4 ms·

What if Iran simply didn’t develop nuclear weapons? Have you considered that option?

runako 1y ago
Has anyone credible said/demonstrated that they have developed nuclear weapons? The US clearly does not believe they have operational nukes, or we would not have bombed them today. The actions undermine the official statements. Put in realpolitik: would it be worth the US spending an Iraq War's expenditure of lives and $3 trillion to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon? Why? What makes this moment the place where the working approach of the last half-century simply cannot work another day?
- lwansbrough 1y ago
  If they had already developed them, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion because nobody is going to war with a nuclear armed state. The question is only, did they have the means to, and was there an indication they were? The answer is yes. They were enriching uranium at levels that go beyond anything non-nefarious. Their lead nuclear scientists were going to be meeting with their ballistic missile scientists (according to the dossier.) On would it be worth it: nuclear proliferation is probably the most dangerous existential threat that humanity faces that is completely preventable. Iran is the most destabilizing country in the region and the cascade of nuclear proliferation that would occur if they succeeded would be a nightmare. That is easily worth $3T.
  - euW3EeBe 1y ago
    > Iran is the most destabilizing country in the region You misspelled Israel, and a reminder that Israel is the only nation in the region with multiple nuclear warheads. https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/06/israel-iran-war-regional-stability-military-adventurism-proxies?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/06/israel-iran-w...
  - runako 1y ago
    If I’m a head of state in a contested region, I would read your post as an urgent appeal to make acquisition of nuclear capability as the top priority of the state. Nonproliferation via war is not a viable approach. This reminds me to read more on the game theory aspect of nuclear states. But I do find it fascinating that no nuclear-armed states have ever been in a shooting war. Interesting to speculate whether the Middle East could have seen less bloodshed over the decades if all the players had been armed since near the beginning of the nuclear age.
    - lwansbrough 1y ago
      One often under-appreciated aspect of proliferation is accidental detonation. It is not safer for more states to have nukes simply because it introduces more variables that are hard or impossible to control. And accidents/mistakes/miscommunications account for most (all?) of our closest calls with nukes.
      - runako 1y ago
        I agree with you about accidental detonation and nonproliferation in general. But it is also clear that enforcement of nonproliferation without similarly muscular enforcement of sovereignty in general creates a huge incentive for proliferation. If we truly want nonproliferation, it simply follows that powerful nations must stop actions like the Russian conquest in Ukraine and whatever Israel is doing in Iran. Every government at base has an incentive to do everything possible keep bombs from falling on its cities, and a demonstrated nuclear capability is the only proven way to do that in a regime where nuclear powers are allowed to act with impunity.
        lwansbrough 1y ago
        I think one thing Iran could do would be to stop funding terrorism in the middle east and perhaps also not threaten the complete destruction of Israel while simultaneously pursuing nuclear weapons. That seems to have sent the wrong message by the looks of it.
nsingh2 1y ago
What if the U.S. simply stopped interfering with other nations[1]? Have you considered that option? But of course, the U.S. can do whatever it wants because of its military might and the fact that it has nukes. And there's the answer: on the world stage, you’d better be close friends with someone who has nukes, have your own, or be forced into a client state. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...
- lwansbrough 1y ago
  > But of course, the U.S. can do whatever it wants because of its military might and the fact that it has nukes. Yes. Do not proliferate nuclear weapons. It’s not a big ask. > you’d better be close friends with someone who has nukes This is a completely acceptable and reasonable solution. It is how most of Europe operates.
  - nsingh2 1y ago
    > Yes. Do not proliferate nuclear weapons. It’s not a big ask. It's a very big ask to not proliferate nuclear weapons, because nukes correlate with sovereignty. You didn’t address that point at all. > This is a completely acceptable and reasonable solution. It is how most of Europe operates. US friendship in the case of Iran means a puppet ruler (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran). And now Europe is in the process of decoupling itself from the US. Not to mention how the US completely dropped support for Ukraine. Turns out relying on an "ally" for defense like this is not such a great idea. Israel also understands this, and so has multiple nukes in its arsenal. Why did Israel "simply" not proliferate nuclear weapons even when it enjoyed the protection and support of the US?
yibg 1y ago
If I was Iran, or any country on the US's naughty list, I would be trying to build a nuke as quickly and quietly as I can. It seems to be the only way to not get bombed.
- HellDunkel 1y ago
  If you botch the "quiet" part this seems more of a plan to get bombed quickly.
  - yibg 1y ago
    Probabilities. Given the track record in the region and the relationships involved, not getting a nuke seamless will lead to getting bombed with almost 100% certainty over a long enough period. If they botch the quiet part, they'll almost certainly get bombed in the short term, which may or may not lead to the end of the project. But then will almost certain prevent getting bombed more in the future.
jjk166 1y ago
They tried that. Saddam gassed them.

Has anyone credible said/demonstrated that they have developed nuclear weapons? The US clearly does not believe they have operational nukes, or we would not have bombed them today. The actions undermine the official statements. Put in realpolitik: would it be worth the US spending an Iraq War's expenditure of lives and $3 trillion to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon? Why? What makes this moment the place where the working approach of the last half-century simply cannot work another day?

lwansbrough 1y ago
If they had already developed them, then we wouldn’t be having this discussion because nobody is going to war with a nuclear armed state. The question is only, did they have the means to, and was there an indication they were? The answer is yes. They were enriching uranium at levels that go beyond anything non-nefarious. Their lead nuclear scientists were going to be meeting with their ballistic missile scientists (according to the dossier.) On would it be worth it: nuclear proliferation is probably the most dangerous existential threat that humanity faces that is completely preventable. Iran is the most destabilizing country in the region and the cascade of nuclear proliferation that would occur if they succeeded would be a nightmare. That is easily worth $3T.
- euW3EeBe 1y ago
  > Iran is the most destabilizing country in the region You misspelled Israel, and a reminder that Israel is the only nation in the region with multiple nuclear warheads. https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/06/israel-iran-war-regional-stability-military-adventurism-proxies?lang=en https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/06/israel-iran-w...
- runako 1y ago
  If I’m a head of state in a contested region, I would read your post as an urgent appeal to make acquisition of nuclear capability as the top priority of the state. Nonproliferation via war is not a viable approach. This reminds me to read more on the game theory aspect of nuclear states. But I do find it fascinating that no nuclear-armed states have ever been in a shooting war. Interesting to speculate whether the Middle East could have seen less bloodshed over the decades if all the players had been armed since near the beginning of the nuclear age.
  - lwansbrough 1y ago
    One often under-appreciated aspect of proliferation is accidental detonation. It is not safer for more states to have nukes simply because it introduces more variables that are hard or impossible to control. And accidents/mistakes/miscommunications account for most (all?) of our closest calls with nukes.
    - runako 1y ago
      I agree with you about accidental detonation and nonproliferation in general. But it is also clear that enforcement of nonproliferation without similarly muscular enforcement of sovereignty in general creates a huge incentive for proliferation. If we truly want nonproliferation, it simply follows that powerful nations must stop actions like the Russian conquest in Ukraine and whatever Israel is doing in Iran. Every government at base has an incentive to do everything possible keep bombs from falling on its cities, and a demonstrated nuclear capability is the only proven way to do that in a regime where nuclear powers are allowed to act with impunity.
      - lwansbrough 1y ago
        I think one thing Iran could do would be to stop funding terrorism in the middle east and perhaps also not threaten the complete destruction of Israel while simultaneously pursuing nuclear weapons. That seems to have sent the wrong message by the looks of it.

nsingh2 1y ago

What if the U.S. simply stopped interfering with other nations[1]? Have you considered that option? But of course, the U.S. can do whatever it wants because of its military might and the fact that it has nukes. And there's the answer: on the world stage, you’d better be close friends with someone who has nukes, have your own, or be forced into a client state. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta...

lwansbrough 1y ago
> But of course, the U.S. can do whatever it wants because of its military might and the fact that it has nukes. Yes. Do not proliferate nuclear weapons. It’s not a big ask. > you’d better be close friends with someone who has nukes This is a completely acceptable and reasonable solution. It is how most of Europe operates.
- nsingh2 1y ago
  > Yes. Do not proliferate nuclear weapons. It’s not a big ask. It's a very big ask to not proliferate nuclear weapons, because nukes correlate with sovereignty. You didn’t address that point at all. > This is a completely acceptable and reasonable solution. It is how most of Europe operates. US friendship in the case of Iran means a puppet ruler (Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the last Shah of Iran). And now Europe is in the process of decoupling itself from the US. Not to mention how the US completely dropped support for Ukraine. Turns out relying on an "ally" for defense like this is not such a great idea. Israel also understands this, and so has multiple nukes in its arsenal. Why did Israel "simply" not proliferate nuclear weapons even when it enjoyed the protection and support of the US?

yibg 1y ago

If I was Iran, or any country on the US's naughty list, I would be trying to build a nuke as quickly and quietly as I can. It seems to be the only way to not get bombed.

HellDunkel 1y ago
If you botch the "quiet" part this seems more of a plan to get bombed quickly.
- yibg 1y ago
  Probabilities. Given the track record in the region and the relationships involved, not getting a nuke seamless will lead to getting bombed with almost 100% certainty over a long enough period. If they botch the quiet part, they'll almost certainly get bombed in the short term, which may or may not lead to the end of the project. But then will almost certain prevent getting bombed more in the future.

jjk166 1y ago

They tried that. Saddam gassed them.