Iran now a nuclear state.

[Simon_Jester]

In this example, Egypt does not know for sure I have developed nuclear weapons. But more importantly, if they develop nuclear weapons to respond to my assumed nuclear advantage, I can claim my program was in response to theirs. For a country like Israel that relies on support from the west, this is vital. They must be seen as the victim at all times, as the responder, not the instigator.

Hmm. OK.

What about Iran? They have no major backers, operate based on their own perceived interests, and don't really care about being seen as 'instigators' by foreign countries. Why is it their interests to have a rumored nuclear program and not a known one?

Absolutely, you have to know they'll work. But if you’re the first guy, you gain no advantage by telling the world you've cracked it. Did the US take out full page ads after Trinity? FUCK no.

I'm not talking about the first guy to detonate a bomb- about whether the concept of nuclear bombs works. I'm talking about whether your specific bomb will work. That is not a trivial question, because nuclear bombs are complicated and having them work properly can be a matter of life and death for huge numbers of your people.

What you do not test, you cannot be sure of. This is a fundamental problem with the Israeli nuclear program (assuming it exists), and a major reason why every other nuclear power (the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea) have tested their nuclear bomb designs.

See also: The Vela Incident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vela_Incident), or How to set off a nuclear bomb without anyone knowing you're the one who did.

Or, in that case, if you did; we're still not sure there was an actual bomb.

The worst thing you can do as the first nuclear power is to tell the world you're now a nuclear power.

The first nuclear power did exactly that. They even warned the people they were going to drop it on, though they probably had reasons to expect the warning not to be believed.

That is why a sane, rational state, when it is the first nuclear power (actual or public) in its sphere of influence develops nuclear weapons, but tells no one. Rumors are not facts, and you can’t as an enemy state reveal what you know without revealing how you know.

Sorry that was so long.

There's a problem: the US is also a nuclear power in Iran's sphere of influence; so is Pakistan and (arguably) Israel.

The US occupies countries on both sides of Iran, has vastly superior conventional weapons, and nukes; we are well placed to strike them and cause massive damage even if we fail to successfully occupy the country. Israel and Iran are at the extreme limit of their mutual engagement range, especially with US forces in Iraq, but the two countries are engaged in a major proxy war and Iran has very good reasons to keep that war going. Iran and Pakistan... I don't know the history between them at all well, and the land around their common border is very remote, rugged, and lightly developed as I recall, but they're still a nuclear power.

So Iran wouldn't be the first nuclear power in its sphere of influence; it wouldn't even be the third.

[eion]

In this example, Egypt does not know for sure I have developed nuclear weapons. But more importantly, if they develop nuclear weapons to respond to my assumed nuclear advantage, I can claim my program was in response to theirs. For a country like Israel that relies on support from the west, this is vital. They must be seen as the victim at all times, as the responder, not the instigator.

Hmm. OK.

What about Iran? They have no major backers, operate based on their own perceived interests, and don't really care about being seen as 'instigators' by foreign countries. Why is it their interests to have a rumored nuclear program and not a known one?

Who ever said Iran was a sane state?

Absolutely, you have to know they'll work. But if you’re the first guy, you gain no advantage by telling the world you've cracked it. Did the US take out full page ads after Trinity? FUCK no.

I'm not talking about the first guy to detonate a bomb- about whether the concept of nuclear bombs works. I'm talking about whether your specific bomb will work. That is not a trivial question, because nuclear bombs are complicated and having them work properly can be a matter of life and death for huge numbers of your people.

What you do not test, you cannot be sure of. This is a fundamental problem with the Israeli nuclear program (assuming it exists), and a major reason why every other nuclear power (the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Pakistan, India, North Korea) have tested their nuclear bomb designs.

In ever one of those cases (and including South Africa, which most people forget was a nuclear power until the 1990s) the result was either the development of nuclear weapons by their opponents in response or a substantial negative reaction from the world at large.

The worst thing you can do as the first nuclear power is to tell the world you're now a nuclear power.

The first nuclear power did exactly that. They even warned the people they were going to drop it on, though they probably had reasons to expect the warning not to be believed.

And what was the result of that public disclosure, the USSR openly demonstrating nuclear weapons in response. I'm not saying bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a net-good, but actions have consequences, and the consequence of the US openly declaring it was the world's fist nuclear power was the accelerated development of the USSR's program and the continued blaming of the US as the country who let the genie out of the bottle.

That is why a sane, rational state, when it is the first nuclear power (actual or public) in its sphere of influence develops nuclear weapons, but tells no one. Rumors are not facts, and you can’t as an enemy state reveal what you know without revealing how you know.

Sorry that was so long.

There's a problem: the US is also a nuclear power in Iran's sphere of influence; so is Pakistan and (arguably) Israel.

The US occupies countries on both sides of Iran, has vastly superior conventional weapons, and nukes; we are well placed to strike them and cause massive damage even if we fail to successfully occupy the country. Israel and Iran are at the extreme limit of their mutual engagement range, especially with US forces in Iraq, but the two countries are engaged in a major proxy war and Iran has very good reasons to keep that war going. Iran and Pakistan... I don't know the history between them at all well, and the land around their common border is very remote, rugged, and lightly developed as I recall, but they're still a nuclear power.

So Iran wouldn't be the first nuclear power in its sphere of influence; it wouldn't even be the third.

There is some distance here between reality and perception in this case. Iran is, you are quite right, not the initial nuclear power within their SOE. They are however still seen as the instigators because they seem to want nuclear weapons, instead of needing them. Human beings, for whatever reason, are fairly good at understanding two-sided conflicts, but any more than that and our focus wanders: Iran vs Iraq, India vs Pakistan, the US vs the USSR, Israel vs Everybody around them, etc. Realizing that even though Iran and Iraq both hate Israel, they also both hate each other almost as much is difficult reasoning for most.

If Iran were seen as a sane country by most in the west, then the issue of them developing nuclear weapons in response to the nuclear arms of others would carry more weight, because they are merely seeking to balance the situation, but they are not seen as sane and reasonable, so the perception is that their only purpose in acquiring nuclear arms is to use them.

Is the US being hypocritical for being the only world power to use nuclear weapons offensively yet decrying others from doing so? You bet, but because we are seen as the reasonable and regretful party vs. the perceived warmongering, fight to the last man Japanese, we get off, mostly.

But it's late and I'm not sure I'm making sense, so I'll stop.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The US occupies countries on both sides of Iran, has vastly superior conventional weapons, and nukes; we are well placed to strike them and cause massive damage even if we fail to successfully occupy the country.

And, the Bush Administration made a point of publicly announcing that it was refusing to "take the nuclear option off the table." So, they have a superpower on the border that has come quite close to threatening a first strike with nuclear weapons.

Who ever said Iran was a sane state?

They are clearly sane enough to not be suicidal. If they are such maniacs, why haven't they done something like produce bio-weapons and hand them over to terrorists?

Even during the height of the Cold War, neither the USSR nor America handed nukes over to their pet terrorists/death squads; Nations just don't DO that. Nor did they launch nukes at anyone who could launch back. I see no reason to consider Iran uniquely insane.

There is some distance here between reality and perception in this case. Iran is, you are quite right, not the initial nuclear power within their SOE. They are however still seen as the instigators because they seem to want nuclear weapons, instead of needing them.

What makes you think they don't "need" them, especially in their own eyes, with America on their borders? An America that recently conquered their neighbor? If the USSR had conquered Canada, how do you think America would have felt about the necessity for having nuclear weapons?

If Iran were seen as a sane country by most in the west, then the issue of them developing nuclear weapons in response to the nuclear arms of others would carry more weight, because they are merely seeking to balance the situation, but they are not seen as sane and reasonable, so the perception is that their only purpose in acquiring nuclear arms is to use them.

And why should any rational person think that? When have they acted that suicidally?

[Simon_Jester]

The US occupies countries on both sides of Iran, has vastly superior conventional weapons, and nukes; we are well placed to strike them and cause massive damage even if we fail to successfully occupy the country.

And, the Bush Administration made a point of publicly announcing that it was refusing to "take the nuclear option off the table." So, they have a superpower on the border that has come quite close to threatening a first strike with nuclear weapons.

This was kind of my point. They have perfectly good reasons to do what they're doing, even if we don't approve... especially if we don't approve, because by and large we're going to disapprove of anything that keeps the mullahs in power and makes Iran strong enough to project power into other Middle Eastern countries.
_________

Who ever said Iran was a sane state?

Who ever said they weren't?

I see no evidence that Iran, in terms of its government policy, is any less sane than was, say, the USSR. They do things that make perfect sense given their situation, by and large. Why shouldn't we expect them to act logically? Clearly they won't do what we want, but it's not in their interests to do what we want. What we want is for them to roll over and let us do as we please on their borders while gradually undermining their government until it gets overthrown by a revolution.

What sane government would cooperate with foreigners who openly avowed intentions like that?

In ever one of those cases (and including South Africa, which most people forget was a nuclear power until the 1990s) the result was either the development of nuclear weapons by their opponents in response or a substantial negative reaction from the world at large.

And in each case they also achieved a desired result: France, for instance, got its own nuclear deterrent, which is an end in and of itself for some countries. I'm not kidding; this is important to understand. Simply having a nuclear deterrent is desirable, because it makes you nearly unattackable as long as you don't commit a gross provocation against an enemy. Having your own nukes and having an enemy with nukes can actually be better than neither of you having nukes.

It's certainly better than having no nukes while facing three enemies who have nukes, which is the situation Iranian leaders confront every day. Yes, having nukes may cost you a popularity hit... but geopolitics isn't a beauty contest. Some national objectives trump being loved by foreigners, especially the kind of foreigners who think that nuclear nonproliferation takes precedence over your country's interests.

And what was the result of that public disclosure, the USSR openly demonstrating nuclear weapons in response. I'm not saying bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki wasn't a net-good, but actions have consequences, and the consequence of the US openly declaring it was the world's fist nuclear power was the accelerated development of the USSR's program and the continued blaming of the US as the country who let the genie out of the bottle.

I'd really, really like to get some input here from someone who is a professional student of nuclear weapons, the history thereof, and of nuclear war theory. I think I'll PM one.

You see, I'm not sure your reasoning is sound; you're making it sound too much like a syllogism. "A does X, therefore B does Y." The trouble is that B may have perfectly good reasons to do Y regardless of what A does, and that A may have reasons to do X that override any long-term worries about what B does.

There is some distance here between reality and perception in this case. Iran is, you are quite right, not the initial nuclear power within their SOE. They are however still seen as the instigators because they seem to want nuclear weapons, instead of needing them.

How does that mean that it is not in their interests to have a nuclear arsenal? Yes, it makes them less popular, but they wouldn't be popular in any event. As long as it doesn't actually get them invaded and conquered before getting their own nukes makes them unconquerable, they have no important reason to care.

If Iran were seen as a sane country by most in the west, then the issue of them developing nuclear weapons in response to the nuclear arms of others would carry more weight, because they are merely seeking to balance the situation, but they are not seen as sane and reasonable, so the perception is that their only purpose in acquiring nuclear arms is to use them.

This does not mean that Iran would be safer with no public announced nuclear capability than with it, because you do NOT attack a nuclear power without a really good reason and "you are a nuclear power and we don't like that" is not good enough.

I don't want Iran to have nukes either, but that's because I don't like their present government and wish it would shrivel up and blow away. I'm not fool enough to expect that government to cooperate with my wishes, or to convince myself that it is in their interests to do so.

[Lord of the Abyss]

The US occupies countries on both sides of Iran, has vastly superior conventional weapons, and nukes; we are well placed to strike them and cause massive damage even if we fail to successfully occupy the country.

And, the Bush Administration made a point of publicly announcing that it was refusing to "take the nuclear option off the table." So, they have a superpower on the border that has come quite close to threatening a first strike with nuclear weapons.

This was kind of my point.

I just wanted to underline it; to point out that we've done more than merely possess nukes while they don't. We've essentially waved the threats of nukes under their nose; and what is the classic counter to that? Nukes of your own. In fact, I expect that we, not Israel are the main cause of them wanting nuclear weapons. Israel isn't making veiled nuclear threats as far as I know, and is far less likely to try to conquer them.

I expect that if our idea of negotiations with Canada was to pointedly declare that "we refuse to take the nuclear option off the table", they'd build nukes of their own too, and damned fast.

[eion]

Wow, don't drink and debate. Lesson proved again.

Ignore 95% of what I said. I'm sure there's a salvagable argument someone in that mess of mixed metaphors and half-logic, but I really lack the determination at this moment to find it.

There's a reason I'm not on retainer at the State Department at the moment.