The nuclear risk of going to war with Iran

[LudwigPastorius]

It is possible that U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear sites, coupled with Israel’s sustained bombing of Iranian political and economic targets, could cause the Iranian government to collapse, or agree to President Donald Trump’s demand for “unconditional surrender.”

But it is more likely that Iran could race to build nuclear weapons. It could produce enough uranium for the cores of 10 bombs in a matter of days. It is unknown how long it would then take to turn the uranium into metal, shape it into weapons and then assemble it into one or more devices. U.S. intelligence agencies have assessed that it would take a year or more, but Iran could find shortcuts and do it as little as three to five weeks — as China did in 1964.

-snip-

Iran does not have to create a modern, sophisticated warhead that could fit on the tip of a missile. It could assemble a crude device that resembles the bomb the United States used to destroy Hiroshima 80 years ago. It could put that bomb in a plane, a truck or the belly of a cargo ship and smuggle it into the territory of a U.S. ally, or America itself.

Even if the attacks on Iran succeed — if Iranian centrifuges and uranium stocks are destroyed — nuclear risks will multiply.

The author goes on to explain that many countries will conclude that the only means of deterring an attack would be to possess a nuclear weapon, and that several European and Asian countries may pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a result of a (the) U.S. attack on Iran.

More here: https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/iran-israel-us-nuclear-war-risks-rcna213653

[Silent Type]

1. I've been over worrying about getting nuked since I screwed my knees up diving under desks

in elementary school. So, far, we are the only country to nuke anyone. And after we invaded Iraq, every country should have at least considered nukes as a deterrent to us, or other powerful, bullying nations.

Of course, none of that has anything to do with trump’s actions tonight.

[usonian]

5. Judging from observed behavior, blackmail is more effective than nuclear weapons in bullying the US with Trump.

Could be wrong, but I doubt it.

[Crunchy Frog]

3. I think it's been obvious for awhile that only nukes can deter an attack.

That's been the entire lesson of the war in Ukraine, especially since it was preceded by the Budapest Memorandum and Ukraine giving up its nuclear arsenal.

[PufPuf23]

4. Worry about the response should Israel be hit hard and at risk.

Been stated by some leaders in Israel press that nukes are an option in that case.

[Jack Valentino]

7. Yes, the "Samson option"----

deploy their atomic weapons and take everyone else down with them---
making the middle east into an atomic wasteland...

[Jack Valentino]

6. The main reason Iran may have desired to create atomic weapons, if they did desire that,

is because they SAW what the United States did to Iraq,
who did not possess any atomic weapons,

and they SAW what did NOT happen to North Korea,
who DID possess atomic weapons.....

same for any other small country who doesn't have the
"seal of approval" from the United States....

[LudwigPastorius]

8. Could have been a coincidence, but North Korea pulled out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty two months...

before the U.S. invaded Iraq.

Or, maybe it wasn't a coincidence. Maybe Kim Jong Il saw the buildup to the invasion and figured hammer down on his nuclear program was the only chance for his country's survival.

[meadowlander]

9. Also Iran has allies that have nuclear weapons and could just give them one or join on their behalf.

Also 9/11 happened with box cutters. Why go through all the trouble of sneaking a dirty bomb in when you can wreak a lot of havoc with normal explosives, cars, airplanes, cyber attacks, biological and chemical weapon attacks, etc?

[Mosby]

10. His conclusion is flawed

Because what would have deterred an attack would be to not try and develop nuclear weapons, so that's the lesson to be learned.