It won’t make the Iranians happy. They believe their country has as much a right to nukes as any other, and it would be wrong for America to stop them when America has nukes. I doubt they feel the same about stealing nukes.
Also, they’re denying blowing up the bus. Nukes aren’t very useful if you deny having them.
That would be worse than not having nukes at all. If anyone finds out who used the nukes, they will end you. If not, you will horribly damage the economy, which will hurt you a lot.
Sometimes states (or rulers or generals) are deluded about their chances in war; or accept high risks of being destroyed in exchange for a high chance of destroying someone else first; or don’t think in terms of rational cost/benefit or risk/prize analysis at all.
If not, you will horribly damage the economy, which will hurt you a lot.
I don’t understand. If you nuke an enemy and nobody knows it was you, then presumably you damage their economy, not your own, which would not hurt you. What did you mean?
That’s not an argument against nukes, but against all war and indeed all large scale hostile actions. The argument itself aside, I observe that in actual practice this does not deter nations from waging ruinous war. Hell, it doesn’t even stop them from waging ruinous civil war, ethnic cleansing, etc. which damage their own economy. People may not be rational economic agents, but more importantly, they aren’t agents who care about the economy over other things.
Yeah. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of nuclear annihilation, but you can’t really do that without being overt. The best you could do is a few suitcase nukes.
Why not? They probably just blew up a bus full of Israelis in Bulgaria.
It won’t make the Iranians happy. They believe their country has as much a right to nukes as any other, and it would be wrong for America to stop them when America has nukes. I doubt they feel the same about stealing nukes.
Also, they’re denying blowing up the bus. Nukes aren’t very useful if you deny having them.
Depends how believable your denial is. Israel does it all the time.
Unless you intend to use them as actual weapons, rather than strategic deterrence. Then they’re most useful if noone else believes you have them.
That would be worse than not having nukes at all. If anyone finds out who used the nukes, they will end you. If not, you will horribly damage the economy, which will hurt you a lot.
Sometimes states (or rulers or generals) are deluded about their chances in war; or accept high risks of being destroyed in exchange for a high chance of destroying someone else first; or don’t think in terms of rational cost/benefit or risk/prize analysis at all.
I don’t understand. If you nuke an enemy and nobody knows it was you, then presumably you damage their economy, not your own, which would not hurt you. What did you mean?
There’s a world economy. If you damage a country that much, they won’t be able to trade with you.
That’s not an argument against nukes, but against all war and indeed all large scale hostile actions. The argument itself aside, I observe that in actual practice this does not deter nations from waging ruinous war. Hell, it doesn’t even stop them from waging ruinous civil war, ethnic cleansing, etc. which damage their own economy. People may not be rational economic agents, but more importantly, they aren’t agents who care about the economy over other things.
Yeah. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of nuclear annihilation, but you can’t really do that without being overt. The best you could do is a few suitcase nukes.