Is Iran Developing Nuclear Weapons and What Actions Will the US Take?

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter BobG
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nuclear
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the potential development of nuclear weapons by Iran and the implications for regional and global security. Participants explore the motivations behind Iran's nuclear ambitions, the responses of the United States, and the broader geopolitical consequences, including the balance of power in the Middle East.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that Iran's desire for nuclear weapons is widely accepted, citing regional dynamics and security concerns.
  • Concerns are raised about the reliability of intelligence assessments regarding Iran's nuclear capabilities and timelines for development.
  • Some argue that the presence of an Arab nuclear power could stabilize the region by balancing Israel's nuclear arsenal, while others question the implications of such a scenario.
  • Diplomacy is proposed by some as a potential solution, though skepticism about its effectiveness is expressed.
  • Participants discuss historical precedents, such as Pakistan's nuclear program and the perceived inability of the U.S. to intervene effectively.
  • Speculation exists regarding the potential for an arms race in the region if Iran successfully develops nuclear weapons.
  • Some express a belief that military action by the U.S. or Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities is likely, while others voice fears about the consequences of such actions.
  • There is a suggestion that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons might lead to a shift in its foreign policy, potentially reducing its support for terrorism.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the likelihood of Iran developing nuclear weapons, the effectiveness of U.S. responses, or the potential outcomes of military action. The discussion remains unresolved with competing perspectives on the implications of Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various historical examples and intelligence assessments, but there are limitations in the assumptions made about the effectiveness of diplomacy and military intervention. The discussion reflects a complex interplay of regional politics, security concerns, and the evolving nature of warfare.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in international relations, nuclear proliferation, Middle Eastern politics, and security studies may find this discussion relevant.

BobG
Science Advisor
Messages
364
Reaction score
87
Recently Powell talked about the US concern about Iran and their missiles.

The fact that Iran desires nuclear weapons is a virtual given. Many Arab countries resent having an Israeli nuclear power with no one else in the region to balance them. Iran and Iraq, having fought a long war against each other in which Iraq's missiles and chemical weapons were considered to be the deciding factor, have both considered a WMD program essential to their country's security. Iran, being a fundamentalist theocratic government, has also had a fairly close relationship with fundamentalist terrorist groups (at least, closer than Hussein had).

From single source intelligence provided by Iranian exiles, it looks like Iran is already working on methods to mate nuclear warheads to missiles. The original source is apparently provided by an Iranian opposition group currently listed as a terrorist organization, but one that hasn't been actively involved in terrorist activities for some time.

More traditional intel estimates Iran shouldn't be able to develop nuclear weapons until the end of the decade, at the earliest.

If the US administration discovers that Iran could have a viable nuclear missile by the end of 2005, instead of the end of the decade...

Would you trust their assessment? Is the issue of 'end of the decade' or 'end of 2005' trivial anyway, since most intel suggests that we'll have to confront the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons within the 5-10 years, maximum, so why wait?

Is the idea of Iran, one of the members of the 'Axis of Evil', possessing nuclear weapons 'intolerable' as some leaders have said? Or will an Arab nuclear power in the area bring greater stability by balancing out Israel's nuclear weapons?

Do you think the US is currently able to do anything about Iranian nuclear weapons, if they have them?

Should the US resort to military action to eliminate Iran's nuclear program if diplomatic negotiations don't show rapid concrete progess?

Is Iran a big enough threat to warrant abandoning our efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq in order to face off militarily against Iran?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I feel many of the questions asked are answered in the following article. And please NOT ANOTHER INVASION.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz2.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The issue is quite interesting and concerning as well. I, of course, see another war, this time with Iran, very unlikely. As you have stated, Iran and other nations alike are looking for nuclear weapons to empower themselves and there is little the United States can do about it.

For example, Dr. Khan, considered a national hero in Pakistan, was pardoned by the government for disclosing nuclear secrets. What did the U.S. do? Nothing. In fact, there was nothing it could do.

I always see diplomacy as the key to solve problems of this magnitude but as we all know, this doesn't always work. However, The United States can't fight on all fronts and try to make everyone cooperate. Let's face it, Iran is no Afghanistan, and it certainly is no Iraq.

If, and when Iran succeeds in developing a very strong nuclear arsenal, in a decade or less, there is little diplomacy can do, or even force for that matter. War has evolved so much that you just can't demand anyone anymore to comply, even if it is for the world's sake.

Another important thing mentioned is whether this inevitable growth in nations with nuclear weaponry capacity will either balance or unbalance the region. I believe that it balances by means of intimidation the whole region. But unfortunately, it also creates a very tense and unsafe environment. Somebody is going to loose control and eventually attack. Look at India and Pakistan, the only thing stopping each other from erasing themselves from the face of the Earth with nuclear weapons is their nuclear arsenal itself. But tensions are there and are unavoidable.

I just hope that someday we finally get a break from all this and hear some good news.
 
WaR said:
I just hope that someday we finally get a break from all this and hear some good news.
What? Good News? No No No No, not with the Neo-Conservatives in power, your fear is what gives them their power.
 
My prediction: Iran will get the bomb, everyone will fuss and turn blue, and nothing will happen. Oh, Iran will spend less of its GDP on fostering terrorism, since it will now be a "big power", and have access to a trough that marginal powers don't, provided it behaves itself.
 
Do you think if Iran gets the bomb will Pakistan enlarge it's nuclear arsenal? and thus India as well, and then possibly China?
 
I agree with Lorentz, but still would stop referencing Lew Rockwell if I were Polly.
 
Sorry pal, I didn't mean to upset you. But I can't see why anybody on the forum would not go for intellectually exciting stuff.
 
Israel/USA will attack Iran's nuclear facillities.I bet on it!
 
  • #10
Sadly, that is my fear too.
 
  • #11
tumor said:
Israel/USA will attack Iran's nuclear facillities.I bet on it!

Israel has shown in the past that it is willing to do so, by taking out Iraqi reactors in the 80's. Thankfully, it probably turned out to be the right thing to do, since Saddam showed he was more than willing to use whatever weapons he had available when he was involved in military conflicts or ethnic cleansing events, and he was involved in his fair share.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 55 ·
2
Replies
55
Views
11K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
12K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 48 ·
2
Replies
48
Views
9K
  • · Replies 490 ·
17
Replies
490
Views
42K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 58 ·
2
Replies
58
Views
10K
  • · Replies 193 ·
7
Replies
193
Views
24K
  • · Replies 63 ·
3
Replies
63
Views
8K