Its noteworthy in combination with what I said above that in Europe there is growing doubt that the US would indeed protect Europe with nuclear arms if the Russians would strike. Would the government in Washington really risk nuclear retaliation against L.A, San Francisco, New york, Chicago, to "defend" places in Europe?

Would Paris accept the annihilation of French cities if the Russians strike first against cities in other NATO countries? Would London?

Dont take it as an offence, but I answer all three question with No. And I have no doubt on that reply.

Nuclear deterrance is a tricky and surprisingly complex affair. In the Ukraine thread two months ago or so I linked to an essay that described how tricky and complex deterrance and escalation really are. Public opinion takes things for granted on this topic that are not true.

We do not need all those heating pumps for which we will not have enough electricity in the forseeable future anyway (the French already have problems again with droughts and low cooling water levels for their reactors...). We need more war production much more urgently. And desalination plants, it seems. :)


We are too many.

My next question is:

Is it possible to prevent Iran from reaching their goal - to build nukes ?

If it's impossible to do so-

I try to imagine a middle east with a country like Iran with nukes.

Markus

They tried to delay and prevent, by sabotage,k tartgeted assassination, cyber warfare. Since 20 years. And here we are now. See story in the first post.



Delay is not prevention. Time is ultimately running out.

'Thinking further afield'

How would Putin react seeing one of his few allies being attacked?

Quite possibly, "We'd better strike now because we will be next"

No, he knows that different to Iran Russia HAS nukes already.



Once Iran has nukes it is too late to do anything to them. Now still is time.



Once I have finished pointing my pistol at your head its too late for you. You have to take me out before I have completed that move.

Too big a gamble in my estimation and possibly the same reason nobody has acted in such a manner thus far.

Iran may be on its way to point their gun against the head of Israel, but rest assure that there are several guns pointing towards Irans head too.

Markus

That logic is toothless if you have more to loose than the Iranians. I try to bring this point across in this thread repeatedly. Teheran has 7.2 million population, Mashad, thwe second largest city, 2.3 million. London has 14 million, Paris 12 million, the Ruhr area 11-12 million. And the economical value of the latter three are lightyears beyond that of Teheran and Mashad.

Only one side is deterred here from raising nuclear threats - us.


And you again ignore the threats form prliferation, and terrorism going nuclear, and the incalculatable risks of a nuclear arms race in the irrational, sentiments-heavy, religiously and nationaistically fanatized ME. Turkey. Saudi Arabia. Egypt. In the long run even Libya and Algeria are contenders for joining the race.

I did not ignore it-I just didn't think of it when I wrote my latest comment.

Markus

Keep a cool head Marc, I know exactly the points you raise but I simply don't see any pre-emptive first strike coming from the west.

Now if that means a city or more is targeted first then so be it but it would lead to total annihilation of Iran surely.

That is what is known as M.A.D.

Mutual Assured Destruction