Letters to the Editor
-
Iran and Nuclear weapons
Just some points on all Iran and nuclear weapons.
We already have the umbrella agreement with many countries. We don't have to place weapons in the state to launch them into Iran. Our nuclear triad is bombers, submarines, and ICBM's. You can put a Ohio class sub in the Arabian gulf. No need for bombers in Iraq. The instability of the region would prohibit this idea anyway since terrorists could potentially seize one of the warheads much more easily.
As far as Israel, they are widely believed to already have a nuclear arsenal even though they have not declared such. Israel does not need our assurances to defend their country from Iran. As for the other states there, that may be an issue and Saudi Arabia is one state that would consider nuclear weapons if Iran were to obtain them.
Under Iran's current capabilities, they could have enough material for 1 weapon in 10 years. This is an estimate but most believe that from what we know from the IAEA, this is pretty close. Iran is enriching Uranium, which could be used for a simpler nuclear weapon. However, unless they have the infrastructure and scientific knowledge of the weapon on the scale of the U.S. during the Manhattan project, they would most likely need to test such a weapon. (The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was a Uranium weapon and was not tested because scientists were sure it would work) A test would not go unnoticed, nor would Iran wish it to be, by the rest of the world. This suggests they would need to enrich longer to gain more material for a weapon.
The other method of obtaining the material needed (plutonium) is to build a reactor. Iran is expected to complete their reactor at Bushehr soon. However, after this is done, you need to have facilities to separate the spent fuel material after use. After this you need to have more advanced knowledge of bomb making to use Plutonium for a bomb, which is not as simple as a Uranium bomb.
So, those are more or less the facts of the situation. What you use that information for is up to debate.
From my perspective, for Hillary to state she would "obliterate" Iran is more saber rattling and politics than anything else. There is time to "deal" with Iran on nuclear weapons but the most effective way, in my view, is to start with diplomacy and genuine talks to deal with the situation. While I do not believe any nation that builds a nuclear weapon ever intends on using it, building it would create even more tensions in an already tense region.