|
Nessus posted:My loose understanding is that Iran is a large enough country that a US/allies invasion would not have a high chance of actually toppling the government. The nuclear deterrent would be a way to make the cost going high enough that even a truly desperate American president would not take the gamble. Having the nuclear weapon isn't even about using it - its about Iran recognizing its the only way to keep a US invasion away AND the only way to be taken seriously on the geopolitical stage. mlmp08 posted:Here is the ODNI unclassified document on missile and nuclear development. Iran is pursuing a tech to be able to "sprint" to a nuclear weapon or long-range missiles if they made the policy decision to do so. But for now, they are electing not to develop these capabilities. Yup. Iran is taking the Japanese method with Nuclear Weapons - Have all the parts there, everything ready so that if you suddenly have a need, its a matter of weeks to getting it built. Like you said, a sprint program.
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
My favorite thing to ask in Iran Nuke discourse is "Why shouldn't they have them?" No one has had a real good answer on that one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:My favorite thing to ask in Iran Nuke discourse is "Why shouldn't they have them?" Pretty much hit the nail on the head. They are surrounded by angry neighbors and constantly have sword rattling geopolitical adversaries making noise about them. Not to say that Iran's government is good or anything, but frankly it makes 100% sense for Iran to pursue them. Hell, we're practically the ones that motivate them to do so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:My favorite thing to ask in Iran Nuke discourse is "Why shouldn't they have them?" In the 1970s perhaps these were more understandable worries, but it has been long enough now that I'm starting to think everyone's run the numbers on nuclear terrorism and it doesn't add up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 19:41
|
|
|
Nessus posted:The main answers seemed to be 'they'd nuke Israel' or 'they'd give one to terrorists.' Especially given that Mutually Assured Destruction would apply, and Israel no doubt has nuclear weapons.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 19:42
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:My favorite thing to ask in Iran Nuke discourse is "Why shouldn't they have them?" Because nuclear proliferation is bad. It puts more nukes in the hands of unstable governments/leaders who are going to be more inclined to use them. They do not provide any actual deterrent effect. The US has been prepared for a nuclear battlefield for 75 years. A couple of nukes aren't going to scare them. Beyond that, unless you have enough for MAD, using one simply assures your own destruction in retaliation. Countries with nukes also have large conventional militaries, and it is the conventional military that provides the deterrence, not the nukes. Nukes have no practical value to a small country. They're a waste of money.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 19:45
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:My favorite thing to ask in Iran Nuke discourse is "Why shouldn't they have them?" I mean, if you're Iran's current government: the only reason not to have them is that it might provoke even more aggression or someone else nuking you first to be sure they don't get nuked first. If you're everyone else: because Iran's current government is a theocratic state that would probably use the nuke as leverage to get away with even more hosed up things than they already do, also there's every chance they'd trade the know-how of how to produce nukes, and probably some of the spare parts for it, to other states that we similarly do not want to be even more immune to outside pressure.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 19:48
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Because nuclear proliferation is bad. It puts more nukes in the hands of unstable governments/leaders who are going to be more inclined to use them. Most of this is the new imperial reality Dick Cheney and co made, I guess. Thanks, Dick! e: Like to be clear I am not in favor of these countries being more resistant to Western pressure, in and of itself, but to bring it back to the core topic, what if Ukraine had had a small nuclear force held in reserve? Would Russia have invaded at all? A question I imagine Zelensky and his cabinet have wondered about at least once.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 19:57
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think the deterrent is the prospect of having a nuke go off on your invasion force or fleet, destroying a large chunk of it. You also get the thorny question of using a country using a nuclear weapon in its own territory, which seems like a very likely "actual" use case to me, but which I do not often see discussed. And the US would take that into account in their invasion plans. If they were serious about it, a couple nukes wouldn't slow them down in the least.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:00
|
|
|
Nuclear Proliferation is bad, but at this point its a genie that is well out of the bottle and the knowledge and capability is out there, we are hardly the ones who are going to be bottling proliferation back in. Especially given our inability to honor our treaties/agreements. And Deterrence is questionable, yes, but it also has a noted impact on the willingness of risking an army in the first place, regardless of the size of the opposing army. Deteriorata posted:And the US would take that into account in their invasion plans. If they were serious about it, a couple nukes wouldn't slow them down in the least. Eh, no, I don't think we'd even risk the first step if we believed the other side would use them, there'd be a general global outcry to using nuclear weapons even in response and its a political poison pill. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 20:03 on Aug 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:01
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:The real thorny issue with Iran is that negotiating to silo the nuclear proliferation issue and the regional destabilisation issue was a 'best of a bad situation' solution rather than one anyone actually liked. It's like a can of coconut milk without any of the coconut part, just the water.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:02
|
|
|
France's MAD policy claims they will just fuckin first strike your major cities if you gently caress with them hard enough , too. Of course tactically they're most useful against bunched up invasion forces, but strategically that means you've nuked your own territory with all the run-on effects that'll have. Perun did some really good videos with some sections about different pros and cons of different nuclear deterrent strategies. I could see Iran going for the same angle for their program too, even though they'd ultimately lose the war. They'd still make it so domestically costly to any aggressor nation who'd lose a few major metropolitan centers to nukes, that it wouldn't be worth invading them at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
bulletsponge13 posted:My favorite thing to ask in Iran Nuke discourse is "Why shouldn't they have them?" One of the best answers is that then a some of its neighbors might also pursue them. Not sure I love the idea of KSA and Iran being in a nuclear arms race, UAE joining in, etc.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Nuclear Proliferation is bad, but at this point its a genie that is well out of the bottle and the knowledge and capability is out there, we are hardly the ones who are going to be bottling proliferation back up. On the contrary, a country using nukes as a first strike would instantly turn international opinion against themselves. The US would not need to respond with nukes - they would have international backing to obliterate the country with their conventional forces.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:04
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Eh, no, I don't think we'd even risk the first step if we believed the other side would use them, there'd be a general global outcry to using nuclear weapons even in response and its a political poison pill. Deteriorata posted:On the contrary, a country using nukes as a first strike would instantly turn international opinion against themselves. The US would not need to respond with nukes - they would have international backing to obliterate the country with their conventional forces.  Nessus fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Aug 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:05
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:On the contrary, a country using nukes as a first strike would instantly turn international opinion against themselves. The US would not need to respond with nukes - they would have international backing to obliterate the country with their conventional forces. If used against aggressor invading, I don't think that would work. Outcry if Iran used it again, say, Iraq or Israel. Sure. But using a nuclear weapon in defense of their own territory would not likely bring the same outcry. Nessus posted:Yeah, it wouldn't deter a well-thought out genuine strategic plan, but it seems like it would deter someone deciding to try for that George W. Bush re-elex bump. Pretty much, and that's what most of these come back to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:08
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Worth noting despite the level of effort, even the best estimates are that it only slowed their enrichment process by 6-8 months. Yeah, but it was the Trinity test of malware targeting industrial control systems, developed through a clandestine program that was pretty breathtaking in scope for the post-Cold War era.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
psydude posted:Yeah, but it was the Trinity test of malware targeting industrial control systems, developed through a clandestine program that was pretty breathtaking in scope for the post-Cold War era. Oh no, it was amazing. One of my first malware analysis was working on looking into its impacts on SCADA controllers. It was amazing work. But it also really didn't achieve the goal of setting them back enough for it to be worthwhile. In fact, the real value was more showing how they could slip in through an air gapped network, less the virus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:In fact, the real value was more showing how they could slip in through an air gapped network, less the virus. What's funny is that I still deal with plenty of customers (laughably, most of them in the Middle East) who insist that data diodes and airgaps are an essential part of OT network security.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:20
|
|
|
psydude posted:What's funny is that I still deal with plenty of customers (laughably, most of them in the Middle East) who insist that data diodes and airgaps are an essential part of OT network security. Yeah Airgaps have value, but treating them as an end all is the real problem. So many companies are looking for final security solutions rather than mitigations or controls that can be overwhelmed or bypassed and forgetting that security requires persistent upkeep and review.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
Nessus posted:My loose understanding is that Iran is a large enough country that a US/allies invasion would not have a high chance of actually toppling the government. The nuclear deterrent would be a way to make the cost going high enough that even a truly desperate American president would not take the gamble. True, but keep in mind the president most likely to order such an invasion would not be able to explain who the Shah was, what Shia Islam is, or locate the country on a map, and could look forward to retirement in unimaginable comfort no matter the outcome of the war.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:22
|
|
|
Hyrax Attack! posted:True, but keep in mind the president most likely to order such an invasion would not be able to explain who the Shah was, what Shia Islam is, or locate the country on a map, and could look forward to retirement in unimaginable comfort no matter the outcome of the war. Now what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:24
|
|
|
Maybe if there wasn't a global superpower that regularly fucks over middle eastern countries for political capital back home, constantly refers to Iran as an evil nation and provides direct military support to their opponents in the region, they wouldn't be so keen on developing nukes? From my very much non expert view, is there really anything Iran does that our delightful friends the Saudis and Israelis don't?
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:39
|
|
|
My man Iran literally hands out ballistic missiles to terrorist groups, they are by a country mile the worst actor in this space and it is not because they are mad about the US, it is because they seek regional hegemony.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
carrionman posted:Maybe if there wasn't a global superpower that regularly fucks over middle eastern countries for political capital back home, constantly refers to Iran as an evil nation and provides direct military support to their opponents in the region, they wouldn't be so keen on developing nukes? You can search/replace Iran with Russia in your post and we've circled back to tankie america bad rhetoric. Iran shouldn't have nukes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:56
|
|
|
Two things can be true simultaneously: US middle east policy has been historically awful, and Iran's government sucks and doesn't deserve nice things or nukes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 20:58
|
|
|
Alchenar posted:My man Iran literally hands out ballistic missiles to terrorist groups, they are by a country mile the worst actor in this space and it is not because they are mad about the US, it is because they seek regional hegemony. Man if only half of that wasn't a direct result of US interventions in Iran's political history.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:01
|
|
|
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war thread! the joke so nice, I said it twice
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Because nuclear proliferation is bad. It puts more nukes in the hands of unstable governments/leaders who are going to be more inclined to use them. Unfortunately the Russian invasion of Ukraine probably permanently destroyed the argument for nuclear deproliferation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
I would not say Iran's government somehow deserves nukes, and ideally they should not get them, but it is difficult for me to say any given country shouldn't have nukes, given the ones that already do. And in the case of the topic of the thread, there were specifically security guarantees in return for nuclear weapons which, well, obviously did not stand the test of time.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:15
|
|
|
Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the Clancy Thread! 
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Unfortunately the Russian invasion of Ukraine probably permanently destroyed the argument for nuclear deproliferation. They invaded over a 1000+ mile front. There is no evidence to suggest that Russia would give the slightest poo poo if Ukraine had dropped a couple of nukes on them - in fact, Russia would probably have used it as an excuse to use their own nukes in return. You're simply postulating your conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:31
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:They invaded over a 1000+ mile front. There is no evidence to suggest that Russia would give the slightest poo poo if Ukraine had dropped a couple of nukes on them - in fact, Russia would probably have used it as an excuse to use their own nukes in return. If we’re getting into Clancy chat here, the front wouldn’t have been the primary target as that is their own territory. Moscow and other population centers would have been attacked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:38
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:Because nuclear proliferation is bad. It puts more nukes in the hands of unstable governments/leaders who are going to be more inclined to use them. I love how you're wrong on just about every count. Nukes are the best deterrent per dollar you can get.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:38
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:They invaded over a 1000+ mile front. There is no evidence to suggest that Russia would give the slightest poo poo if Ukraine had dropped a couple of nukes on them - in fact, Russia would probably have used it as an excuse to use their own nukes in return. Would Russia have risked the Crimea and Donbass stuff in 2014 vs a Nuclear Ukraine? I don't think so.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:They invaded over a 1000+ mile front. There is no evidence to suggest that Russia would give the slightest poo poo if Ukraine had dropped a couple of nukes on them - in fact, Russia would probably have used it as an excuse to use their own nukes in return. They might well still have Crimea, too, although the fact that they don't give away their weapons for guarantees in 1993 doesn't mean they don't dismantle them for nuclear fuel in 2011 or something, but even then you have a different strategic landscape. It's unknowable, but what is known is that Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons and now their larger, nuclear-armed neighbor has invaded and is being only very slowly driven back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:42
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:
It's not my conclusion. End of the day, any country considering deproliferation is going to think "look what happened to Ukraine after they surrendered their stockpile" and then they won't deproliferate. I mean, hell, nobody is counter invading Russia even now. They sure as hell couldn't hold the Kurils against Japan without nukes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:43
|
|
|
M_Gargantua posted:I love how you're wrong on just about every count. I am of the opinion that Canada should have had a nuclear program instead of just helping out the US and Britain with theirs, primarily because we're literally in the path of any nukes going between the US and Russia. No incineration without representation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So are you, because the premise here is that a Ukraine that retained some nuclear weapons would have had a major deterrent to Russia invading at all. It wouldn't have been on the map.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 23:40 |
|
|
OddObserver posted:They also didn't just give up nukes, they also gave up a bunch of conventional cruise missiles some of which have now been used by Russia against Ukraine.
|
|
#
?
Aug 11, 2023 21:48
|
|