Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What If Iran Gets A Working Nuclear Weapon?
IranPressNews ^ | March 9, 2009 | By Barry Rubin

Posted on 03/10/2009 10:14:21 AM PDT by Fennie

If and when Iran gets nuclear weapons it would set off a global nightmare.

Most obviously, Iran could use nuclear arms to attack Israel. It's easy to say that Iran's leaders would be cautious, but what if ideology, error, or an extremist faction decides to wipe the Jewish state off the map? Even a 10-percent chance of nuclear holocaust is terrifying.

And if Israel decides its existence is at risk, it would launch a preemptive attack that would also produce a big crisis.

Once Iran has nuclear weapons, every Arab state, with the exception of Iran's ally Syria, would also be imperiled. Those countries would beg for U.S. protection. But could they depend on America, under the Barack Obama administration, to go to war - especially a nuclear one - to shield them?

(Excerpt) Read more at iranpressnews.com ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Front Page News; Israel
KEYWORDS: bho44; bhoiran; bhomiddleeast; iran; iraniannukes; iraq; islam; israel; jihad; nuclear; obama; wot
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

1 posted on 03/10/2009 10:14:21 AM PDT by Fennie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Fennie

There is no doubt in my mind that they will inevitability level a nuclear attack against Israel. Not a matter of if, but of when.


2 posted on 03/10/2009 10:17:20 AM PDT by McKayopectate
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: McKayopectate
Given the centuries old rivalry between the Shiite and Sunni factions the first weapon they get may hit Saudi Arabia or other Sunni states.
3 posted on 03/10/2009 10:19:45 AM PDT by Wooly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: McKayopectate

They’ll hit the US first. Take us out and they’ll remove the big brother from protecting Israel. Not to mention the whole “God protecting Israel” thing...


4 posted on 03/10/2009 10:21:01 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Wooly

To be honest, then we are at thier mercy. Sting was right, the Russians did love thier children too ... However, this bunch is a whole other story, if they get a nuke (and they are very close or may have it already) it will inevitably be used for the sheer joy of it (their sick joy of course).


5 posted on 03/10/2009 10:22:46 AM PDT by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

I guess our plan is to sit back and try and impose useless sanctions and jaw bone them until they succeed. I wonder if anybody in the Government has figured out the Iranian game plan. Delay....Delay....Delay.


6 posted on 03/10/2009 10:23:11 AM PDT by Old Retired Army Guy (tHE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

It’s Bush’s fault for not invading Iran.....at least that’s what Dems will probably say...


7 posted on 03/10/2009 10:23:11 AM PDT by jakerobins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

They’d probably blow themselves up by accident.


8 posted on 03/10/2009 10:23:31 AM PDT by Catholic Canadian ( I love Stephen Harper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scythian
Sting was right, the Russians did love thier children too .

Sting is a moron. It didn't matter if the Russians loved their children.

What mattered was if the Russians loved OUR children.

They didn't. And the only thing stopping those Commie nut cases from nuking us was was the righteous fear of their entire rathole nation going up in a nuclear fireball in response.

With that being said, you're quite correct about the mullahs running Iran. They don't give a frogs watertight bunghole about ANYONES kids, least of all their own.

L

9 posted on 03/10/2009 10:26:18 AM PDT by Lurker (The avalanche has begun. The pebbles no longer have a vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Iran could not use one Nuclear weapon. They would be destroyed!


10 posted on 03/10/2009 10:28:10 AM PDT by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Retired Army Guy

I wonder if anybody in the Government has figured out the Iranian game plan.

It’s the 4th quarter,Iran has the ball, they are driving and Obama keeps calling timeout so the Iranians have enough clock to score.


11 posted on 03/10/2009 10:31:13 AM PDT by Le Chien Rouge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Fennie
If?

The better word is "when".

Iran's goal is not to use the nuke, but to have nukes as a demonstration of national and Shiite ascendency in the Middle East and Muslim world.

They still have to deliver a nuke either by boat or missile. Both can be stopped by our technology.

12 posted on 03/10/2009 10:32:23 AM PDT by gandalftb (An appeaser feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jakerobins

The goal posts of History.


13 posted on 03/10/2009 10:35:05 AM PDT by MaxMax (RINO=RAT!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

I would say they would do a Middle East version of Pearl Harbor, they would wait for a time and place where as many of our ships that beint he US if not Israel, planes or personnel are concentrated and then do a suicide-nuke.

I would not be surprised if Iran was to even go so far as to do it in Afghanistan.


14 posted on 03/10/2009 10:36:12 AM PDT by Eye of Unk (How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words! SA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

The real answer is that Iran will become more assertive, militarily and economically. They will be freer to engage in conventional warfare and regional bullying.


15 posted on 03/10/2009 10:36:49 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

The mullahs are concerned about their own wrinkly hides. Let ‘em have their nuke. And let ‘em know in no uncertain terms that their hides will burned with nuclear fire if they ever dare try to use it.

I’m sick and tired of the US having to step up over and over again when the people really in peril don’t try and take care of their own business.


16 posted on 03/10/2009 10:36:58 AM PDT by ksen (Don't steal. The government hates the competition. - sign on Ron Paul's desk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you'd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

..................

17 posted on 03/10/2009 10:38:21 AM PDT by SJackson (a tax cut is non-targeted…no guarantee…they’re free to invest anywhere that they want, J Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
That assumes they don't actually believe that if they're martyred fighting against the infidels (the Jews and Crusaders) they'll get an express ride to paradise.

Nobody really knows what they'll do, but no one with any brains believes with any conviction that they would be have more or less rationally in the way the Soviets did.

The earlier poster who objected to the comment about the Russians loving their children being irrelevant was wrong. Believing that the US would massively retaliate if they used nuclear weapons (even indirectly), they were not willing to see their own families destroyed. The Russians, at least as officially atheist Marxists, did not have any hope of achieving paradise by having the world blown up.

One cannot thus argue concerning the Iranian mullahs!

18 posted on 03/10/2009 10:38:24 AM PDT by CatoRenasci (Ceterum Censeo Arabiam Esse Delendam -- Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
Exactly. People should not worry about an attack on US soil by a single nuke from Iran. If they could actually get a single ICBM to the continental US and on target it could certainly cause massive casualties. But I suspect (hope) that once we knew a weapon was in the air we would reply in kind on a massive scale before it was halfway here.

And a single nuke on Israel would prompt the same response.
So Iran kills 1000’s in Israel..then what? They have nothing left and are promptly decimated.

A single nuke is not an arsenal. It's just one BIG bomb. One shot. If anyhting with would be used to cause massive upheaval in the ME while at the same time resulting in unprecedented action against Iran.

I think even Russia and China would raise some eyebrows if Iran actually used a nuke.

19 posted on 03/10/2009 10:40:42 AM PDT by Ribeye (Protective head wear courtesy of Reynolds Aluminum Products- Extra-cranial RF Suppression Division)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: gandalftb

Yep.


20 posted on 03/10/2009 10:43:15 AM PDT by Ribeye (Protective head wear courtesy of Reynolds Aluminum Products- Extra-cranial RF Suppression Division)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Fennie
If and when Iran gets nuclear weapons it would set off a global nightmare.

Forget the "if" part.

It is a matter of "when" only. And then "when" will be ahead of what most people and governments believe. Iran became more emboldened in its pursuit of nuclear weapons once Barack was elected. It was their go-ahead to go full-blast in their development efforts.

The "if" part was taken care of when Obama was elected. Obama will pretend that his administration is pursuing all diplomatic means to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons, but they are also not about to do anything about it when Iran does actually make their first nuclear test. Democrats have never seen anything wrong with Iran getting nuclear weapons. They may openly make statements against Iran getting the weapons and about how dangerous Iran would be with them, but the reality is that democrats don't believe that a nuclear Iran would be any more dangerous and destabilizing to the region and the world than they are now.

It is that attitude by the democrats that will cause Israel to attack Iran in order to destroy their nuclear capabilities.

Open hostilities between Iran and Israel became a lot more real and closer when Obama was elected.
21 posted on 03/10/2009 10:43:52 AM PDT by adorno (<br><br>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci

Let me say it another way. If Iran used a Nuclear weapon they would be destroyed!


22 posted on 03/10/2009 10:45:59 AM PDT by mountainlion (concerned conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: jakerobins

It will be Bush’s fault. He had time to do something and he didn’t. Also knowing that Obama would become the next president should have made him more inclined to let Israel do what is needed and/or provide support.


23 posted on 03/10/2009 10:46:58 AM PDT by TerP26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Syria is a quite small country in area. Don’t know how any nuclear explosion would not drop some dirty air over them.


24 posted on 03/10/2009 10:47:09 AM PDT by ridesthemiles
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

a nuke strike on Israel would bring out celebrations on many college campuses and cities like Dearborn and Tulsa


25 posted on 03/10/2009 10:52:17 AM PDT by GeronL (Will bankrupting America lead to socialism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Tulsa, OK?

Been there many times, am obviously Jewish, never had a problem.


26 posted on 03/10/2009 10:59:01 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Beware Obama's Reichstag Fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Le Chien Rouge

“It’s the 4th quarter,Iran has the ball, they are driving and Obama keeps calling timeout so the Iranians have enough clock to score.”

To be fair, time-out has been being called for years now. I think the region must be already adjusting to the reality of a nuclear Iran. Saudi Arabia is the next logical candidate to want their own nukes, from what I have read.


27 posted on 03/10/2009 11:00:05 AM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WoofDog123
Saudi Arabia is the next logical candidate to want their own nukes, from what I have read.

Hussien will make sure they get them.
28 posted on 03/10/2009 11:03:29 AM PDT by FortWorthPatriot (Those who lack a needle on their moral compass can say anything and not see a problem with saying it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: MeanWestTexan

its somewhere in Oklahoma where there is a cluster of Muslims


29 posted on 03/10/2009 11:03:34 AM PDT by GeronL (Will bankrupting America lead to socialism?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch
Hitting the US first would be the only way to guarantee their extinction.

It would take thousands of nukes to successfully destroy our ability to wipe out most of the world, let alone Iran.
And before you start with an argument that we would do nothing, remember that the US is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in open warfare.

Iran would cease to exist.

30 posted on 03/10/2009 11:06:24 AM PDT by bill1952 (Power is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
Yes. They will use their nuclear power as a hegemony over the area.
And it will work.
31 posted on 03/10/2009 11:07:33 AM PDT by bill1952 (Power is an illusion created between those with power - and those without)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: bill1952

I do not think Obama would retaliate with nukes...he’s a chicken shit.

That being said, Iran may very well want us to nuke them into oblivion...they love death/martyrism.


32 posted on 03/10/2009 11:09:20 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

WWOD?


33 posted on 03/10/2009 11:11:52 AM PDT by Ancient Drive (will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatoRenasci
Exactly. This is what Bernard Lewis has been saying for several years.
34 posted on 03/10/2009 11:12:12 AM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ribeye

A single nuke is not ONE big bomb. It is the ONE big bomb which assures you will be left alone to produce MANY big bombs and, eventually, the means to deliver them.


35 posted on 03/10/2009 11:14:26 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch; McKayopectate
They’ll hit the US first. Take us out and they’ll remove the big brother from protecting Israel. Not to mention the whole “God protecting Israel” thing...

Islam wants to Destroy the Big Satan first, then the little Satan !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach Adonai
36 posted on 03/10/2009 11:17:45 AM PDT by Uriel-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Probably Oklahoma City, if anywhere.

Tulsa is home of Oral Roberts University, to give you some of its flavor.


37 posted on 03/10/2009 11:20:25 AM PDT by MeanWestTexan (Beware Obama's Reichstag Fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: mountainlion
Even if they have 25, or 50, most of them mounted on missiles, half a dozen of them given to terrorists, and said terrorists take responsibility for any attack, and also state they have prepositioned bombs in the US and Europe, but haven't used them, only ones smuggled in to Israel?

You are way too complacent. No, Iran isn't going to nuke Israel tomorrow if they get nuke tech. They will, however, deter others from attacking them and position themselves to nuke Israel the day after tomorrow, instead. 5 or 10 years from now, millions of innocent people will die. They hope that "5 or 10" sound so much like "forever" to myopic politicians in denial, that they can get there safely. Because the last chances to stop them before they can nuke someone back, are oh, about the next 6-12 months. And nobody in the west is going to lift a finger in that time frame.

Only Bibi might...

38 posted on 03/10/2009 11:22:59 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FortWorthPatriot

not sure what he thinks of the saudi royal family. given how he is turning US orientation on its head, he may snub them too.


39 posted on 03/10/2009 11:24:42 AM PDT by WoofDog123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
Obama isn't Truman. He's a chickenstuff pacifist.
40 posted on 03/10/2009 11:24:44 AM PDT by JasonC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Fennie
What If Iran Gets A Working Nuclear Weapon?

What if What happens when Iran Gets A Working Nuclear Weapon?

41 posted on 03/10/2009 11:29:04 AM PDT by Iron Munro (Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

I think Sting was correct as a matter a fact, mutually insured destruction was not a game the russians wanted to play, cause like us, in the end, the wanted to live, had families, and were much more “like us” than “unlike us”. The Russians most definitely loved the children.

The “others” will shall call them, will gladly do an honor killing of thier children for various things, and to die killing others is a ticket to Allah, there is a difference, I just meant that the song he sang in many respects had a lot of truth in it.


42 posted on 03/10/2009 12:03:52 PM PDT by Scythian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Wyatt's Torch

They won’t hit us first. The fact of this serious matter is Iran will indeed gain a couple of relatively crude nuclear devices within the next three to ten years, but they will be on par with the 1945 nukes we used, not our ‘dial a nuke’ technology.

They won’t have several THOUSAND on hand, as we do today, in short.

They’ll hit Israel. My guess is via a nuclear bomb carrying ship, or even a fishing boat, at Haifa. They won’t risk losing it trying to get it into Tel Aviv via truck, and they don’t have the delivery system to send it via a parabolic arc.

To me the more pertinent question is will we, the United States, grant asylum to the survivors of Israel being hit with a nuclear weapon. The country is so small, a nuclear explosion - and believe the Iranians will in fact make it as ‘dirty’ a nuke as possible...well, it would end Israel’s existence as a nation in my opinion, due to the fall out alone.

Obama might send a strongly worded letter in response, but thats about it.


43 posted on 03/10/2009 12:15:23 PM PDT by Badeye (There are no 'great moments' in Moderate Political History. Only losses.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Fennie

Iran could also fire one of their missles from a ship, aimed at the US. No one could respond quick enough to defend against it. You don’t need a launching pad for this.


44 posted on 03/10/2009 12:17:37 PM PDT by RC2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RC2
That's the exact scenario that plays out in Joel Rosenberg's Dead Heat. SCUD missiles are launched of the coast from container transport ships and give cities 3-5 minutes warning.
45 posted on 03/10/2009 12:37:14 PM PDT by Wyatt's Torch (I can explain it to you. I can't understand it for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Bingo


46 posted on 03/10/2009 2:01:48 PM PDT by LSUfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Scythian
I have that Sting song and like playing the Scorpion's "Wind of Change" right after it as a reminder of what an idiot Sting was.
47 posted on 03/10/2009 2:08:55 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: bill1952
You are assuming that Obama has the will and guts to nuke Iran if they hit the United States. I don't. Where I once had some hope that he'd be a moderate along the lines of Bill Clinton, he's quickly shown himself to be more naive, stupid, and wrong than Jimmy Carter, the guy who let the radicals take over Iran, the Sandinistas take over Nicaragua, the PLO take over Lebanon, and so on without doing anything to stop it. While it would be difficult to imagine a real man sitting back and letting his country taking a nuclear hit, I think anyone foolish enough to think he can negotiate with "moderate Taliban" and who is stupid enough to kick the economy while it's down just might. And let's hope the Iranians and others don't start seeing it that way.
48 posted on 03/10/2009 2:13:20 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Scythian

Sting wasn’t correct because he doubted the Russians loved
their children and didn’t trust Ronald Reagan to keep him
safe. The score as shown by history? Ronald Reagan: 1, Sting: 0


49 posted on 03/10/2009 2:15:19 PM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: dennisw; Cachelot; Nix 2; veronica; Catspaw; knighthawk; Alouette; Optimist; weikel; Lent; GregB; ..
Middle East and terrorism, occasional political and Jewish issues Ping List. High Volume

If you'd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.

----------------------------

Simple, they will become the dominant power in the middle east. Not to worry, our cars will be running on wind. They can't take that away, can they? No matter, my car will run on potato salad.


50 posted on 03/10/2009 3:12:51 PM PDT by SJackson (a tax cut is non-targeted…no guarantee…they’re free to invest anywhere that they want, J Kerry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson