look at it, I agree.

[cali]

12. A dirty bomb

is entirely different from a nuclear weapon, and whether or not some group gets enough material to cobble one together has nothing to do with other nation's acquiring a nuclear arsenal. From what i've read, the threat from so called suitcase bombs is overrated.

[treestar]

26. The dirty bomb is destructive, but nothing on the level of WMD

The right keeps trying to equate them.

[treestar]

16. I submit that if that were so, we'd all be dead by now

[stray cat]

23. It took awhile to do something easy like fly jets into buildings

[Imperialism Inc.]

5. Nuclear weapons in anyone's hands is a threat to everyone.

In other words , I agree with your statement about not wanting to see nuclear proliferation.

Is Iran an especially dangerous threat? I don't really think so. Possibly more so than say China, but less so than North Korea. While their social norms (i.e. treatment of women and criminals) could use some improvement, and their "democracy" is quite far from perfect, I don't think they are crazy barbarians out for the destruction of the world.

What the administration is really worried about is not being able to boss them around in the future. That invasion and occupation will never really be an option once they get the bomb. There are some real dangers here. I am , of course, opposed to any attack , invasion or occupation of Iran but we should realize that once they have the bomb even peaceful attempts to improve their government may become more difficult (not that that is our job anyway).

[paparush]

6. Let's See...Nutjob, ignorant, cardboard cutout Prezdent.. Check

Whacko Secretary of State who's favorite pasttime is saber rattling. Check.
Lunatic Secretary of Defense who is a founding member of the NeoCon PNAC, who promote pre-emption like water. Check.
A military complex that has proved it is willing to follow the above. Check.
A populace who has yet to move en mass to stop these criminals.

Seems we have the necessary ingredients to use nukes.

[cali]

8. I thought I made it clear

that I was referring to the U.S. being nuked by another country or terrorist group, not the possibility of the U.S. using nuclear weapons against Iran or any other country. That's another topic.

[Psephos]

9. North Korea's Maximum Leader does not fit your theory

Are you familiar with how North Korea is run?

Reason does not apply to the unreasonable, and emotion has always been a far greater prime mover than logic in cults of personality.

I am astounded that so many people seem willing to take a chance that a guy who claims he had a halo around his head while addressing world leaders at the U.N., a guy who has clearly stated numerous times that Israel must be wiped off the map, a guy who believes the End of Days is near and that the Twelfth Imam is nigh, a guy who believes he and his regime are supposed to serve God by ushering in the Final Conflict, should have nukes - AND THE WORLD WILL BE JUST AS SAFE AS BEFORE.

One miscalculation here and humankind's worst nightmare comes true. Yet, in service to political ideology, people say, what the hell, let's roll the dice and trust our theories.

I call B.S. on anyone who says more nukes in more hands doesn't increase the probability of nuclear war.

My opinion, nothing more, nothing less.

Peace.

[Imperialism Inc.]

14. What is your opinion of this blog entry by Juan Cole.

I find it pretty convincing myself. Of course ,that is because I already basically thought that was what was going on ;-)

http://www.juancole.com/2006/04/iran-can-now-make-glowing-mickey-mouse.html
(snip)
What is really going on here is a ratcheting war of rhetoric. The Iranian hard liners are down to a popularity rating in Iran of about 15%. They are using their challenge to the Bush administration over their perfectly legal civilian nuclear energy research program as a way of enhancing their nationalist credentials in Iran.

Likewise, Bush is trying to shore up his base, which is desperately unhappy with the Iraq situation, by rattling sabres at Iran. Bush's poll numbers are so low, often in the mid-30s, that he must have lost part of his base to produce this result. Iran is a great deus ex machina for Bush. Rally around the flag yet again.
(more)


That said I certainly agree with:

I call B.S. on anyone who says more nukes in more hands doesn't increase the probability of nuclear war.

It is just that I don't see how an attack will help the situation. The sad truth is the whole situation was totally predictable (and many did predict it) once Bush decided to unilaterally invade Iraq and leave nuclear North Korea alone.


Edit: Let's not forget , after 9/11 a million Iranians took to the streets Tehran to light candles in solidarity with the U.S. Look where we have gone since then :(

[FlaGranny]

19. The lesson of North Korea vs. Iraq

to all other countries is that it is a good idea to have nuclear weapons if you don't want the US to mess with you. Bush created that mindset. You said: "Bush decided to unilaterally invade Iraq and leave nuclear North Korea alone."

[Psephos]

28. His points are valid and convincing

The problem, though, is that as we consider the political forces at play here, we are seduced into not seeing the catastrophic possibilities if a nuclear weapon is detonated. The acquisition of nuclear weapons by a fundamentalist who wishes to be Allah's agent in bringing the End Times to pass makes me break into a cold sweat. The man goes out of his way to say exactly what he thinks should happen to Israel, Western culture, and dhimmis. Annihilation is the only answer; to Ahmadinejad and his ilk the only question is when.

It's easy to see this issue in terms of Bush and company fashioning a casus beli, and I say damn them for not understanding what happens to boys who play with matches. But when putting down Bush/restraining American interests becomes our overriding concern, it's just a short hop to crafting an equivalency argument on behalf of the Iranians. ("Why shouldn't they have nukes? They have ample US-driven reasons for them.")

I remember during the 1970s and 1980s when progressives were absolutists against nuclear weapons. Now we're moral equivalency mavens, who implicitly wish to see *more* nuclear arms, in more countries, just because we hate Bush?

The absolutist position produced results, and an arguably safer world (remember Reykjavik?). The current position is madness. Hand out enough firecrackers to kids at a party and sooner or later there is going to be a bang.

Progressive support of nuclear proliferation must end - now.

Peace.


PS - Thanks for the thoughtful post

[cali]

18. I didn't say that more nukes in more hands doesn't increase

the probablity of nuclear war. In fact, I stated that I didn't want to see a proliferation of nuclear weapons. Yes, Ahmadinejad is a nutcase, but that doesn't mean that he or the Mullahs have total control over the military. It doesn't even follow that because he's a nutcase he'd use them.

Yes I'm familiar with how N. Korea is run, and I believe that it presents a greater threat re use of nuclear weapons than Iran does, for the simple reason that they have them, and that it's a far more desperate and repressive regime. However, quite a few analysts believe Kim Jong Il is more cunning than crazy re us of WMD.

"One miscalculation here and humankind's worst nightmare comes true. Yet, in service to political ideology, people say, what the hell, let's roll the dice and trust our theories."

The above has been true for approximately 60 years. We've been closer to nuclear annhilation in the past than we are now. In any case, I wasn't advocating rolling the dice and trusting any theory, and right or wrong, I'm far more worried about a scenario in which the U.S. uses nuclear strikes to take out Iran's enrichment sites setting off a chain of events which could well include a coup in Pakistan and their very real arsenal falling into the hands of religious fundamentalists. There are lots and lots of scary scenarios.

Iran is years away from acquiring nuclear weapons, but we're much closer to using them and unleashing god knows what.

[treestar]

15. I think you have a good point. Deterrence did work. If the

Soviets didn't dare bomb us into the ground, they knew we would just bomb them back, then there would be no world to control.

These freaks want to control the world. Destroying it, they lose their own lives and any hope of controlling other human beings.

[Guaranteed]

17. This point is severely underrated. It was most definitely

so in the run-up to the Iraq War.

We are the most powerful nation on Earth. If anyone hurt us that badly, we would destroy them in a blink of an eye.

[baby_mouse]

20. They might not care. They have their own fundies.

[0007]

27. good post.