Sarkozy: France certain Iran working on nuclear arms

[Straha]

How about if Iran nukes, say, Frankfurt (which I admit I pull out of my ass to make a point. Feel free to replace this with any other NATO city)?

That is the entire point of NATO. If you attack any one member you are at war with all of them.

You didn't answer the question, try again. You're Gordon Brown. Frankfurt is attacked/lost. Do you nuke Iran knowing they'll nuke London and destroy your country?

Do you have any particular reason the US wouldn't follow this path? After all, if Iran responds to US retaliation with a nuclear strike, they will be obliterated. And the US cannot back down- to do so means that any state with nuclear weapons can use them upon their neighbors without fear of a responce.

Yes, they'll be obliterated if they hit the U.S. The point for Iran is that the U.S. will be hurt very badly as a result of their own actions. Most people, and Presidents, will not agree to lose, or run the risk of losing, Los Angeles on behalf of dead Arabs/Europeans. Moreover the U.S. cannot prosecute a war with Iran to "the end," especially not if the U.S. has just lost a major city.

That's what Iran sees. It's not lunacy, it's not insane, it makes perfect sense if you just get up and look at the board a little differently.

If they are rational they will not nuke the US or our allies because if they do, they will die. It is a MAD scenario, except one side has clear superiority. They can hurt us, but we can destroy them. Their threat is a bluff because to use it makes its purpose suddenly useless- if they use it, we have no reason not to destroy them.

So see my earlier point. Why should Iran fear British interference in Middle Eastern affairs if Gordon Brown knows that his country will be crippled as a result of it? Why should Iran fear American interference if the political and economic cost for America to interfere skyrockets to an unaffordable price? That's the Iranian outlook on this.

That's not at all what he's saying. What he's saying is that in a nuclear exchange between the US and Iran an occupation is counterproductive, it's a waste of resources since they're no longer able to wage any kind of stand-up war with anyone.

I took his sociopath statement to imply widespread civilian casualties.

To your point, America has to occupy, or otherwise cripple the Iranian government and populace. Otherwise the war isn't over. If the U.S. doesn't put soldiers down there and put a complete end to the Iranian military and its potential action then the war will continue on, very bloodily for America. If America can't do that then any threats they issue are just bluffs and nothing more.

Straha, why are you even assuming that Iran would even have a chance at hitting the US after nuking, say, Bahrain? The US easily has enough nukes to turn Iran into a glowing parking lot, and probably wipe out their arsenal of missiles in the process. They could do that in the retaliatory strike.

Would you be the President that promises to commit genocide if Iran gets uppity?

The Iranian leadership isn't stupid. Being the first to launch a nuke is an invitation for everyone to step in and crush them into the dust. There's only one way to win a nuclear exchange, and that's to have enough nukes to wipe out the capabilities of everyone who could possibly strike back, the intel to find all those enemy assets, and the ability to get your nukes into a position where you can take them out before they respond. Iran will never be able to fulfill all of those requirements, and saber-rattling aside, they know that.

The problem with this thread is that everyone is acting as if Iran is Russia and that Iran and the U.S./NATO are engaged in an all-out war with Iran a la the situation with the Soviets. Iran doesn't need to do that, though, because it has far smaller goals and it knows what it can achieve and it knows how to achieve it. By leveraging its Nuclear threat against the small nations surrounding it, and by pointing out that the U.S./West will not intervene when such intervention would cost them millions of lives and Trillions of dollars. This will make the smaller nations, like Bahrain, Kuwait and the UAE, very pliant to Iranian demands and give it de facto hegemony over the region, which is all Iran really wants.

[CJvR]

And Zero just killed the program to defend Europe with a missile shield.

Quite frankly IMPO we europeans should damn well build an ABM defence on our own rather than depending on US goodwill.

[Bluewolf]

Sorry to knock this thread off topic but what does IMPO mean?

[Thanas]

Sorry to knock this thrad off topic but what does IMPO mean?

In my personal opinion.

[Bluewolf]

And Zero just killed the program to defend Europe with a missile shield.

Quite frankly IMPO we europeans should damn well build an ABM defence on our own rather than depending on US goodwill.

Given how the European states can bicker so often I think it'd be a tough challenge to do it. I mean look at some of Europe's joint military projects to see how much arguing goes on. Frankly I think the US got so far due to an already existing precense, its place in NATO and its influence besides the said alliance.

[D.Turtle]

Straha, have you ever heard of this minor stand-off called the Cold War?

You know, when an adversary existed that actually had the capability to destroy the infrastructure and kill hundreds of millions of people in the West?

What was the expected response if any NATO nation was attacked?

Why the hell should it be different if a country like Iran actually manages to acquire a few nukes?

You seem to be thinking that people would back down in the face of a few nukes when they didn't in the face of thousands of nukes.

For some reason I'm not convinced...

[Bluewolf]

We all know that Iran and NK are large threats and will use nuclear weapons as quick as they can. I thought everyone knew that already. God!

In all seriousness thogh I love how people are so paronoid about Iran, as if they would nuke Europe as soon as they can for fun and profit.

[Siege]

Quite frankly IMPO we europeans should damn well build an ABM defence on our own rather than depending on US goodwill.

If there's going to be European ABM defences any time soon it'll most likely be in the form of the RIM-161 and other such anti-ballistic missiles being purchased and/or developed by various nations. No matter how Sarkozy might harp on the dangers of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, there's just no political will to invest in a missile shield most people view as unnecessary. Let's face it: even if Iran get the missiles and the nukes and the Ayatollahs collectively go stark-staring nuts, do you think they'll try and nuke Amsterdam or Brussels or Paris, as opposed to Jerusalem or Tel Aviv? Who's really going to try and nuke Europe anyway?

[Bluewolf]

On top of that, even if we put the US aside, would Iran willingly fire nuclearm missiles into a powerful set of countries which also have nuclear weapons themselves? It'd be suicide.

[Axis Kast]

Willingly may have nothing to do with it. Accidental launch is certainly a possibility against which I'd pay good tax money to have a hedge.

Don't forget, too, that a stable dyad, for deterrence purposes, depends on effective communication. One man's unprovocative action is another's proof of intent to launch. Albert Wohlstetter wrote an excellent article in the middle of the century just past arguing that the United States was foolish to deploy Jupiter missiles to Turkey. 'Ol Albert pointed out that Jupiter missiles couldn't survive an enemy attack - and therefore were, by definition, first-strike weapons. Approaching the situation from the Soviet point of view, he asked a very obvious question: if the enemy is building weapons useful only for a first strike, and if those weapons are his only recourse during a serious crisis in which he doesn't know what the other side will do, how can one trust his assertions that he means no harm?

Finally, the incentives to build a particular type of system, and to deploy it in a certain manner, vary on an institutional basis. Scott Sagan persuasively argues that militaries will tend to value more missiles and first-strike options than politicians.

[Hawkwings]

You didn't answer the question, try again. You're Gordon Brown. Frankfurt is attacked/lost. Do you nuke Iran knowing they'll nuke London and destroy your country?

I coordinate launches with other NATO countries, especially the US. Iran's nuke sites are turned into glowing parking lots. Other targets may be as well, depending on the situation.

Yes, they'll be obliterated if they hit the U.S. The point for Iran is that the U.S. will be hurt very badly as a result of their own actions. Most people, and Presidents, will not agree to lose, or run the risk of losing, Los Angeles on behalf of dead Arabs/Europeans. Moreover the U.S. cannot prosecute a war with Iran to "the end," especially not if the U.S. has just lost a major city.

That's what Iran sees. It's not lunacy, it's not insane, it makes perfect sense if you just get up and look at the board a little differently.

Ahh yes, Iran has hurt the big bad US. Too bad none of the Iranian leadership is alive anymore to celebrate it.

So see my earlier point. Why should Iran fear British interference in Middle Eastern affairs if Gordon Brown knows that his country will be crippled as a result of it? Why should Iran fear American interference if the political and economic cost for America to interfere skyrockets to an unaffordable price? That's the Iranian outlook on this.

Because if they launch at a major city, then they are dead men walking. What benefit do they get out of this?

I took his sociopath statement to imply widespread civilian casualties.

To your point, America has to occupy, or otherwise cripple the Iranian government and populace. Otherwise the war isn't over. If the U.S. doesn't put soldiers down there and put a complete end to the Iranian military and its potential action then the war will continue on, very bloodily for America. If America can't do that then any threats they issue are just bluffs and nothing more.

I hear that abandoned glass parking lots are pretty easy to occupy.

Would you be the President that promises to commit genocide if Iran gets uppity?

I sure wouldn't be the president to not order a nuclear strike when our entire nuclear policy for the past however long we've had it involves us nuking them into oblivion.

The problem with this thread is that everyone is acting as if Iran is Russia and that Iran and the U.S./NATO are engaged in an all-out war with Iran a la the situation with the Soviets. Iran doesn't need to do that, though, because it has far smaller goals and it knows what it can achieve and it knows how to achieve it. By leveraging its Nuclear threat against the small nations surrounding it, and by pointing out that the U.S./West will not intervene when such intervention would cost them millions of lives and Trillions of dollars. This will make the smaller nations, like Bahrain, Kuwait and the UAE, very pliant to Iranian demands and give it de facto hegemony over the region, which is all Iran really wants.

Iran is holding the countries around it hostage you say? Well, hostage situations only go well for the aggressor if he doesn't actually hurt any of his hostages. If Iran actually fires nukes, they are toast, and everyone knows this. That is why Iran's "hegemony" will never come to be.

[Ryan Thunder]

If Iran actually fires nukes, they are toast, and everyone knows this. That is why Iran's "hegemony" will never come to be.

So they lose nothing by not building them!

In fact, they gain, because we're obviously rather pissed by them doing it.

[Siege]

Except of course that possession of nuclear weapons means Iran will have a deterrent against Israel et al, so no-one can attack them without potentially incurring massive casualties-by-nuke. Which is, you know, the purpose that pretty much everybody else is building nukes for?