Iran, Nukes, Diplomacy and other options (catch all thread 2007-2010)

[JeffC]

Like Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Laying aside the question of whether that action was justified or necessary, do you really think that any nation, including, God forbid, the U.S., could repeat that today and get away with it??

Or what about the implied threat of their use - as caused Nikita K. to pull Soviet missiles out of Cuba (of course we pulled our short range missiles out of Turkey - but that was well after the Russian's had to back down and go home with theirs).

That was a unique moment in time when the U.S. had a huge advantage over the Russians in terms of nuclear warheads and inter-continental ballistic missles. In fact, Russia had none of the latter. Khrushchev was bluffing and had his bluff called. That's no longer the case.

[Sean Osborne]

Laying aside the question of whether that action (the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) was justified or necessary, do you really think that any nation, including, God forbid, the U.S., could repeat that today and get away with it??

Jeff,

"Getting away with" is not the end sum given the specific circumstances of a full scale war like we had with Japan in WWII. Nor is it today. There is no international law against a preemptive or retaliatory use of nuclear weapons in a conflict.

For example. Keep an eye on Damascus should Syria ever hit Israel with the chemical weapon warheads it is known to have been fiddling with recently. The Syrian's have been informed in no uncertain terms that should they perch chemical warheads on their missiles Damascus will cease to exist.

With respect to the U.S. - the stated policy of National Command Authority known as the ""Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" answers your question with crystal clarity.

That warfare involving nuclear weapons will occur at some point in the future, by a state or non-state actor - is widely discussed as not a matter of if but when.

That was a unique moment in time when the U.S. had a huge advantage over the Russians in terms of nuclear warheads and inter-continental ballistic missles. In fact, Russia had none of the latter. Khrushchev was bluffing and had his bluff called.

Your statement is 100% incorrect. It was Soviet Russia that placed the worlds first ICBM on a launchpad. The R-7 (SS-6) went into operation in 1957.

Jeff - you need to check your facts - the R7 was the ICBM platform which orbited Sputnik.

However, with respect to the Cuban Missile Crisis is was the R-7A (SS-6 Mod 2) that was on the launch pads at Baikonur and Plesetsk in 1960 which provided Russia with a significant strategic nuclear deterrent.

[JeffC]

Jeff,

That warfare involving nuclear weapons will occur at some point in the future, by a state or non-state actor - is widely discussed as not a matter of if but when.

Hopefully, smarter minds will prevail.

However, with respect to the Cuban Missile Crisis is was the R-7A (SS-6 Mod 2) that was on the launch pads at Baikonur and Plesetsk in 1960 which provided Russia with a significant strategic nuclear deterrent.

Granted, Sean, but there was no comparison between Soviet capabilities and U.S. capabilities in 1962. We vastly outnumbered the Soviets, which was why they were trying to base missiles in Cuba - to help them close that gap. Read Dale C Copeland's essay "Neorealism and the Myth of Bipolar Stability: Toward a New Dynamic Realist Theory of Major War", part of the collection of essays in "Realism: Restatements and Renewal"

And my error of fact notwithstanding, my point remains that the circumstances around the nuclear showdown of the Cuban Missile Crisis no longer apply today. We are now at nuclear parity with the Russians, and the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is ignored at our peril.

[Sean Osborne]

Granted, Sean, but there was no comparison between Soviet capabilities and U.S. capabilities in 1962.

This is irrelevant to what you posted above as fact:

That was a unique moment in time when the U.S. had a huge advantage over the Russians in terms of nuclear warheads and inter-continental ballistic missles. In fact, Russia had none of the latter.

We are now at nuclear parity with the Russians, and the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction is ignored at our peril.

Parity or not is a debateable issue in its own right. However NOBODY is ignorant of MAD. Nobody and most certainly not the US.

Iran hasn't yet revealed an accurate report of it's capabilities to produce HEU. It has old, unreliable centerfuges.

Jeff,

These two sentences are mutually exclusive. Since Iran has not yet revealed detailed and verified as accurate data about its capability to produce HEU it cannot possibly be deduced as fact that Iran has old unreliable centrifuges.

Additionally, the Intelligence Community knows that AQ Khan proliferated/sold Iran detailed plans to produce second generation (P2) centrifuges - those P2 plans remain completely unaccounted for.

To the contrary of your statement above, Iran has minimally informed the IAEA that they were in the process testing P2 centrifuges and even has advanced designs in production for P3 centrifuges.

Moreover, the covert Arak facility is reported to produce plutonium, not HEU.

Bottom line is: we know what we know, and we don't know what we don't know.

Prudence suggests that we assume worst case.

[JeffC]

This is irrelevant to what you posted above as fact:

How is it irrelevant? That instead of zero ICBMs they had minimal amount? Both go to demonstrate my original point of how the Cuban Missile Crisis is not an example of a nation using the threat of nuclear weapons TODAY is realistic or probable because today we have parity. 40 years ago - no parity.

Parity or not is a debateable issue in its own right.

It is? I'd love to read a reference that you have that claims nuclear parity existed between the U.S. and the Soviet Union in 1962.

However NOBODY is ignorant of MAD. Nobody and most certainly not the US.

Good. Then let's hope that cooler heads prevail and nobody launches "preemptively" or for any other reason.

The most current report on Iranian nuclear activity comes from Amir Taheri entitled "Appeasement Yesterday and Appeasement Today".

Excerpt:

Oh, come on. You might as well be quoting Karl Rove. Show me the IAEA report that verifies the current state of Iranian nuclear production. Verified facts, please.