A World Leader Speaks the Unspeakable on Iran

[rawbone8]

I don't recall anyone in a position of responsibility in the west proposing to "nuke North Korea" or "nuke Iran" in a first strike.

True enough. Do you think you ever will see that happen?

I think you'll find that possibly no one since the Cuban missile crisis has offered to explicitly be the state to make a nuclear first strike.

I have read pundits speculate that a tactical nuclear weapon might be hypothetically necessary to demolish an Iranian fortified underground facility that conventional weaponry would be unable to decisively destroy.

I am willing to entertain that that possibility would be justified by the aggressor as a "principled" limited use of the technology. Following an ultimatum, if it's by the US. Without a specific warning, if it's Israel, since they have already stated their opposition to nuclear facilities in Iran.

 

[meatpackingbubba]

It is highly unlikely that any nation with a rational leadership will opt for a first-strike nuclear attack. Even in the case of Israel and its possible strike against enrichment facilities in Iran, surely it would be using conventional weapons.

The biggest concern is a state such as Pakistan and the possibility of a coup d'etat in which extremists take control of the government. But even there, the military has a history of professionalism and independence and there are supposedly reasonably secure controls in place to prevent the unauthorized use of their nuclear arsenal.

In any case, the concept of mutual assured destruction which prevailed for more than forty years during the cold war and which kept nuclear weapons in their silos should prevent all but the most insane of leaders from launching such a strike, especially when there are plently of lethal non-nuclear options at hand.

 

[SpeedoGuy]

I don't recall anyone in a position of responsibility in the west proposing to "nuke North Korea" or "nuke Iran" in a first strike.

It may be a relic from the cold war but I believe the U.S. (and possibly the U.K. as well) has never denied the possibility it might be the first to use atomic weapons in a strike against a foe. Indeed, the U.S. already has.

 

[SteveHd]

It may be a relic from the cold war but I believe the U.S. (and possibly the U.K. as well) has never denied the possibility it might be the first to use atomic weapons in a strike against a foe. Indeed, the U.S. already has.

"Never denied" doesn't imply intent to a first strike. What meatpackingbubba wrote remains valid.

 

[rawbone8]

"Never denied" doesn't imply intent to a first strike. What meatpackingbubba wrote remains valid.

It's valid, but in a way irrelevant. No nation is going to spell it out. And likewise, no nation is going to promise to never ever be the first to strike.

Non aggression pacts are always conditional.

Defensive motivations can be mustered to justify striking first in other forms of warfare. Nuclear arms are merely weapons of last resort.

 

[zgrog2000]

What is the real deal on Iran? Is Iran closer to a fledgling democracy waiting to be liberated and flourish or still (as the US appears to think and act) a rabid dog with dreams of grandeur wishing to export its Islamic revolution?

Both