What does a nuclear Iran mean to us?

[RockHardCore]

You know the Right is saying that it is the end of time as we know it, but honestly I don't know what it would be like 1 year later, 5 years, 20 years?

[Deja Q]

1. No need to spend $50 for a new Haier or GE microwave every 2 years?

:shrug:

It'll be free energy for all! :party:

Knowing that, you know no nukes will be launched. :smoke:

[havocmom]

2. Means somebody with oil that we can't invade

and steal from

[Dhalgren]

3. It means more stability in the Middle East...

[NNN0LHI]

4. We won't be able to go in and steal their oil and gas, Sir

We will have to actually pay for it. Maybe in euros?

Don

[leesa]

6. Exactly, and that's TERRIFIES right wingers.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Funny how the euro subject ref. oil

dropped out of sight. It doesn't follow that the USA would need to pay for it in euros - maybe they just wouldn't be allowed to buy any. :)

Aside from that , yes , Iran could decided only to sell in euros which would have no bearing on Europe which uses the euro anyway and China & India both of whom have huge euro reserves.
Might only have a minor affect on the £ but likely a huge effect on the value of the $.

[endarkenment]

5. We should examine the history of other nations that

have developed nuclear power. Perhaps that would shed some light on what we could expect from a nuclear Iran.

[Strelnikov_]

7. In Real Terms, Very Little

It will take them, what, five to ten years to produce a bomb. Maybe another 10 years to have, say 20-30 'Fat Man' class weapons. So, in 20 years they would maybe have enough to exert leverage over gulf resources.

Thing is, what about all the bombs pointed at them if they mis-calculate?

Also, how much of the energy resource in the gulf is going to remain after 20 years? Been following the depletion rate/reserves overestimation issue?

No. In the near term, all it means is that Iran could not be invaded for their energy resources.

Unless one thinks that they plan to commit national suicide by putting the first one on a missile and launching it at Israel the first chance they get. They are blustering theocrats, but I do not think they are nuts. Persia has been around for a long time.

I am more concerned with how loose Pakistan's program is (especially after a key assassination or two).

[tuvor]

8. Not nearly as much as a nuclear USA means to the whole world.

(And let's not forget Russia, China, England, and France.)

A drop in the bucket, Iran is.

[Ravenseye]

10. The problem isn't Iran

I doubt that Iran itself would ever launch a nuclear weapon. They have a very different worldview from us but that doesn't make them stupid. If Iran were to use a nuclear weapon they know that the hammer would come down hard and fast, not just from condemnation of the international community but direct reprisal, whether it be from Israel or the U.S. in the form of nuclear bombs dropping on them...

That said, I don't think it would be entirely unlikely for Iran to share their nuclear technology. Heck we were frightened what would happen to the excess Soviet nuclear weapons that were lodged in the Ukraine, Kazakstan, and other former Soviet republics. Why wouldn't we be frightened about Iran. Is their security far suprerior to that of Russia, with U.S. and U.N. monitors? Iran, without being monitored, could deveop a nuclear bomb, and then very easily with or without an order from their government see one of those bombs fall into the hands of Al Qaeda or another terrorist organization.

These might sound like RW talking points, but it's true. The Republicans put us in a very tough spot right now. After 9/11 we had most of the worlds sympathy, including the muslim world. That's now gone. It's been gone for awhile. Their policies have created more terrorism, and made more people hate us and willing to find those nuclear bombs and use them on us. We're far less safe now than we were 6 years go. The fact is that if Iran were to get a nuclear bomb, while I doubt they would directly use it, I don't trust that internally someone wouldn't get one of those bombs to a terrorist organization. I feel the same way about North Korea, and Pakistan honestly.

So what do we do? I think any direct physical intervention would just drum up more anger and if anything delay the inevitable.

I think our entire policy needs to shift. I think we have some hard decisions to make, but mainly we need to stop poking the bear and complaining that the bear is swiping back at us. If we poke at someone, they're gonna eventually poke back. We don't need to become supplicant to them, but we need to respect all other countries, and quit treating them with disdain. It'll be a long hard slog, and we'll probably take a couple shots along the way, but it's the only path to lasting peace and prosperity for everyone.

[newyawker99]

11. Hi RockHardCore!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[LSK]

12. nothing

Iran has not started a war in over 200 years.

[Lance_Boyle]

13. Glow-in-the-dark Turrists?

Or maybe, just *maybe*, a nuclear Iran might be every bit as scary as a nuclear France.

[Xenotime]

14. I think that N. Korea, Pakistan, Iran, Russia, China will launch an

assault on the U.S. and like Katrina & 9-11 * will do nothing.

[KurtNYC]

15. Imagine Pat Robertson with nukes

running a whole oil-rich, theocratic country and backing militias that attack Israel.

[noonwitch]

16. A nuclear Iran is a serious threat to Israel

Considering their president would like to wipe Israel off the map-if he has a weapon that could reach Jerusalem and inflict serious damage, he will use it.

They could attack our soldiers in Iraq with a nuke. Whatever your opinion is about the war there, no one wants to see something like that happen.

[LSK]

17. based on what???

The right wing MSM's misrepresentation of Iran???