So, to branch from the above summary, I would like to talk to what it would mean on an international scale if Iran were to harness the technology to manufacture a nuclear weapons.
As of right now there are only Five states with Nuclear Weapons. Those states all hold significant power specifically with respect to deterrence. As discussed in lecture today, deterrence is the ability for one state to stop another state from doing something. The important difference here is between deterrence and nuclear deterrence. Since nuclear weapons have been added to the arsenal of some nations, it makes going to war with those nations far more costly. Costly because of the potential offensive threat that they pose. So, we can make the argument that, in some sense, nuclear deterrence is much stronger that deterrence, especially when such few countries have that advantage. It follows, if Iran were have nuclear weapons, then their ability to deter attacks and threats would be significantly heightened.
Very relevant post Antonio. While I can see why Iran would want to build power through nuclear weapons, I do not think it is a good idea given the threat that Iran poses to us. On one side, it doesn't exactly seem fair that only five states that posses nuclear weapons. Being one of these states, it is very easy to see the benefit that it provides for the nation. But coming from states that do not posses these capabilities, it is very understanding where the unfairness occurs. Any country that does not posses nuclear weapons, would be foolish to engage in any kind of conflict with a country that does. Hence the deterrence factor. This being said, I can see at least partially why Iran wants to posses nuclear weapons, but I do not think that this is a good idea, especially when its countries that do not seem stable.
ReplyDeleteVery few states have nuclear weapons, but how probable is a nuclear threat? Yes it means that those states that possess nuclear weapons have a high deterrence rate, but in my opinion the use of nuclear weapons is an empty threat. There are too many variables that go along with a nuclear strike on a country. We are trying to stop other states from obtaining nuclear weapons, so that we have a military advantage in the international community. The problem lies with unstable actors or states obtaining nuclear weapons, because they are unpredictable and would possibly use them. This is why I believe that a terrorist organization that has very few nuclear weapons, would be more dangerous that the U.S. with our stockpiles.
ReplyDeleteGreat post! I think that the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence is dependent on who they are trying to deter. If Iran was trying to deter the United States...I am not sure that it would work very well. Iran's nuclear capabilities are not nearly as advanced as ours. However, if they were bargaining with other states in the middle east, this may be a different situation. It is concerning that when Iran gets a nuclear weapon that this will start a power shift and security dilemma in the middle east...
ReplyDeleteI agree with Morgan's comment on this post. Iran using its nuclear program to create weapons does not have much effect on US-Iranian relations, besides possibly increased sanctions. Iran possessing nuclear weapons would dramatically change the balance of power in the region. As it stands, Iran is surrounded by nuclear powers of Pakistan, Israel, Russia, and India. Thus, it is clear why Iran would want better their security and build their own stockpile of extremely destructive weapons. The Israelis preventing this deal from being passed is no surprise as it would significantly upset security in the region as a whole .
ReplyDeleteI don't think Iran should have nuclear weapons. Only five states have them and even that is too much, the nuclear weapon was created but now it is something that a lot of people wish was never created. Iran ties to terrorism and likeliness to sell nuclear weapons is exponentially greater risk than any of the other states that has nuclear weapons now. I do not believe Iran would use them against another country because the costs of using them is too great but I feel they are not above selling them to radical groups to help boost their poor economy. This would be an even greater risk to the rest of the world. Iran just can not be trusted with nuclear weapons and should have its program shut down.
ReplyDeleteI think having nuclear weapons would quite clearly advance their ability to deter threats and attacks. The problem with Iran having these weapons is that the leadership of the country is not one that the international community trusts to have them. Should they gain nuclear capabilities, some suggest that they would sell this technology to other countries or groups of people we don't want to have them. Furthermore, I think this would increase hostilities with Israel who would likely have a proactive "strike first" mentality that could further destabilize the region.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Morgan and Justin when they say it wouldn't have much impact on US-Iran relations, but it would understandably change the balance of power in the region. In relation to the post above there have been articles published recently, however, that if Iran were to develop nuclear capabilities, the chances of terrorist organizations acquiring nuclear capabilities increases. Whether it's simply the fact that there would be an increase in physical materials or that the chances of organizations buying them increases, it is a bigger threat with more nuclear material in that area. This isn't something that is widely reported on, so there isn't a lot of detail about it. I just thought it was interesting.
ReplyDelete