The real Problem With Iranian Nuclear Weapons: Deterrent Value

[bleeding heart]

This has been repeated many, times--by politicians and by the elite of the hawkish foreign policy commentators.

The primary reason a nuclear Iran is an issue is because it would then have deterrence against aggression.

How dare they!

That Iran will use its nuclear weapons against the US and Israel is rather obviously the centerpiece of the fear-mongering campaign against Tehran, to build popular support for threats to launch an aggressive attack in order to prevent them from acquiring that weapon. So what, then, is the real reason that so many people in both the US and Israeli governments are so desperate to stop Iranian proliferation?

Every now and then, they reveal the real reason: Iranian nuclear weapons would prevent the US from attacking Iran at will, and that is what is intolerable.

The latest person to unwittingly reveal the real reason for viewing an Iranian nuclear capacity as unacceptable was GOP Senator Lindsey Graham, one of the US's most reliable and bloodthirsty warmongers.

"They have two goals: one, regime survival. The best way for the regime surviving, in their mind, is having a nuclear weapon, because when you have a nuclear weapon, nobody attacks you."

Graham added that the second regime goal is "influence", that "people listen to you" when you have a nuclear weapon. In other words, we cannot let Iran acquire nuclear weapons because if they get them, we can no longer attack them when we want to and can no longer bully them in their own region.

Thomas Donnelly of the American Enterprise Institute and the New American Century Project has long been crystal clear that this is the real reason for opposing Iranian nuclear capability [my emphasis]:

"When their missiles are tipped with warheads carrying nuclear, biological, or chemical weapons, even weak regional powers have a credible deterrent regardless of the balance of conventional forces … In the post cold war era, America and its allies, rather than the Soviet Union, have become the primary objects of deterrence and it is states like Iraq, Iran and North Korea who most wish to develop deterrent capabilities."

He added:

"The surest deterrent to American action is a functioning nuclear arsenal …

"To be sure, the prospect of a nuclear Iran is a nightmare. But it is less a nightmare because of the high likelihood that Tehran would employ its weapons or pass them on to terrorist groups although that is not beyond the realm of possibility and more because of the constraining effect it threatens to impose upon US strategy for the greater Middle East.

As Jonathan Schwarz has extensively documented, this is what US policy elites have said over and over. In 2001, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld warned:

"Several of these [small enemy nations] are intensely hostile to the United States and are arming to deter us from bringing our conventional or nuclear power to bear in a regional crisis."

In 2002, State Department official Philip Zelikow said that if Iraq were permitted to keep its WMDs, "they now can deter us from attacking them, because they really can retaliate against us." In 2008, Democratic Senator Chuck Robb and GOP Senator Dan Coates wrote an incredibly hawkish Washington Post op-ed all but demanding an attack on Iran, and wrote:

"[A]n Islamic Republic of Iran with nuclear weapons capability would be strategically untenable. It would threaten U.S. national security … While a nuclear attack is the worst-case scenario, Iran would not need to employ a nuclear arsenal to threaten US interests. Simply obtaining the ability to quickly assemble a nuclear weapon would effectively give Iran a nuclear deterrent."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/02/iran-nukes-deterrence

OK....so, predicting that some posters might consider this all pretty rational and justifiable...it nevertheless strongly suggests that the "threat of an Iranian nuclear attack" or "wiping out Israel" are not the prime motivators for the calls to military action.

It's good to have clarity on what the debates are actually about: and an aggressive Iran is not what calls for military intervention are primarily about. It's a credibly defensive Iran that is making the war drums sound.

Edited October 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[DogOnPorch]

The standard US W88 warhead produces a yield in excess of 450kt. The smaller W76 has a yield of 100kt. Iran's potential device will be in the 15kt range and pretty shaky reliability-wise until some tests are done...and even then. That's still a big bang. But, it's not that Earth shattering Ka-Boom that Mullah Marvin Martian will need to inflict apocalyptic damage to a target. The only deterrent such a device would provide would be tactically...but there'd literally be Hell to pay on the battlefield if that was done.

Edited October 3, 2012 by DogOnPorch

[bleeding heart]

The standard US W88 warhead produces a yield in excess of 450kt. The smaller W76 has a yield of 100kt. Iran's potential device will be in the 15kt range and pretty shaky reliability-wise until some tests are done...and even then. That's still a big bang. But, it's not that Earth shattering Ka-Boom that Mullah Marvin Martian will need to inflict apocalyptic damage to a target. The only deterrent such a device would be tactically...but there'd literally be Hell to pay on the battlefield if that was done.

Then by the same standards, it's hardly the earth-shattering destructive force to end civilization...as the shrieking little cowards have been remonstrating with us for some tiresome if mildly amusing years now.

Edited October 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[DogOnPorch]

Then by the same standards, it's hardly the earth-shattering destructive force to end civilization...as the shrieking little cowards have been remonstrating with us for some tiresome if mildly amusing years now.

Well, you wouldn't want 15kt on Tel Aviv, by any means. But 15kt and a single device is hardly a deterrent in this age of MIRVs and ABMs.

However, we're not thinking ahead. Iran, if it gets the Bomb will only improve on the initial device like they're doing with their rockets now. But, yes, the H-Bomb is a ways off.

[bleeding heart]

Well, you wouldn't want 15kt on Tel Aviv, by any means. But 15kt and a single device is hardly a deterrent in this age of MIRVs and ABMs.

However, we're not thinking ahead. Iran, if it gets the Bomb will only improve on the initial device like they're doing with their rockets now.

No doubt. Hence: deterrence.

[kraychik]

Are we supposed to be surprised to see a socialist who "used to be a conservative" parroting propaganda from PressTV The Guardian?

I'll try to make this thread a little more serious, considering it started off with the anti-Western Islamist narrative. It is entirely understandable why Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons: they believe the rewards outweigh the risks. The sanctions aren't doing anything to slow them down, all they do is sow the seeds of discontent among the affected population. And even then, state propaganda is somewhat effective in exploiting the sanctions towards reinforcing the "evil greedy Jew-controlled America wants to kill all of us" narrative (which is close to the narrative bleeding heart subscribes to). The Iranian regime is confident that America will not leverage its military advantage towards stopping their intransigence (they're violating the NPT, for those that care about "international law", as well as supporting terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon, as well as in and around Israel) because they see the weakness that currently sits in the Oval Office. Until Iran is forced to pay a price for its ongoing intransigence, the status quo will continue and they'll develop nuclear weapons soon enough. In the age of modern terrorism, it's a scary thought.

[kraychik]

Then by the same standards, it's hardly the earth-shattering destructive force to end civilization...as the shrieking little cowards have been remonstrating with us for some tiresome if mildly amusing years now.

Yeah, those Jews in Israel, how dare they view a nuclear Iran as an existential threat. They're such "shrieking little cowards", aren't they?

[DogOnPorch]

No doubt. Hence: deterrence.

We can't accurately imagine what a 1mt airburst over a city would do. Beyond size X, it's all a big bang to us. But it would be the end of that city. Period.

[bleeding heart]

I'll try to make this thread a little more serious, considering it started off with the anti-Western Islamist narrative.

I understand the "anti-Western" accusation, as it's a mainstay of sycophants, courtiers,and Commissars generally; and deviation form the conventional pietes of State propaganda is perceived as a kind of fifth column.

But "Islamist"?

I don't think you've thought this through.

And even then, state propaganda is somewhat effective in exploiting the sanctions towards reinforcing the "evil greedy Jew-controlled America wants to kill all of us" narrative (which is close to the narrative bleeding heart subscribes to).

It has nothing whatsoever to do with "the narrative subscribe to" [sic]; and I challenge you to cite anything of mine that remotely resembles your greasy little slur here.

If you cannot do so, I will take it as a concession on this single point.

The Iranian regime is confident that America will not leverage its military advantage towards stopping their intransigence (they're violating the NPT, for those that care about "international law",

Not allowing them uranium enrichment is a violation of the NPT.

as well as supporting terrorists in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Lebanon,

That is doubtless the case; but it's not as if you object, on principle, to the support of terrorism; as you well know, the more powerful and "respectable" states, certainly the United States of America, routinely have supported terrorism, to a larger and far more devastating degree than anything the Iranians have yet managed.

So since you don't object to the support of terrorism, it's difficult to decipher why you'd summon it for castigation.

Again: once you've rationally and with some honesty decided to consider these arguments, by all means revisit the thread and maybe offer something substantial.

Edited October 3, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bud]

all of this goes with what most experts say: the iranian regime is a rational one.

ahmadinejad's comment is rational and believable:

In the Washington Post today, Richard Cohen expresses surprise that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "starting to make some sense" and "wax rationally". Cohen specifically cites this statement from the Iranian president last week:

"Let's even imagine that we have an atomic weapon, a nuclear weapon. What would we do with it? What intelligent person would fight 5,000 American bombs with one bomb?"

[bleeding heart]

Just so...why this is often seen as "supporting Ahmadinejad," and nonsense along these lines, is mysterious, since Israeli and American officials have made similar observations.

At any rate, it's pretty rich to witness people defending the idea of war on the premise that no one must be allowed a deterrent against aggression...and that wanting a deterrent is itself a kind of terrible crime and iniquity.

The servility and sycophancy go bone deep.

[Guest Peeves]

all of this goes with what most experts say: the iranian regime is a rational one.

ahmadinejad's comment is rational and believable:

In the Washington Post today, Richard Cohen expresses surprise that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is "starting to make some sense" and "wax rationally". Cohen specifically cites this statement from the Iranian president last week:

"Let's even imagine that we have an atomic weapon, a nuclear weapon. What would we do with it? What intelligent person would fight 5,000 American bombs with one bomb?"

Looking to find a supportable quote from this crazy reminds me of an old saying, "Even a blind pig finds an acorn on occasion."

Fortunately most of us aren't blind.

[DogOnPorch]

Looking to find a supportable quote from this crazy reminds me of an old saying, "Even a blind pig finds an acorn on occasion."

Fortunately most of us aren't blind.

It's far more likely that Iran would pass off a device to a non-state actor and watch Tel Aviv go up in smoke from a safe...and obviously innocent...distance. I doubt any retaliation of the nuclear sort would follow.

[kraychik]

It's far more likely that Iran would pass off a device to a non-state actor and watch Tel Aviv go up in smoke from a safe...and obviously innocent...distance. I doubt any retaliation of the nuclear sort would follow.

And if that were to happen, the leftist drones in here would demand "restraint" from Israel and "evidence" provides that the terrorist attack was, in fact, executed by Iran.

Edited October 4, 2012 by kraychik

[DogOnPorch]

And if that were to happen, the leftist drones in here would demand "restraint" from Israel and "evidence" provides that the terrorist attack was, in fact, executed by Iran.

Oh indeed. I imagine blame would even be heaped on Israel by the likes of Greta Berlin. Did you hear about her latest faux pas?

[bleeding heart]

And if that were to happen, the leftist drones in here would demand "restraint" from Israel and "evidence" provides that the terrorist attack was, in fact, executed by Iran.

Imagine that! Demanding evidence!

The iniquity of "the left" is a bottomless well.

Edited October 4, 2012 by bleeding heart

[dre]

This has been repeated many, times--by politicians and by the elite of the hawkish foreign policy commentators.

The primary reason a nuclear Iran is an issue is because it would then have deterrence against aggression.

How dare they!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/oct/02/iran-nukes-deterrence

OK....so, predicting that some posters might consider this all pretty rational and justifiable...it nevertheless strongly suggests that the "threat of an Iranian nuclear attack" or "wiping out Israel" are not the prime motivators for the calls to military action.

It's good to have clarity on what the debates are actually about: and an aggressive Iran is not what calls for military intervention are primarily about. It's a credibly defensive Iran that is making the war drums sound.

Yes this is about right although its not necessarily about Israel or the US not wanting Iran to have a nuclear deterent so they can attack it. Its more a case that they (and others) like the balance of power in the middle east where it is.

[GostHacked]

It's far more likely that Iran would pass off a device to a non-state actor and watch Tel Aviv go up in smoke from a safe...and obviously innocent...distance. I doubt any retaliation of the nuclear sort would follow.

Maybe Bibi needs better diagrams when addressing the UN. A nice graphic of Tel Aviv consumed in a mushroom cloud would get the point across better.

[dre]

It's far more likely that Iran would pass off a device to a non-state actor and watch Tel Aviv go up in smoke from a safe...and obviously innocent...distance.

Thats also extremely unlikely. Almost implausible.

[bud]

Looking to find a supportable quote from this crazy reminds me of an old saying, "Even a blind pig finds an acorn on occasion."

Fortunately most of us aren't blind.

it's nice to see so many experts such as peeves, DoP and kraychik giving us their opinion on how iran should be attacked because they're crrrrrrraaaaaazy, but i thought i'd throw in another person into the mix of u.s. and israeli experts who disagree with our resident experts and share his thoughts on an attack on iran:

Painting a picture of internal political dysfunction in a dangerous world, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates warned Wednesday night that a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran would have disastrous consequences.

Neither the United States nor Israel is capable of wiping out Iran's nuclear capability, he said, and "such an attack would make a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable. They would just bury the program deeper and make it more covert."

Iran could respond by disrupting world oil traffic and launching a wave of terrorism across the region, Gates said.

"The results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world."

sounds like gates, who ran the pentagon under both bush and obama, and who also served as the director of cia in the 90's, is in bed with ahmadinejad. we should instead take the opinions of the resident iran/war experts.

[eyeball]

The servility and sycophancy go bone deep.

Just like ugly.

[DogOnPorch]

Maybe Bibi needs better diagrams when addressing the UN. A nice graphic of Tel Aviv consumed in a mushroom cloud would get the point across better.

Israeli PR is akin to a sack of hammers. They really could use Madison Ave.