That is a big worry but unfortunately the nuclear genie is out of the bottle and there is no way of putting it back in. Any industrialized nation can become a nuclear power in a few years. A country like Saudi Arabia could probably just buy one from Russia.
ORLY? So when someone "abuses this technology", how do you suggest they should be punished? Should we wait until Iran drops the nuke on Israel...and then, how do you "punish" them? Slap them on the wrist?
No, you don't slap them on the wrist you defend Israel with force and then help them recover. Just like if India nuked Pakistan, we should defend Pakistan and help them recover. Just because India has threatened Pakistan in the past doesn't mean we should preemptively attack them or that we should have attacked them then. What's wrong with you?
Also why should we defend Israel? They are feeding the fire, expecting us to put it out for them if and when it gets out of hand. When it comes down to it America is whats important for Americans. Not Israel. If those idiots (well at least the idiots in charge) provoke some sort of bombing from Iran then that is their problem.
I was presuming them as allies for the sake of discussion. Also, because after Israel is attacked it would likely be in our interests to defend them in some manner. If they are not an ally, and if it wouldn't be in our interests, then maybe we shouldn't.
Have you heard of the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction? What Israel tells Iran is if you drop a nuke on us we drop one on you and if we can't the US will do it for us. India and Pakistan hate each other more than Iran hate's Israel and both have nukes yet you haven't seen them use them on each other. The reality is that we live in a world where MAD is what keeps people from using nukes anymore.
Iran knows attacking Israel is tantamount to attacking the U.S., which means Iran would attack Israel and the U.S. likely at the same time. Using irregular warfare they may be able to setup terrorist cells within the U.S. armed with dirty nuclear bombs. Several cells attack high-profile govt or military sites in unison along with attacking Israel. That's the way I'd play it, anyway.
Are you even sure that Iran will have one? http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/robert-fisk-weve-been-here-before--and-it-suits-israel-that-we-never-forget-nuclear-iran-6294111.html
Hail Cobra Commander. That scenario is so fantastical, it belongs in the next G.I. Joe movie. People would then proceed to criticize the glaring plot holes. This is not a contingency we should be in anyway preparing for or expecting in our actions toward Iran.
How about the one nation on this earth that actually used a nuclear weapon on another nation. Face it... Going by past history the United States is more likely to use a nuclear weapon on another nation than Iran.
I think an under pressure, out gunned, deeply religious leadership, who believe in martyrdom, would have the higher chance of using a nuclear weapon. Feeling powerless or hopeless can cause irrational violent behavior.
<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q2iOVqYBqME?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Q2iOVqYBqME?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object> <object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/z7RdHQdkb_8?version=3&feature=player_detailpage"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/z7RdHQdkb_8?version=3&feature=player_detailpage" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="360"></object>
As False noted that is somewhat fantastical but even if Iran was able to pull of such a multiple pronged attack including using dirty bombs the US still has widespread and distributed forces, including distributed nuclear forces. Given that the US nuclear forces were designed to not be wiped out by a Soviet nuclear first strike there is no way Iran would be able to attack the US in a way that would prevent an apocalyptic retaliatory strike.
This is the key question of whether the Iranian leadership is actually irrational. Former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan said recently the Iranian regime is interested in survival and it's very unlikely they would engage in actions that essentially amounts to suicide.
The concern would not be that Iran would use a nuclear weapon themselves. That way lies catastrophic retaliation that far surpasses anything they would hope to accomplish. If, on the other hand, some terrorist organization "steals" a nuke from Iran...
Nothing, and I mean nothing will help Iran's regime survive longer than an attack by either Big Satan (the US) or Little Satan (Israel). Even the most enlightened of the Iranian opposition would join in the hate. In time, if the whole world continues to lock them out of the world economically, that regime of theocrats will collapse faster than Assad's. Let them squander their money on nuclear research and military spending. It will only bring about their end faster. And besides that...I'm a hell of a lot more worried about Iran's chemical, biological and conventional warheads they already have targeted at Tel Aviv (some 200k+ if we are to believe the Mossad). You know, the same one they have had for years. Bombing the crap out of them would be the only thing that brings them to launch them, and it's going to be hard to watch the NBA playoffs if I'm sitting in a bomb shelter. Which wouldn't happen anyway - because I don't have a bomb shelter.
Yes, that's a theoretical concern. However, I think it is a far cry to suggest that other people do not have the concern that Iran would use nuclear weapons. In fact, many people in this thread have asserted that very concern. For example, Dubious, NotInMyHouse, AroundTheWorld, Commodore, and JoshFast have seemed to suggest that that should be a strong concern. A terrorist organization stealing a nuke is highly unlikely. Given that even post-Soviet union break up states like Ukraine, Kazahkstan, and Belarus have yet to have any examples of nuclear weapons falling into unsavory hands. Additionally, Pakistan and NK have yet to have terrorist organizations steal these weapons despite their inherent weaknesses as states. However, I don't really think that was what you were suggesting with the use of quotes. So in response to your real statement, I think that if you presume that Iran is going to act rationally and not use nuclear weapons, I do not think that you can presume that it would allow someone to "steal" their nuclear weapons. The presumption that they would not actually nuke a country sort of prohibits a counter-presumption that they would let someone steal their weapons. Since neither action would end well for Iran. So, make up your mind, do you think they will act rationally or not?
