Iran, Mutually Assured Destruction, the Strangelove Scenario

[Necromagus]

Bush recently said that Iran acquiring nuclear weapons would lead straight to World War 3. Of course this is an extremely suspect rhetoric, but with nine countries already having nuclear warheads ready to go (America, Russia, France, Great Britain, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel), would Iran really be the tipping point?

 

 

 

Mutually Assured Destruction - The idea is pretty simple. There are so many nuclear weapons in the world that it would be impossible for one country to disable the nuclear capabilities of another in a single strike. If one nation would launch a nuclear strike at the other, the other nation would retaliate with such force that the attacker would come out just as damaged as the defender. The idea of Mutually Assured Destruction kept the Soviet Union and America going into all out nuclear war during the Cold War era.

 

 

 

The Strangelove Scenario - Named after Stanley Kubrick's cinematic attack on the madness of nuclear proliferation. In the movie, Russia decides that the nuclear arms race becomes too expensive to keep up with. In stead of building more and more nukes to keep up the threat of Mutually Assured Destruction, they look for a new deterrent. They set up a system of sensors across their soil and link them to a supercomputer that's designed to set off a massive bomb armed with a nuclear payload with a halftime of 97 years, big enough to destroy the entire human race. The bomb has been designed to go off as soon as somebody tries to disable it. The upkeep is much cheaper than the cost of continuing a nuclear arms race.

 

 

 

America has employed some highly dubious tactics in the past to try and keep other countries from developing a nuclear arsenal. In the 1970s the Pakistani PhD Abdul Qadeer Khan was employed in a Dutch uranium enrichment facility, where he gathered information on the development of weapons grade nuclear material. The information he gathered ended up not only in his homeland of Pakistan, but also in Libya, Iran and North Korea. He had been apprehended twice by the Dutch secret service, but his release was requested by the CIA both times because they wanted to continue monitoring him. In 1976 he suddenly disappeared to his homeland, out of their reach.

 

 

 

Iran isn't stupid enough to sell weapons to anybody. Within six hours of a nuclear detonation on our soil, we'll know where that device came from. Thirty minutes later, that nation will cease to be a viable habitat for multicellular life. Identifying the source manufacturer for detonated fissile material is a science with a history that dates back to 1948, when we collected fallout from the Little Joe device via spyplane. Iran knows this. Ahmadenijad knows this. So the man isn't about to authorize the sale or donation of complete or armed weapon systems to anybody.

 

 

 

Why shouldn't a sovereign nation own nuclear weapons no matter what flag they fly under? I really don't understand why we the Western Hemisphere Good Old Boy's Club has the right to tell any other nation or group of nations that they aren't allowed to have access to the exact same weapons we have for the past 62 years. Not only did America create nuclear weapons, but they used them. Twice. And neither use was directed towards a legitimate military goal. In fact, America delayed the Japanese surrender and accelerated its own nuclear destruction of Nagasaki. They even chose previously undamaged centers of human habitation so we could have 'virgin' targets for a proper Bomb Damage Assessment. And neither of those cities had a meaningful military presence.

 

 

 

In my extremely cynical opinion, a nuclear-armed Iran would be the best thing for the Middle East. If Iran had a nuclear delivery system, it would force Israel to seriously negotiate for the first time in their history while dampening Teheran's rhetoric. Ahmadenijad is not a madman. He knows that the price of nuclear warfare in even its smallest capacity means death counts in the millions, if not outright destruction of his nation. The man is just as rational as you or I in that regard. Mutually Assured Destruction is and has for the past six decades been a marvelous deterrent to nuclear warfare. I can hardly see why it would cease to work with Iran.

[ember3579]

I commend your research. There's only one key thing that flaws it, though. The United States wants no bombs to hit our soil in the first place. All of the aforementioned countries have substantial reasons why they wouldn't bomb the US (aside from the assured retaliation), some from pressure from their allies(NK from China), the rest because they're ours (Israel and France, among others). Iran has no such inhibitor. Were they to choose one of our more prominent cities, NYC as an example, they would immediately wipe out the equivalent of a small nation in population and property, heavily damage anything downwind of the blast, and cause any and all resources obtained nearby the blast zone to become radiated, effectively wiping NYC off the map. The overall damage would make even the Holocaust look like a f**king theme park in comparison. I believe my point has been made.

[Omg_Imba]

Ah yes, but we can't have religious extremists with nuclear weapons can we?

 

 

 

*Glances at Ultra Rightwing Americain Christians.*

 

 

 

:roll:

[Defender2516]

You sir, are a fool.

 

 

 

Not everyone has a good willed heart. Why don't you go off and give those "nukes" who everyone is suppose to apparently have one now.. to a terrorist willing to kill himself and as many people as possible.

 

 

 

HAVE YOU NOT BEEN WATCHING THE NEWS?

 

 

 

Tons of innocent people have been killed from people who are bent on killing others for their religion.

 

 

 

If you really think Iran is building up a nuclear supply for DEFENSE purposes, you are sadly mistaken.

 

 

 

You must live in this strange weird bubble where utopia exists.

 

 

 

Hell, while we are at it, lets equip all Americas future killers with guns right now, i'm sure they will do the right thing, after all, everyone's gotta protect themselfs, right?

 

 

 

The leader of Iran OPENLY admits its hatred for Isreal, and tells its people to do anything to destroy them. Yeah, go ahead and give em a nuke.. i'm sure their population is a acceptable wasteland for the assured destruction of Isreal. Besides, they get 72 virgins, what the hell, give em a nuke right now!

[ember3579]

While I commend both your comments (to an extent), there's one part of the first that I dislike. 1) Not all Christians are fanatic headcases. If they were, you'd have been the subject of an "Exorcism" by now (think Guantanamo). 2) Not everyone who says they're Christian is. (glares at W) 3) Not all Christians are Republicans *holds up a sign saying "I'm a Democrat"*. Hopefully everyone who harps on us so bloody much will lay off a little. On another note, I thought that while individuals might launch a suicide mission, Governments would be more hesitant because they would bring about the death of a great number (if not all) of their people in the attempt/enactment of one.

[Necromagus]

I never claimed the Iranians had a good heart. I really doubt anyone with a good heart could make it to the upper tiers of any national government. I merely said that the Iranians were smart enough not to hand their nuclear arms over to third parties or use them against America or at all. The nuclear arms race is cyclical. If Iran were to use its first nuke to immediately strike against a large population center in Israel or America, we'd look at a death toll of 1-2 megadeaths, tops. Immediate retaliation against all of Iran's major population centers would be good for about 15 megadeaths, depending on how aggressive the retaliation is. No matter of religious fundamentalism is going to be able to stand up against those numbers.

 

 

 

My point is, any nuclear strike against America or Israel would immediately result in the complete and utter destruction of Iran. America, France, Great Britain and Israel would retaliate on a scale that would leave no survivors. If the death toll isn't enough to convince those religious nutjobs, they would still be justified in hitting them where it really hurt: Mecca and Medina.

 

 

 

As for the killers remark... America is already practicing Mutually Assured Destruction on a small skill in its own twisted way by its lax gun control laws. Of course that comparison is a bit shaky due to scale, but the general idea is there: If I have a gun I don't have to be afraid of other people with guns. It's dubious on an individual level, but when you increase the scale to the point where the people are nations and the guns are nukes, it becomes a lot more stable. The Soviet Union and America had political semi-control over pretty much every country in the world and both sat on enough nuclear weapons to destroy each other three times over. Because of Mutually Assured Destruction, that never happened.

[Medellin]

Ah yes, but we can't have religious extremists with nuclear weapons can we?

 

 

 

*Glances at Ultra Rightwing Americain Christians.*

 

 

 

:roll:

 

 

 

You overestimate their influence. Corporations have more control of the government. Religion is just a tool

[Defender2516]

I never claimed the Iranians had a good heart. I really doubt anyone with a good heart could make it to the upper tiers of any national government. I merely said that the Iranians were smart enough not to hand their nuclear arms over to third parties or use them against America or at all. The nuclear arms race is cyclical. If Iran were to use its first nuke to immediately strike against a large population center in Israel or America, we'd look at a death toll of 1-2 megadeaths, tops. Immediate retaliation against all of Iran's major population centers would be good for about 15 megadeaths, depending on how aggressive the retaliation is. No matter of religious fundamentalism is going to be able to stand up against those numbers.

 

 

 

My point is, any nuclear strike against America or Israel would immediately result in the complete and utter destruction of Iran. America, France, Great Britain and Israel would retaliate on a scale that would leave no survivors. If the death toll isn't enough to convince those religious nutjobs, they would still be justified in hitting them where it really hurt: Mecca and Medina.

 

 

 

As for the killers remark... America is already practicing Mutually Assured Destruction on a small skill in its own twisted way by its lax gun control laws. Of course that comparison is a bit shaky due to scale, but the general idea is there: If I have a gun I don't have to be afraid of other people with guns. It's dubious on an individual level, but when you increase the scale to the point where the people are nations and the guns are nukes, it becomes a lot more stable. The Soviet Union and America had political semi-control over pretty much every country in the world and both sat on enough nuclear weapons to destroy each other three times over. Because of Mutually Assured Destruction, that never happened.

 

 

 

Okay, so your saying that because Iran will basically be a new golf course if attempting to launch a nuke, that will stop them from using the nuke? Instead, since they apparently wont' be using it.. they can now play "real threats" with Israel?

 

 

 

Am I missing something here? Isreal suffers from constant threats already on all sides and sucide bombers and is EVEN negotiating to give up land for peace and you want Iran to have a nuke?

 

 

 

Isreal only wants to live in peace where its at.. all its neighbors around it who seem to have a personal problem with it being there just because their jealous or from personal hatred.

 

 

 

So once again.. why are we letting a nation who openly wants to destroy Isreal and wants no peace.. acquire itself a nuke? Trust me.. if they got people who blow themselfs up.. I doubt a quick and fast incentergrated death isn't much of a problem for them.

[reaper88888]

Rumors or halftruths about Iran developing nukes is all propaganda that will give the U.S. a flimsy excuse to invade yet ANOTHER oil-rich country...

 

 

 

 

 

"_-Fox News 2086-_

 

The question of the year: Is England, the last country independent of the United American Directorate, developing nuclear weapons in a devious plot to destroy American Democracy? Find out the 'truth' at 11:00!"

[Nero]

You sir, are a fool.

 

 

 

Why do you always say that?

[Aneron]

Oh noes! Not another oil-rich Middle-Eastern country armed with WMDs! :ohnoes:

[Omg_Imba]

Sorry, but I just cant take someones whose avatar is Pedo-Bear seriously. :lol:

 

 

 

No, Jk. I in no way mean to imply that all Christians are Ultra Right Wing

 

religious extremists, that would just be wrong and bigoted. Merely that if America means to address terrorism, they should look to themselves first.

 

 

 

I find it hypocritical that America has announced a 'War on Terror' while through the 60s and 70s Irish Americains were a major source of funding and armaments for the IRA.

 

 

 

Corporations would love it if Iran gained nuclear weapons/material, a good old fashioned arms race... everybody wins. :roll:

 

 

 

While I personally diagree with Iran's policys, religion and leader I do not blame them for wanting Nuclear armaments. How would Americains feel if the EU invaded Canada and them made refrences to nuclear strikes against the US?

 

 

 

Rather threatened huh?

[jak722]

I for one, think that countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Canada, etc should have nuclear weapons just for the heck of it.

 

 

 

Expecially Canada.

[Giordano]

America just wants more control over everyone else. The only reason they don't want Iran to posses nukes is because it will create a possbile enemy of the United States. And the United States don't want that. Ethier foriegn governments work for us, or they cease to exist.

[darkmage099]

Oh noes! Not another oil-rich Middle-Eastern country armed with WMDs! :ohnoes:

 

 

 

They would actually be the first...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

All the stuff you said.

 

 

 

Okay, I undestand that Iran will not use its nuclear weapons to HARM anyone. There is still one question to be answered: How would they use it as a "bargaining" tool with the rest of the world? I am one-hundred percent sure that this is the reason America and other countries do not want Iran to have WMDs. It's not about the destruction. For the reasons you stated, they are probably sure the nuke will not be used. They fear the economic leverage that the nuke holds. You cannot threaten a country with a nuke. It would obviously be very foolish to do so. America is losing its global hegemony, and their attempts to recover have failed miserably.

[Aneron]

Oh noes! Not another oil-rich Middle-Eastern country armed with WMDs! :ohnoes:

 

 

 

They would actually be the first...

 

 

 

geez, you sure about that?

[darkmage099]

Oh noes! Not another oil-rich Middle-Eastern country armed with WMDs! :ohnoes:

 

 

 

They would actually be the first...

 

 

 

geez, you sure about that?

 

 

 

Yes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Countries with nukes:

 

 

 

 

 

Warheads

 

 

 

United States

 

10,455

 

 

 

Russia

 

8,400

 

 

 

China

 

400

 

 

 

France

 

350

 

 

 

Israel*

 

250

 

 

 

United Kingdom

 

200

 

 

 

India**

 

65

 

 

 

Pakistan**

 

40

 

 

 

North Korea***

 

8

 

 

 

TOTAL

 

20,168

 

 

 

Source

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oil countries:

 

 

 

Bolded ones are ones that have nukes

 

Italics are the ones in the Middle East

 

In the Middle East AND have nukes

 

 

 

#1 Saudi Arabia: 262,700,000,000 barrels

 

#2 Canada: 178,900,000,000 barrels

 

#3 Iran: 133,300,000,000 barrels

 

#4 Iraq: 112,500,000,000 barrels

 

#5 United Arab Emirates: 97,800,000,000 barrels

 

#6 Kuwait: 96,500,000,000 barrels

 

#7 Venezuela: 75,590,000,000 barrels

 

#8 Russia: 69,000,000,000 barrels

 

#9 Libya: 40,000,000,000 barrels

 

#10 Nigeria: 36,000,000,000 barrels

 

#11 Mexico: 33,310,000,000 barrels

 

#12 Kazakhstan: 26,000,000,000 barrels

 

#13 Angola: 25,000,000,000 barrels

 

#14 United States: 22,450,000,000 barrels

 

#15 China: 18,260,000,000 barrels

 

#16 Qatar: 16,000,000,000 barrels

 

#17 Brazil: 15,120,000,000 barrels

 

#18 Algeria: 12,460,000,000 barrels

 

#19 Norway: 9,859,000,000 barrels

 

#20 Oman: 6,100,000,000 barrels

 

#21 India: 5,700,000,000 barrels

 

#22 Indonesia: 4,600,000,000 barrels

 

#23 Ecuador: 4,512,000,000 barrels

 

#24 United Kingdom: 4,500,000,000 barrels

 

#25 Yemen: 4,370,000,000 barrels

 

#26 Australia: 3,664,000,000 barrels

 

#27 Malaysia: 3,100,000,000 barrels

 

#28 Argentina: 2,950,000,000 barrels

 

#29 Egypt: 2,700,000,000 barrels

 

#30 Syria: 2,500,000,000 barrels

 

#31 Gabon: 1,921,000,000 barrels

 

#32 Tunisia: 1,700,000,000 barrels

 

#33 Sudan: 1,600,000,000 barrels

 

#34 Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 1,538,000,000 barrels

 

#35 Colombia: 1,492,000,000 barrels

 

#36 Brunei: 1,255,000,000 barrels

 

#37 Denmark: 1,230,000,000 barrels

 

#38 Romania: 1,055,000,000 barrels

 

#39 Burma: 1,000,000,000 barrels

 

#40 Mauritania: 1,000,000,000 barrels

 

#41 Trinidad and Tobago: 990,000,000 barrels

 

#42 Uzbekistan: 600,000,000 barrels

 

#43 Vietnam: 600,000,000 barrels

 

#44 Azerbaijan: 589,000,000 barrels

 

#45 Italy: 586,600,000 barrels

 

#46 Thailand: 583,000,000 barrels

 

#47 Equatorial Guinea: 563,500,000 barrels

 

#48 Cuba: 532,000,000 barrels

 

#49 Bolivia: 458,800,000 barrels

 

#50 Germany: 395,800,000 barrels

 

#51 Ukraine: 395,000,000 barrels

 

#52 Peru: 370,000,000 barrels

 

#53 Pakistan: 341,800,000 barrels

 

#54 Turkey: 288,400,000 barrels

 

#55 Turkmenistan: 273,000,000 barrels

 

#56 Guatemala: 263,000,000 barrels

 

#57 C̮̫̉̉te d'Ivoire: 220,000,000 barrels

 

#58 Albania: 185,500,000 barrels

 

#59 Papua New Guinea: 170,000,000 barrels

 

#60 Philippines: 152,000,000 barrels

 

#61 Chile: 150,000,000 barrels

 

#62 Suriname: 150,000,000 barrels

 

#63 France: 144,300,000 barrels

 

#64 Poland: 142,400,000 barrels

 

#65 Bahrain: 124,000,000 barrels

 

#66 Hungary: 110,700,000 barrels

 

#67 Morocco: 100,000,000 barrels

 

#68 Croatia: 93,600,000 barrels

 

#69 Congo, Republic of the: 93,500,000 barrels

 

#70 New Zealand: 89,620,000 barrels

 

#71 Netherlands: 88,060,000 barrels

 

#72 Cameroon: 85,000,000 barrels

 

#73 Austria: 84,300,000 barrels

 

#74 Serbia and Montenegro: 38,750,000 barrels

 

#75 Japan: 29,290,000 barrels

 

#76 Bangladesh: 28,450,000 barrels

 

#77 Czech Republic: 17,250,000 barrels

 

#78 Spain: 10,500,000 barrels

 

#79 Ghana: 8,255,000 barrels

 

#80 Bulgaria: 8,100,000 barrels

 

#81 South Africa: 7,840,000 barrels

 

#82 Slovakia: 4,500,000 barrels

 

#83 Greece: 4,500,000 barrels

 

#84 Benin: 4,105,000 barrels

 

#85 Taiwan: 2,900,000 barrels

 

#86 Israel: 1,920,000 barrels

 

#87 Barbados: 1,254,000 barrels

 

#88 Jordan: 445,000 barrels

 

#89 Ethiopia: 214,000 barrels

 

#90 Madagascar: 0 barrels

 

#91 Rwanda: 0 barrels

 

#92 Tanzania: 0 barrels

 

#93 Namibia: 0 barrels

 

#94 Mozambique: 0 barrels

 

#95 Somalia: 0 barrels

 

#96 Ireland: 0 barrels

 

#97 Afghanistan: 0 barrels

 

 

 

Source

[Flamecaller]

Ah yes, but we can't have religious extremists with nuclear weapons can we?

 

 

 

*Glances at Ultra Rightwing Americain Christians.*

 

 

 

:roll:

 

 

 

Even the most extreme Christian knows you can't kill a person. And before anyone calls me out on abortion fire-bombings and whatnot...Those people are not Christians. They ceased to be Christians once the anti-abortion agenda over-rode their love for God.

 

 

 

The most extreme Muslim, however...Considers themselves obligated to kill people. Namely Americans, Jews, and Zionists. Oh, and probably gay people. Just 'cause.

[Stragomagus]

I hate to say it , but even if iran were to start their nuclear program now they wouldn't be able to have the weapons grade material fo at least another 9-12 years.

 

 

 

Iran has also already tried to negotiate with the U.S. as well, but our "war-criminal" commander-in-chief Geroge W. Bush would not even attempt at negotiating. Iran tried to negotiate with a middleman aka Switzerland.

 

 

 

 

 

Another thing though is the fact that there ahs been no proof offered that Iran is even going to develop the weapons. Anyone remember Iraq abotu all that flimsy evidence offered?

 

 

 

Anyone who falls for the mass media pushing the war this time around should go take a test that tells whether or not they can think for themselves.

[darkmage099]

Ah yes, but we can't have religious extremists with nuclear weapons can we?

 

 

 

*Glances at Ultra Rightwing Americain Christians.*

 

 

 

:roll:

 

 

 

Even the most extreme Christian knows you can't kill a person.

 

 

 

FAIL

[underu2000]

The most extreme Muslim, however...Considers themselves obligated to kill people. Namely Americans, Jews, and Zionists. Oh, and probably gay people. Just 'cause.

 

Well, I can tell you your job as another Christian isn't to judge others. Yes, I am Christian. It's awfully close minded to bash another religion like that; how many innocent Muslims will it take to convince the world that they're not all extremist terrorists?

 

 

 

Oh, the mutually assured destruction thing isn't nearly as safe a method of keeping the human race alive as I'd like. Iran is quite clearly hostile as it is, last thing anyone wants is a nuclear armed hostile nation. There really is no easy solution to the dilemma, which could literally be earth-shattering if it went awry. The sooner we get anti-ICBM missile pods in space, the safer I'm going to feel.

 

 

 

Until then, I'll just do my part to slow down global warming. This whole nuclear business is beyond my power anyway.

[jak722]

Ah yes, but we can't have religious extremists with nuclear weapons can we?

 

 

 

*Glances at Ultra Rightwing Americain Christians.*

 

 

 

:roll:

 

 

 

Even the most extreme Christian knows you can't kill a person.

 

 

 

FAIL

 

 

 

Mmmhmm.

 

 

 

I remember this one insane lady that got interviewed in Fox saying that the soldiers dying in Iraq deserved to die because they are going against what their fundamentalist nterpretation of God teaches.

 

 

 

And we also can't forget that the KKK and some racist groups out there are more than willing to organize a lynching mob if they could get away with it.

 

 

 

Oh well crap... we just turned this thread into another religious thread, didn't we?

 

 

 

I say we lynch Imba! He started it!

[Flamecaller]

I'm anti-war, anti-Bush, etc etc...But doesn't the phrase "negotiate with Iran" sound...Bad to you? Doesn't it irk you that we would be negotiating with them as if they have some kind of power over us? We're so scared that we're trying to strike a deal?

 

 

 

I hate Bush, but it's pretty obvious why he hasn't negotiated. He feels that he is in a war right now with Muslim extremism, and Iran isn't exactly a round peg for that square hole. He would likely see it as negotiating with a permanent enemy. That is, that we'd be striking a "friendly deal" with people who will ALWAYS hate us.

 

 

 

At the same time, however...Us not negotiating with Iran could have a much simpler answer...The USA wants to invade Iran for whatever reason. There has been talk of it for years now and it seems lately we're one slightly-good excuse from droppin' bombs...And Iran is/isn't giving us one, depending how you see it.

 

 

 

Most people (Bush included) seem to think that Iran's mouth-puppet President saying we're "Big Satan" and Israel is "Little Satan" and that Israel should be "wiped off the map" is a good enough reason...It isn't. The dude is presiding over a Muslim country, and Muslims largely do not like Jews. He'll say whatever he thinks they want him to so that they'll be happy. SURPRISE! Welcome to politics. There is cake and punch to your left.

 

 

 

But guess what? Iran cannot touch Israel no matter how much they hate them or want them gone. Why? Because they are an ally of the USA, and the USA will lay the smackdown if Israel is touched. Nevermind the fact that we give Israel enough money and weapons to surely defend itself properly. Also, if the Bible is right (you may believe it is or isn't), Israel cannot be touched either, because God says so. Not now, anyways. It will be touched SOMEDAY, but at that time, God will wtfpwn the attackers, so whatever. That's if you believe that, of course. Really has nothing to do with this if you don't...I was just sayin'. :P

 

 

 

In closing...It's really 50/50 at this time to see if the USA is going to do anything to Iran...But probably not. Everyone is too scared to get into wars these days because everyone has nukes. And if they don't...Their allies do.

[Flamecaller]

Ah yes, but we can't have religious extremists with nuclear weapons can we?

 

 

 

*Glances at Ultra Rightwing Americain Christians.*

 

 

 

:roll:

 

 

 

Even the most extreme Christian knows you can't kill a person.

 

 

 

FAIL

 

 

 

Um, no? Did you read the rest of what I said? If you think killing someone is okay, and try to justify it somehow using Christianity...You cease to be a Christian. Would you let someone be in your guild and be runnni' around scamming people saying it was in the name of your guild? Surely not, and I'd imagine God (if he exists) is the same way. The Crusades, for example...Were done by people calling themselves Christians, but how many went to Heaven? Zero.

[Medellin]

Ah yes, but we can't have religious extremists with nuclear weapons can we?

 

 

 

*Glances at Ultra Rightwing Americain Christians.*

 

 

 

:roll:

 

 

 

Even the most extreme Christian knows you can't kill a person.

 

 

 

FAIL

 

 

 

This is the first decent thread I've seen and you ruin it with your stupidity. Good job.