Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

If Iraq Had Had Nuclear Weapons, Would They Have Dared Been Invaded? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    What do you think?

    Maybe that's why Iran is wants nukes - and North Korea?

    Or is that incorrect?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Nukes give you security, influence and make it so other nations take you seriously. At least if you have a properly developed deterrent. I can easily see why countries want them. However the hell you have to go through to get them, as Iran, North Korea and Pakistan know hardly seems worth it. As well as this a decent conventional military will generally give you the same sort of security. Unless you are in a cold war style situation they are not worth developing.

    Back to the point if Saddam had a proper, working and well developed nuclear deterrent no he would not have been invaded. He would not be nor was allowed to get to that stage.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    No Iraq wouldn't have been invaded if it had nukes.

    There's a difference between North Korea and Iraq, or Iran now.

    North Korea is actively and openly pursuing a nuclear weapons programme and threatening to use them against its neighbours. Iraq under Saddam and Iran now both said they are not pursuing nuclear weapons programmes. It's other countries that said they were doing it. In the case of Iraq we went to war over the alleged WMDs and didn't find them.

    The perverse situation in the Middle East now is Israel - who has nuclear weapons - is the one constantly making threats to bomb Iran, and the world is complaining about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

    Iran is a destabilising force in the region not by taking an aggressive militaristic position as a state (it has lower levels of military spending than its neighbours) but by supporting paramilitary groups in other countries, it was doing this in Iraq before and after Saddam left, it did it in Afghanistan against the Taliban and against the occupying forces and it supports Hezbollah. So I don't underestimate Iran's potential as a malevolent force. However you can't go in and repeat the Iraq situation by going to war in Iran and then discovering there is nothing there.

    The other big danger is if Israel carries out 'surgical strikes' on Iran, it is going to turn Iran into the North Korea of the region, an aggressive state with an axe to grind that will then openly pursue a nukes programme and it will just be a matter of time before it gets them.

    North Korea is more dangerous right now because of its aggressive behaviour and it could easily kick off a war, they are also unpredictable enough to launch a nuclear attack if they have the capability, possibly gambling on the hope that if they used small yield nuclear weapons against military targets in Japan/S Korea/US that China would then give a firm message to everyone not to retaliate against N Korea. Although I doubt China would take that line.

    I think there's an argument for going to war with North Korea now, using their aggression here as a pretext, and go down the 'regime change' route. However I would not do the same in Iran, I would steer clear of that one.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Nukes give you security, influence and make it so other nations take you seriously. At least if you have a properly developed deterrent. I can easily see why countries want them. However the hell you have to go through to get them, as Iran, North Korea and Pakistan know hardly seems worth it. As well as this a decent conventional military will generally give you the same sort of security. Unless you are in a cold war style situation they are not worth developing.

    Back to the point if Saddam had a proper, working and well developed nuclear deterrent no he would not have been invaded. He would not be nor was allowed to get to that stage.
    So, it's fairly apparent that countries are adamant that Iran does not get nuclear weapons because it'll give them a higher bargaining position - although, we mustn't forget that another major reason is the extreme Iranian rhetoric that has been primarily directed at Israel and then the United States.

    Word on the street, however, is that an invasion of Iran will be highly necessary soon - not only due to Iran's supposedly "hostile" nature but also because of its massive gas reserves. But that is all speculation nevertheless.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    No Iraq wouldn't have been invaded if it had nukes.

    There's a difference between North Korea and Iraq, or Iran now.

    North Korea is actively and openly pursuing a nuclear weapons programme and threatening to use them against its neighbours. Iraq under Saddam and Iran now both said they are not pursuing nuclear weapons programmes. It's other countries that said they were doing it. In the case of Iraq we went to war over the alleged WMDs and didn't find them.

    The perverse situation in the Middle East now is Israel - who has nuclear weapons - is the one constantly making threats to bomb Iran, and the world is complaining about Iran's nuclear ambitions.

    Iran is a destabilising force in the region not by taking an aggressive militaristic position as a state (it has lower levels of military spending than its neighbours) but by supporting paramilitary groups in other countries, it was doing this in Iraq before and after Saddam left, it did it in Afghanistan against the Taliban and against the occupying forces and it supports Hezbollah. So I don't underestimate Iran's potential as a malevolent force. However you can't go in and repeat the Iraq situation by going to war in Iran and then discovering there is nothing there.

    The other big danger is if Israel carries out 'surgical strikes' on Iran, it is going to turn Iran into the North Korea of the region, an aggressive state with an axe to grind that will then openly pursue a nukes programme and it will just be a matter of time before it gets them.

    North Korea is more dangerous right now because of its aggressive behaviour and it could easily kick off a war, they are also unpredictable enough to launch a nuclear attack if they have the capability, possibly gambling on the hope that if they used small yield nuclear weapons against military targets in Japan/S Korea/US that China would then give a firm message to everyone not to retaliate against N Korea. Although I doubt China would take that line.

    I think there's an argument for going to war with North Korea now, using their aggression here as a pretext, and go down the 'regime change' route. However I would not do the same in Iran, I would steer clear of that one.
    I believe that it is necessary to "invade" North Korea, rather than "go to war" with them (even though that's what the former will come to anyway). This is the best time to invade them (with firing any nukes on them), as it will become increasingly difficult if they do continue to develop some devastating firepower - although there is now a lot of worried speculation that we may not actually know much about its nuclear capabilities (at least we citizens only able to read the press). But the United States and South Korea and other countries must invade now, before NK actually decides to unpredictably carry out its extreme threats.

    Also, last year Israel did indeed want to fire upon Iran and it said that when a certain line is crossed that it will. Well, in the aftermath of the failed Iranian talks (just today), the situation is quite uncertain. In these past few months, there's been little said in the Israeli-Iranian situation - Israel seems busy dealing with Gaza and Syria and whatnot (although I am sure that it is keeping a watchful eye on Iran).

    But I do find it amusing how for a lot of last year, Iran was the big bad guy, with NK briefly taking the spotlight here and there - but now, North Korea has fully taken the spotlight this year as the big bad guy, with Iran in the shadows, apparently trying to cooperate with the international community (although the talks have now failed).

    In any case, either the United States or China must invade North Korea, before it actually carries out its threats and sets off an irreversible chain of devastating events.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Although it's kind of a weird question, there might be some truth to it. Iraq did have WMDs at one point, but co-operated with the UN to destroy them all in accordance with international law. The only reason the US was able to use the whole WMD thing as a justification was because Iraq was a little bit slower/didn't quite tick all the boxes for the UN yet.

    Libya was pursuing nuclear goals at one point, but Gadaffi abandoned them after pressure from Bush, and we all know what happened to Gadaffi. So it's easy to see why Iran wouldn't be in a hurry to ditch the nuclear programme in light of recent trends. I don't blame them either.

    North Korea is a very strange case, I'm not sure whose benefit the threats are for, but I imagine it might just be a political play to assert Jong-un's power IN North Korea if he feels his regime is getting a little shaky.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with Iraq was that they weren't co-operating with the weapons inspectors. Saddam had previous in using WMDs, they were his weapon of choice, he used them liberally in the Iran-Iraq war (which he had started, but then was in danger of losing when the Iranians not only rejected his peace offer but launched a counter-invasion into Iraq). And he used them against Kurdish populations in Iraq. So he was obviously well known as a nutter who would think nothing of using them and given that he showed in the 1991 war that he could hit Tel Aviv with scuds, he was a threat if he could top them with WMD warheads.

    Hence a strict regime of sanctions to force him to disestablish them and allow weapons inspectors in. Had Saddam played ball the sanctions would have been lifted sooner. Also in the lead up to 2003, when admittedly he didn't have WMDs anyway, the question is why did he not comply with the inspectors. He was being awkward, either just to annoy the West or maybe because he thought it was an insult to have inspectors crawling round his country and suspected this as being a Trojan horse to let in US spies. Which is probably also Iran's thinking too.

    Iran should be open with the international community and let inspectors in but see how it looks from their perspective:

    - Israel has openly talked about attacking Iran on multiple occasions
    - Western powers have attacked enemies like the Taliban, Saddam and Gaddafi (all Iran's enemies too) who didn't have WMDs to respond with
    - allowing foreign inspectors full access to gather intelligence about Iran's capabilities just gives a military advantage should Israel or the West want to attack Iran
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    depends on the stage... if they were at say a north korean stage they have a working bomb but cant realisticly deploy it then i would imagine that wouldnt be to much of a deterrant if however they could deliver it happily via missile the US might have taken a double take on it.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.