Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Armed Forces of the World Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Is Iran next with a nuke test & expected world reaction?
Necromancer    6/1/2009 1:27:56 AM
I think within 6months Iran can test one.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
WarNerd       6/4/2009 5:43:57 AM
6 months is probably too optimistic, but probably less than 2 years.
 
Nuke testing is a extremely political decision, and therefore one that will be made by the Supreme Leader, not President Ahmadinejad.  Do not be surprised if they put it off for a while to accumulate more HEU before they bring the world condemnation down on them.
 
Probable reactions:
Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Turkey will feel pressured to respond with their own nuclear weapons.  It will be interesting to see if they can buy them from Pakistan or Israel, which would probably be preferable to their building their own development programs.
 
Iraq may go the same way, but they may play it smart instead and negotiate a permanent basing arrangement with the US similar to Okinawa in exchange for guarantees.  This is the last thing that Iran would want, so they will probably hold off testing until nearly all the troops have left.
 
India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan would be unaffected.  The first 2 already have their own nukes, and the 3rd lacks targets of value (or anything else).  al Queda and the Taliban are extremist Sunni organizations that Iran would like to see reduced to impotence, even if they provide some logistical support just to bleed the US more.
 
Europe, China, and the UN -- no change.  It's all the fault of the US, as always.
 
Russia is the real question mark.  While they have been playing a lot of diplomatic games, an Iran with real nuclear weapons controlled by religious fanatics has got to be one of their nightmares.
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion    Seriously?   6/4/2009 9:55:24 AM
 
Surely this is an impossible scenario as the US would rather send most of Mesopotamia back to the stone age than let this happen? Even if you're one of those guys who dosen't like President Obama- you can't surely think that he or anyone would allow this to happen. Surely Iran's real playing card is that it could develop Nuclear Weapons and that the US is uncomfortable with the sheer amount of violence and likely collateral damage it would have to inflict to remove them.
 
This is would also obviously remove every bit of goodwill in the region not to mention worldwide whining and act as the best Jihadist recruitment program in history since the first crusade. - It's not that the US is afraid of Iranian nuclear capability- it's afraid of what will happen if it has to remove it by force.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd    re:Seriously?   6/5/2009 4:55:50 AM
Parmenion,
 
What would you propose tha Obama do? 
Please include an estimate of the number of objectives to be taken, the forces required, and the location where the main attack would be launched from.
 
The time when stopping Iranian nuclear development militarily was simple ended several years ago.
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion    Misses the point.   6/5/2009 9:58:43 AM
WarNerd,
 
I don't need to do that. If you don't think billions of dollars worth of manpower and equipment is being directed at a daily tally of all the things you mentioned, then you're delusional. Seriously, saying that the United States would be unable to remove this capability is ridiculous. I wasn't saying it would be simple. But it would be the after effects that would be extremely complex, - blowing up aload of shacks and bunkers in the desert would be the easy bit.
 
Quote    Reply

lightningrod       6/5/2009 11:35:58 AM
It pains me to say this but I don't see us doing anything more than what we did with North Korea.  Which amounted to Jack Squat.  The Israelis might do something if we don't stand in their way. 
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       6/5/2009 5:47:46 PM
Parmenion    Misses the point. 
WarNerd,

I don't need to do that. If you don't think billions of dollars worth of manpower and equipment is being directed at a daily tally of all the things you mentioned, then you're delusional. Seriously, saying that the United States would be unable to remove this capability is ridiculous. I wasn't saying it would be simple. But it would be the after effects that would be extremely complex, - blowing up aload of shacks and bunkers in the desert would be the easy bit.


 Should I translate this as:  I haven't got a clue, but there must be something that they could do?
 
 Each part of the Iranian nuclear program is broken up into a number of redundant sites.  These sites are not shacks of surface bunkers, but deeply buried complexes dug out of the bedrock at depths that were believed to be beyond the reach of the earth penetrating bombs available at the start of OIF.  Many are located near or under suburban areas for additional protection.
 
Security about these facilities appears to be good, based on the inability to make a defendable case for policy makers to destroy them, so it is unlikely that we know the location of the underground facility with sufficient accuracy to reliably destroy them using pin-point bombing from aircraft.  So an attacker would either have to use saturation bombing over a larger inhabited area, or send in troops on the ground to locate them more precisely or take them out directly.
 
The final alternative would be to use nuclear bunker busters, which would also render the surrounding area uninhabitable.  Personally I suspect that a nuclear armed Iran might be preferable.
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion       6/5/2009 6:49:15 PM
WarNerd,
 
If you notice- I gave an opinion that US policy makers may be more concerned with the huge amount of collateral damage and outcry caused by removing the weapons than the threat of the weapons themselves in my first post. Nice for you to catch up.
 
At no point did I say that removing the sites would be easy. To be frank with you I find the specifiics rather boring. However the fact remains that it can be done as you have just helpfully confirmed. If the top brass decide they need a conventional bomb to penetrate 80 metres of rock- then that's what will get built.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/5/2009 7:20:15 PM

WarNerd,

 

If you notice- I gave an opinion that US policy makers may be more concerned with the huge amount of collateral damage and outcry caused by removing the weapons than the threat of the weapons themselves in my first post. Nice for you to catch up.

 

At no point did I say that removing the sites would be easy. To be frank with you I find the specifiics rather boring. However the fact remains that it can be done as you have just helpfully confirmed. If the top brass decide they need a conventional bomb to penetrate 80 metres of rock- then that's what will get built.

 

 

 

 

Its not a bomb. Its a rocket.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Parmenion    Rockets go boom!   6/6/2009 6:57:07 AM




WarNerd,



 



If you notice- I gave an opinion that US policy makers may be more concerned with the huge amount of collateral damage and outcry caused by removing the weapons than the threat of the weapons themselves in my first post. Nice for you to catch up.



 



At no point did I say that removing the sites would be easy. To be frank with you I find the specifiics rather boring. However the fact remains that it can be done as you have just helpfully confirmed. If the top brass decide they need a conventional bomb to penetrate 80 metres of rock- then that's what will get built.



 



 



 



 




Its not a bomb. Its a rocket.

 

Herald



Cool.
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       6/6/2009 12:25:09 PM



WarNerd,

If you notice- I gave an opinion that US policy makers may be more concerned with the huge amount of collateral damage and outcry caused by removing the weapons than the threat of the weapons themselves in my first post. Nice for you to catch up.

At no point did I say that removing the sites would be easy. To be frank with you I find the specifiics rather boring. However the fact remains that it can be done as you have just helpfully confirmed. If the top brass decide they need a conventional bomb to penetrate 80 metres of rock- then that's what will get built.
Its not a bomb. Its a rocket.

Herald

Cool.
But it still will not do the job if you do not know where the target is.
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics