Things like the Knesset, attempts to knock out the entire military leadership simultaneously, maybe some sort of attack designed to wipe out a significant % of Israelis although I don't know what that would look like (maybe some sort of hit to take out food distribution or water).
Attacks trying to topple the Israeli state, in essence. Knocking out profitable capital is quite unlikely to do it.
I don't think any of that would provoke a nuclear response. As long as the Iranians stay away from NBC attacks, the Israelis aren't going to nuke them.
I don't know what you classify as existential. But unfortunately it is drop-dead easy to make a fission bomb and even easier to make (multiple) dirty bombs. Iran has the pieces to do these things many times over. Hell, by now they could have deployed dirty bombs abroad in multiple locations and we'd never know.
The only reason the USA doesn't flatten Iran with nukes is that the USA fears Russia will view it as an "all bets are off!" action and will do the same to Ukraine et al. Which is probably true right now.
lol no. Iran hasn't yet been able to enrich uranium to the necessary purity to make a bomb. Yes, making a bomb is easy once you have the materials. Getting the materials is very difficult. If by "dirty bombs" you mean a conventional bomb with radioisotopes mixed in... well, the use of that kind of weapon would probably get Iran invaded, but since it's not a very practical weapon it wouldn't affect the strategic situation.
Nuking Iran was never in the cards. We could have done that in 1979 and any time since. Ukraine has nothing to do with it. The red lines that would provoke a nuclear response from the US are pretty well known -- the US foreign policy establishment hashed out this stuff 75 years ago. Iran could get nuked by the US if it used NBC weapons against the US or our allies. No amount of bad behavior with conventional weapons is going to do it.
People in charge of nuclear armed countries are worried about the end of the so-called "nuclear taboo" which has kept countries from using nukes for 80 years, and they're not going to break it over a third rate power like Iran unless that third rate power actually acquires nukes and makes a credible threat to use them. We didn't use them in Korea or Vietnam. We didn't use them in Afghanistan. We haven't nuked North Korea. All more serious situations than the one in which we find ourselves today.
When somebody finally does break that taboo the world will be a much, much more dangerous place for everyone and planners in places like Washington, Moscow, and Beijing know it. Once a nuclear weapon is used, especially by a country with a large arsenal, every country that could have nukes but doesn't is going to have nukes.
Here's a good video on the topic concentrating on the possible Russian use of nukes in Ukraine:
No, Ukraine is not the (sole) reason. USA has been in multiple wars since 1945, and never used the bomb again. They know the value of the nuclear tabu, and are not interested in breaking it, independently of the situation in Ukraine. They also have enough conventional weapons to level Iran with those, so they dont need to use nukes.
In addition I would hope that even in the morally bankrupt state USA is in today, murdering 92 million people would cause some political problems (but this might be naive of me).
Doesn’t matter. This question turns entirely on what Israel’s leadership thinks. If they’re faced with an existential threat, nukes are likely on the table.
> The only reason the USA doesn't flatten Iran with nukes is that the USA fears Russia will view it as an "all bets are off!" action and will do the same to Ukraine et al. Which is probably true right now.
That is not the only reason the United States doesn’t flatten Iran with nukes. It’s not even a consideration. How are you even arriving at such a conclusion?
Things like the Knesset, attempts to knock out the entire military leadership simultaneously, maybe some sort of attack designed to wipe out a significant % of Israelis although I don't know what that would look like (maybe some sort of hit to take out food distribution or water).
Attacks trying to topple the Israeli state, in essence. Knocking out profitable capital is quite unlikely to do it.
I don't think any of that would provoke a nuclear response. As long as the Iranians stay away from NBC attacks, the Israelis aren't going to nuke them.
Samson option
> What target could the Iranians hit you believe would provoke a nuclear response?
Anything existential. (Tehran doesn’t currently have that capability.)
I don't know what you classify as existential. But unfortunately it is drop-dead easy to make a fission bomb and even easier to make (multiple) dirty bombs. Iran has the pieces to do these things many times over. Hell, by now they could have deployed dirty bombs abroad in multiple locations and we'd never know.
The only reason the USA doesn't flatten Iran with nukes is that the USA fears Russia will view it as an "all bets are off!" action and will do the same to Ukraine et al. Which is probably true right now.
lol no. Iran hasn't yet been able to enrich uranium to the necessary purity to make a bomb. Yes, making a bomb is easy once you have the materials. Getting the materials is very difficult. If by "dirty bombs" you mean a conventional bomb with radioisotopes mixed in... well, the use of that kind of weapon would probably get Iran invaded, but since it's not a very practical weapon it wouldn't affect the strategic situation.
Nuking Iran was never in the cards. We could have done that in 1979 and any time since. Ukraine has nothing to do with it. The red lines that would provoke a nuclear response from the US are pretty well known -- the US foreign policy establishment hashed out this stuff 75 years ago. Iran could get nuked by the US if it used NBC weapons against the US or our allies. No amount of bad behavior with conventional weapons is going to do it.
People in charge of nuclear armed countries are worried about the end of the so-called "nuclear taboo" which has kept countries from using nukes for 80 years, and they're not going to break it over a third rate power like Iran unless that third rate power actually acquires nukes and makes a credible threat to use them. We didn't use them in Korea or Vietnam. We didn't use them in Afghanistan. We haven't nuked North Korea. All more serious situations than the one in which we find ourselves today.
When somebody finally does break that taboo the world will be a much, much more dangerous place for everyone and planners in places like Washington, Moscow, and Beijing know it. Once a nuclear weapon is used, especially by a country with a large arsenal, every country that could have nukes but doesn't is going to have nukes.
Here's a good video on the topic concentrating on the possible Russian use of nukes in Ukraine:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxOO0hCCSk4
9 replies →
No, Ukraine is not the (sole) reason. USA has been in multiple wars since 1945, and never used the bomb again. They know the value of the nuclear tabu, and are not interested in breaking it, independently of the situation in Ukraine. They also have enough conventional weapons to level Iran with those, so they dont need to use nukes.
In addition I would hope that even in the morally bankrupt state USA is in today, murdering 92 million people would cause some political problems (but this might be naive of me).
1 reply →
> I don't know what you classify as existential
Doesn’t matter. This question turns entirely on what Israel’s leadership thinks. If they’re faced with an existential threat, nukes are likely on the table.
> The only reason the USA doesn't flatten Iran with nukes is that the USA fears Russia will view it as an "all bets are off!" action and will do the same to Ukraine et al. Which is probably true right now.
That is not the only reason the United States doesn’t flatten Iran with nukes. It’s not even a consideration. How are you even arriving at such a conclusion?