So, when we detect that Iran has a nuke, what will happen?

[Cronus Protagonist]

What do you predict WILL happen?





(Then post what you WANT to happen in this thread.)

[closeupready]

1. Other. At that point, it will be too late, as they will probably have several.

To say nothing of the fact that they will then know concretely how to make one.

I don't know what the answer is, I don't want to see them get it, but I don't believe bombing them will solve the issue.

[LakeSamish706]

2. Agree, except that Israel shoud not have nukes either. n/t

[closeupready]

10. 100% agree. They are too much a loose cannon with conventional weapons.

I shudder at the thought of the possibilities as long as they possess nukes.

[proteus_lives]

21. 100% disagree.

When you're a small country surrounded by neighbors who have tried to exterminate you multiple times in the past, you need a ace in the hole.

[cali]

31. How about Pakistan and India?

[LakeSamish706]

34. They shouldn't either, but what are you going to do? n/t

[truedelphi]

3. other. Talking Heads have already rolled out the charts and graphs that

Explain to our war mongering politicians and RW nut jobs that if Iran has the bomb, then we must take action, because we have troops in Iraq (Talking Head slides pointer back and forth from Baghdad to Iran) and troops in Afghanistan (Talking Head slides pointer back and forth between Tehrain and our bases in Afghanistan.)

[Cronus Protagonist]

12. Well, what would that action be?

I'm thinking there's plenty of precedent for "surgical strikes" and "smart bombs" to take out the nuke weapons and facilities. Unfortunately, I think it's almost inevitable.

[truedelphi]

20. The scenario you suggest does strike me as plausible.

Of course, then there will be increased tensions all over the region. It will make the war in Afghanistan harder to win, for instance. The border between Iran and Afghanistan is quite fluid (Think of the USA and Mexico.) If Iran is hit even surgically, I would expect an uptick in the number of young men who then head for the hills of Afghanistan to take out the American troops.

What is a shame about all this is so many in Iran actually want to be more like the USA in terms of culture. So people should continue to hope for this: that continued diplomatic maneuvers can keep this from happening. This is one area that so far I give Obama an A in. (And maybe an A+ for effort.)

[NeedleCast]

4. Same thing that happened with North Korea

Pretty much nothing.

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. Have you taken OIL into account?

We don't need any more sesame seed oil, but we sure need petroleum products, which will become more and more scarce as time rolls forwards...

[cali]

32. ding. ding. ding.

Stop the presses.

[harun]

5. Other: Nothing.

[Cronus Protagonist]

14. You really think the US and Israel will do nothing if Iran has a nuke?

Interesting. We'll see how your prediction plays out, but I think history indicates otherwise. If I were running an Iranian nuke program, I'd be sure to make a dozen at once and scatter them all over, making it impossible to take them all out for certain. That way they might be able to move us into a colder cold war, much like the Soviets in the past. If they have one or two, I really think someone is going to take them out asap, but we'll see very soon, I think.

Once they detonate a test, the shit will hit the fan, I predict.

[Toucano]

25. To what history are you referring?

By my recollection, nuclear proliferation has always resulted in a stalemate.

I can't think of a single instance where a country developed nuclear capabilities and was subsequently attacked by an enemy or rival.

That's sort of the whole point of nuclear weapons, I think.

edit:

punctuation

[Cronus Protagonist]

27. Iraq

Although the intel was falsified, the reason that the public and our "leadership" bought into was that Saddam might have a nuke. MIGHT. What if we KNOW Iran has one?

Surely I doubt the UN or any other country will invade Iran right away, (I do hope that they've learned from Iraq), but I doubt the two dominant players will do nothing this time despite that. I'm thinking "surgical strikes" and assassination attempts first, and if that doesn't work, I doubt the players will not escalate.

[Toucano]

29. That's a wholly different scenario.

And your answer is contained within it.

The "mushroom cloud" propaganda of the Bush administration was ALWAYS a warning. They never said Saddam HAD nuclear weapons, but rather the he sought to acquire or develop nuclear weapons. Their own claims were that he has sought to enrich uranium.

Invading or attacking to prevent the acquisition of nuclear capability has an advantage.

Invading or attacking a rival who has already detonated or is "known" to have a nuclear capacity (which I think was the scenario of the OP) has never happened because it has not advantage - only risk.

[Cronus Protagonist]

35. Good point.

And I wonder if the risk of doing NOTHING is not greater, given the political landscape in the region. It's a tough one, for sure.

[cali]

33. Actually, history tells us that the U.S. will do nothing militarily.

horse, barn door, etc.

[zipplewrath]

6. Same as North Korea

Nobody's dropping nukes on anyone. And there is a very simple reason. It has nothing to do with Hiroshima, or humanity or anything else. There's always the slight chance that you'll drop a dud. And then you have just delivered a nuclear warhead to the very enemy you didn't want to have a nuclear warhead.

[icymist]

7. All the teabaggers, republicans, and media dimwits will have another enemy

besides liberal, democratic Americans.

[meeshrox]

8. We talk down Israel...

after some intense arguments with our 'best ally in the region' we will talk them down and nothing will happen...

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

9. We will write them a letter telling them how very very angry we are at them...

And that if they continue, we will continue to write letters explaining how upset we are.

[malakai2]

37. Yep

Wait, are you talking about the American response to Iran having weapons or to Israel bombing Iran because Iran has weapons? Same either way I guess.

[Hippo_Tron]

11. Define "detect"

Bush "detected" a lot of WMDs in Iraq that turned out not to be there. The only way to be certain is if they test a nuclear weapon, which will probably not happen. Iran is going to remain ambiguous about its nuclear program and we're going to keep doing what we're doing, because the status quo actually works out pretty well considering the alternatives.

[Cronus Protagonist]

15. Nuclear test, emmissions from certain facilites and such like

I left it open because there are various ways to detect, the most certain being a test explosion.

Or, of course, they could be sabre rattling like Saddam was doing, and look what happened there.

[stray cat]

16. DUers will cheer isn't an option?

[Cronus Protagonist]

19. lol

I guess it's an option, but not one in this poll... I would assert that any DU'ers who cheered such a horrible event wouldn't be DU'ers for long after the cheer's echo.

[cherokeeprogressive]

17. Other: Much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Then, when Iran nukes Tel Aviv, there will be... much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Oh, and some cheers from the Arab world.

[wuushew]

18. I'll take that bet

name your terms.

[cherokeeprogressive]

23. Well, let's figure this out.

The poll asked DU'ers to submit predictions for what would take place when we find out that Iran has nukes. It doesn't ask for what Iran will do after their acquisition/creation. That part was mine.

So, if you're betting that some action will be taken by the United States in the event that Iran acquires them, and I'm betting that no action of consequence will take place, I'd say a $10 contribution to DU would be okay.

An angry speech at the UN doesn't count.

[KonaKane]

22. Leave Iran the fuck alone.

It's amazing the hysteria we whip ourselves into when Iran becomes the topic. I remind you that it was the US and outside agents who criminally toppled their democratically elected government in 1953, and that they have never in their modern history aggressed upon, invaded, occupied or otherwise assaulted their neighbors without being attacked first.

If other nations can not only have nuclear power but a nuclear defense, they can too. And NO, I do not recognize their signing the anti-nuke treaty since it was obviously a ruse to keep them defanged while other powers in the region (ahem) pile up the nukes.

MAD means MAD.

[Toucano]

24. +1

Couldn't have said it better.

[leftstreet]

28. +1

[harun]

36. +1

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

26. The Pentagon will demand, and get, more money to protect us from the new bogeyman.

As usual.

[cali]

30. yes, yes, you geniuses, we'll nuke them- just like we did to N. Korea...........

try thinking, kids.

[Echo In Light]

38. Bump