Nukes, latent nukes and no nukes
You may have heard recent news about Israel and the United States bombing Iran, supposedly to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons.
I don’t want to get lost in the weeds on this. I just have one thing I want to clarify:
The reason Iran has been ‘weeks away from developing nuclear weapons’ for decades is because it has a strategic position of latent nuclear capability.
Being on the ‘nuclear threshold’ allows a nation to deter attack without going through all the effort, expense and diplomatic strife of actually developing nuclear weapons and delivery capabilities.
The threat is, ‘If you invade us you’d better be quick, because in a few weeks we might be hurling something really nasty at you.’
Some nations can even do it while sticking to the rules of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, if they are members. Iran is a signatory but appears to have enriched uranium beyond what the treaty allows.
Latent nuclear capability can also be used as a bargaining chip. That is, they can offer to trade away some of their nuclear technology in return for concessions on sanctions and so on. Iran did this back in the Obama years.
At the moment, being a latent nuclear power doesn’t seem to be working out too well for Iran. It got bombed and humiliated.
On the other hand, it avoided invasion all through the War on Terror years, and has also thwarted attempts at colour revolution regime change. So, not a total failure perhaps.
Still, nations with actual nukes that thumbed their noses totally at the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (Israel, North Korea, India, Pakistan) have done much better. America leaves them alone.
Read More
















