WI open nuclear testing by North Korea & Iran ?

[raharris1973]

What if in May 2003 North Korea openly tested a nuclear weapon? And this was followed in July 2003 by an Iranian test of a nuclear weapon?

What policy responses would be possible by outside powers?

1. Opponents of the Iraq war could have the satisfaction of saying to the Americans, "Hey, you missed"

2. Open nuclear arsenals for both of the countries would be scary however and might lead some western powers to cooperate more.

Does the US consider attacking one of the two while the arsenal is relatively small?

3. Do any US allies consider developing their own deterrent?

4. Does the US continue to discourage its allies (Japan and South Korea are two that I have prominently in mind, but Saudi Arabia would be another one) from developing nuclear weapons - or, with the proliferation cat out of the bag, does it prefer an NRA approach of having good allies be nuclear-armed?

 

[Chris]

Well, regarding NK, i suspect that the US would press the chinese to knock over Kim as soon as possible, or, failing that, do the job themselves.

On iran, the US could invade, or force them to give power to the reformanists, or something like that. OTOH, the reformanists might try to take power as soon as the bomb goes off - in fear of the US hitting first. Isreal might just hit them too.

 

[MerryPrankster]

Hmmm...the Iraq situation at those points hasn't gotten TOO dire, so perhaps some kind of US effort (an Osirak style raid to destroy the nukes or perhaps even another attempt at "regime change") might be conceivable.

If it's North Korea doing something unpleasant, the US could get really multilateral and join in with Russia and China to take Kim down. THAT's an area where the "international community" would be willing to drop bombs.

Iran is a different matter...even with the nuke, most of the populace still hates the mullahs. If the reformers overthrow the mullahs, will the US insist that the new democratic gov't give up the nuke? Iran does live in a dangerous neighborhood after all, and many in the US believe that "democracies don't start wars."

 

[MerryPrankster]

Whether the Iranians test their bomb two months after North Korea depends on what happens to North Korea. If the whole world comes down on the NKs, then perhaps Iran keeps quiet for awhile until it's better prepared (multiple nukes, with missiles targeted on various useful targets).

Hmm...how successful would an Israeli attack on Iran be? Iran is more powerful and better-armed than Iraq was in 1981 (Osirak was in '81, right?), but the Israelis are pretty darn hard-core. Could they mount a good enough air defense to destroy/drive back an Israeli raid and protect their new nukes?

 

[corourke]

The Chinese would NOT tolerate a nuclear-armed Korea on their border with enough gall to be testing the nukes.

The Chinese would probably invade hours after the nuke went off, with explicit US approval.

An interesting situation: Would, upon subduing North Korea, would the Chinese force unification? How would the brownie points the Chinese got for doing that affect their relationship with Taiwan?

 

[Susano]

Osirak was a nuclear REACTOR, and a peaceful one at this. Israel could hit because it pretty much was a civilian building standing in the open.
Our scenario, though, is that Iran already HAS a nuke. Which you can pretty much store in a bunker in Even-god-does-not-know-where.
Israel would have to wage a proper war, and for a major long-range operation like this I do not think it ha sthe equipment.

 

[aktarian]

Iran is a different matter...even with the nuke, most of the populace still hates the mullahs. If the reformers overthrow the mullahs, will the US insist that the new democratic gov't give up the nuke? Iran does live in a dangerous neighborhood after all, and many in the US believe that "democracies don't start wars."

Small correction. Majority of population dislikes mullahs, not activelly hates them. Meaning? That Iranians are far more likelly to rally around regime if something happens then Iraqis were to rally around their regime in 03.

Also Iranians can count on far larger percentage of population that supports them than Saddam could.

 

[aktarian]

Hmm...how successful would an Israeli attack on Iran be? Iran is more powerful and better-armed than Iraq was in 1981 (Osirak was in '81, right?), but the Israelis are pretty darn hard-core. Could they mount a good enough air defense to destroy/drive back an Israeli raid and protect their new nukes?

Several things:
1. Iraq had all eggs in one basket. Iranians learned form that.
2. IDF/AF had pretty good picture of what's what, largely thanks to IRIAF. No such intel would exist now regarding Iranian program.
3. Opera was launched agaisnt Iraq, this would be Iran. Far greater distances.
4. Iraqis never suspected soemthign might happen. Iranians are expecting strike. they would be far more prepared.
5. Better defences and defences designed to protect those sites..

 

[Proctol]

WI in response to the Iranian test, the Israelis let off a nuke under the Negev, enough to let the seismographers in Tehran know they are playing with fire? The Iranians, although also Muslims, are not Arabs. The Arab world, especially Egypt, would literally go ballistic!

The Israeli Ofeq spy satellites fly over Iran every 90 minutes in ultra-low orbits,so they are are certainly aware of Iranian locations and moves
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/space/ofeq-3/OFEQ-3.html
http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/space/ofeq-5/OFEQ-5.html

 

[aktarian]

WI in response to the Iranian test, the Israelis let off a nuke under the Negev, enough to let the seismographers in Tehran know they are playing with fire? The Iranians, although also Muslims, are not Arabs. The Arab world, especially Egypt, would literally go ballistic!

Despite efforts to portrait them as such Iranians (regime) aren't stupid. They know what Israel has, what it's capable of. They (Iranians) also have history of pragmatic moves that ran counter to their declarations. So I think that Israeli deterrent will work. sPecially as Iran doesn't gain anything with nuking Israel.

 

[MerryPrankster]

"Also Iranians can count on far larger percentage of population that supports them than Saddam could."

True. A US attempt at "regime change" would be a long, bloody nightmare, though we (the US) would ultimately win.

"Small correction. Majority of population dislikes mullahs, not activelly hates them. Meaning? That Iranians are far more likelly to rally around regime if something happens then Iraqis were to rally around their regime in 03."

True. However, I did read an interview with a member of the Revolutionary Guard, theoretically the hardest of the hard-core supporters of the regime, and he didn't even like them. However, you are correct; it's not like there's a semi-colonial situation going like in Iraq (Sunnis ruling over Shi'ites).

 

[Peter Cowan]

In this case, the US and its allies do have a significant advantage. Both Iran and North Korea are signatories to the Non-proliferation treaty, thus development of nuclear weapons is illegal. Under such circumstances the UN would be obliged to act. Israel, India, Pakistan and the former South African regime had not signed the treaty so could develop nuclear weapons.

To be honest though, the possession of nukes and the means to deliver them does allow a country to cock a snook at the international community. I doubt any Western government (and that includes Israel) would attack a nuclear armed power if one of their own cities were to be at risk. Retaliation, of course, is a separate issue.