Secret Iranian Nuclear Bombs

[longbrained]

The topic of nuclear weaponization of Iranian state is an old one that goes even before that of Iranian revolution. There was even a novel written on a possible nuclear armed Iran in mid 1970's. Today, Iran is working on a full fledged nuclear programme and is operating some nuclear reactors and enrichment facilities which gives Iran the break away capability to pull out of NPT and manufacture nuclear bombs if it ever decides to do so. A confirmed nuclear armed Iran will change how Iran will be perceived internationally almost overnight and will make Iran the member of a select group of countries which are capable of projecting extreme military power.

Currently there are only 8 confirmed nuclear states plus Israel which holds secret nuclear weapons but has never confirmed their existence by a test. There are as well atleast a dozen countries which have the break away capability among them Japan, South Korea and others. If Iran ever tests a nuclear device, Israel will follow with its own tests to balance Iranian power. Right now the question on every one's mind in the world is if Iran has only break away capability or already is in possession of nukes. The idea that Iran might already have nukes is a recent one and only limited amount of analysis exists to that effect. But since almost all nuclear armed nations have made their first bombs in secrecy, all of them had during their history an era in which they were secretly nuclear armed nations and had secret nuclear bombs. For some this era was very short eg. United States and for others this era was longer as was the case with Pakistan which had nukes long before its first tests.

This is what recently has come up on internet that argues Iran is already is such a state having had nuclear weapons for a while now but because of political reasons has kept it secret. Whatever the probability of such a thing, there is one things which is sure and solid. Iran being a large country with sufficient economic power does have the capability to make secret locations and run a parallel weaponization program as a kind of a guarantee against any kind of aggression on it soil. Some believe that Iran already has nukes and others believe Iran just has attained a break away capability. But only perhaps the highest echelons of power in Iran know the exact truth about the matter. There are always tell tale signs. For example no other nation in history has till date developed a medium range ballistic missile program before having built nukes except Iran, that is if we accept Iranians have not yet built any nukes till now. Then there are further questions if the suspicion of Iran's secret nukes holds eg. how many nukes they already have and if they are building new ones too?

Read more below from some professional analysts who try to explore the issue further.

---------- Post added at 02:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:47 PM ----------

One analysis about Iran's secret nukes:

The pressure the United States and the West is bringing to bear on Iran to keep it from acquiring nuclear weapons is all for naught. Not only does the Islamic Republic already have nuclear weapons from the old Soviet Union, but it has enough enriched uranium for more. What’s worse, it has a delivery system.

The West for nearly a decade has worried about Iran’s uranium enhancement, believing Iran is working on a nuclear bomb, though the government maintains its uranium is only for peaceful purposes.

When Iran began its nuclear program in the mid-1980s, I was working as a spy for the CIA within the Revolutionary Guards. The Guards‘ intelligence at that time had learned of Saddam Hussein’s attempt to buy a nuclear bomb for Iraq. Guard commanders concluded that they needed a nuclear bomb because if Saddam were to get his own, he would use it against Iran. At that time, the two countries were at war.

Mohsen Rezaei, then-chief commander of the Guards, received permission from the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to start a covert program to obtain nuclear weapons, so the Guards contacted Pakistani generals and Abdul Qadeer Khan, the Pakistani nuclear scientist.

Commander Ali Shamkhani traveled to Pakistan, offering billions of dollars for a bomb, but ended up with a blueprint and centrifuges instead. The first centrifuge was transferred to Iran on Khomeini’s personal plane.

In a second but parallel attempt to amass nuclear weapons, Iran turned to the former Soviet republics. When the Soviet Union dissolved in 1990, Iran coveted thousands of tactical nuclear warheads that had been dispersed in the former republics.

In the early 1990s, the CIA asked me to find an Iranian scientist who would testify that Iran had the bomb. The CIA had learned that Iranian intelligence agents were visiting nuclear installations throughout the former Soviet Union, with particular interest in Kazakhstan.

Kazakhstan, which had a significant portion of the Soviet arsenal and is predominately Muslim, was courted by Muslim Iran with offers of hundreds of millions of dollars for the bomb. Reports soon surfaced that three nuclear warheads were missing. This was corroborated by Russian Gen. Victor Samoilov, who handled the disarmament issues for the general staff. He admitted that the three were missing from Kazakhstan.

Meanwhile, Paul Muenstermann, then vice president of the German Federal Intelligence Service, said Iran had received two of the three nuclear warheads and medium-range nuclear delivery systems from Kazakhstan. It also was reported that Iran had purchased four 152 mm nuclear shells from the former Soviet Union, which were reportedly stolen and sold by former Red Army officers.

To make matters worse, several years later, Russian officials stated that when comparing documents in transferring nuclear weapons from Ukraine to Russia, there was a discrepancy of 250 nuclear weapons.

Last week, Mathew Nasuti, a former U.S. Air Force captain who was at one point hired by the State Department as an adviser to one of its provincial reconstruction teams in Iraq, said that in March 2008, during a briefing on Iran at the State Department, the department’s Middle East expert told the group that it was “common knowledge” that Iran had acquired tactical nuclear weapons from one or more of the former Soviet republics.

Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, an experienced intelligence officer and recipient of a Bronze Star, told me that his sources say Iran has two workable nuclear warheads.

An editorial in Kayhan, the Iranian newspaper directly under the supervision of the Office of the Supreme Leader, last year warned that if Iran were attacked, there would be nuclear blasts in American cities.

Despite knowing that Iranian leaders were seeking nuclear weapons, Western leaders chose to negotiate and appease with the hope of reaching a solution with Iran. Nearly three years into President Obama’s administration, we must acknowledge that the policies of first a carrot of good will and then a stick of sanctions have neither stopped the Iranians with their nuclear program nor have they deterred their aggressive posture. The Iranian leaders today, despite four sets of United Nations sanctions, continue with their missile and nuclear enrichment program, and they have enough enriched uranium for six nuclear bombs, according to the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report.

The Revolutionary Guards now have more than 1,000 ballistic missiles, many pointed at U.S. military bases in the Middle East and Europe. The Guards also have made great strides in their intercontinental missile delivery system under the guise of their space program. As I revealed earlier, nuclear weapons-capable warheads have been delivered to the Guards, and Iran’s supreme leader has ordered the Guards to arm their missiles with nuclear payloads. Iran’s navy also has armed its vessels with long-range surface-to-surface missiles and soon will expand its mission into the Atlantic Ocean and the Gulf of Mexico.

“History suggests that we may already be too late to stop Iran’s nuclear bomb. Why do we suppose Iran cannot accomplish in 20 years of trying - with access to vast amounts of unclassified data on nuclear-weapons design and equipped with 21st-century technology - what the U.S. accomplished in three years during the 1940s with the Manhattan Project?” asks nuclear weapons expert Peter Vincent Pry, who served in the CIA and on the EMP Commission, and is now president of EMPact America.

Mr. Pry concludes that Iran only needs a single nuclear weapon to destroy the United States. A nuclear EMP (electromagnetic pulse) attack could collapse the national electric grid and other critical infrastructures that sustain the lives of 310 million Americans.

Are we ready to finally realize what the goals and the ideology of the jihadists in Tehran are and take appropriate action against them? The Iranian people themselves, who oppose the dictatorial mullahs, for years have asked us to do so. Thousands of them have lost their lives to show us the true nature of this regime. We must act before it’s too late.

KAHLILI: Iran already has nuclear weapons - Washington Times

 

[longbrained]

Another analysis about Iran already having nuclear bombs:

On March 21, 2008, this author was among a group of Foreign Service officers and diplomats who received a briefing at the State Department on Iran. The Department’s Middle East expert, under questioning by this author, told the group that it was “common knowledge” in the region that Iran had acquired tactical nuclear weapons from one or more of the former Soviet Republics. Using the vague term “common knowledge” allowed the expert to discuss the information in an unclassified presentation. This disclosure was consistent with reports that have been circulating for years. On April 9, 1988, the Jerusalem Post reported that Iran had acquired four tactical nuclear weapons from Kazakhstan. The Post cited Iranian documents obtained by the Israeli government and authenticated by U.S. Congressional investigators. In March 1992, “The Arms Control Reporter” published an article confirming that Iran had acquired four nuclear warheads from Russia. A May 1992, report in “The European” claimed that Iran had acquired two nuclear warheads from the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan. These reports were all generally confirmed in a 2002 interview given by General Yuri Baluyevsky, then Russia’s Deputy Chief of Staff. A report in the Cleveland Jewish News, dated January 27, 2006, reported that there were 20 sites in Iran in which dispersed tactical nuclear warheads were being stored. Finally there was a report that Iran had acquired four 152mm nuclear artillery shells from Kazakhstan that were shipped to Iran through Bulgaria.

The State Department’s 2008, admission that Iran was already a nuclear power was raised by this author in open e-mails and other communications with State Department legal advisor Stephen Townley. He would neither comment on the admission nor did he raise any claim that the information was classified. This author then notified the State Department’s Inspector General that the Secretary of State was making public statements and official statements to Congress regarding Iran that were not correct, but Deputy General Counsel Karen Ouzts told this author that her office would not investigate the allegations, giving no explanation for ignoring potential criminal offenses.

On July 26, 2009, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared on the NBC news show “Meet the Press” and stated that the U.S. will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons. This follows her April 22, 2009, testimony to Congress that Iran will never obtain a nuclear weapon and vowed that the U.S. would employ “crippling sanctions” to prevent that. She was to make similar statements in 2010 and 2011. It needs to be determined if Secretary Clinton intentionally misled Congress and the American public.

The question of whether any State Department officials have ever misled Congress about this matter is currently the subject of two investigations by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC). The OSC has assigned case numbers of MA-12-0180 and DI-12-0250 to its separate inquiries.

A further element of corroboration is that the possession of tactical nuclear weapons by Iran suddenly makes sense out of some inexplicable Western efforts to-date in the region. For example:

1. Israel does not need 400 nuclear warheads to defend itself against non-nuclear neighbors.

2. Israel does not need its Arrow-2 and the U.S. Patriot (PAC-3) anti-missile systems simply to deal with some Iranian missiles such as the Shahab-4. Even if they were loaded with chemical agents, the risk to Israel is minimal. This author served as a Captain with the U.S. Air Force’s 487th Tactical (Nuclear) Missile Wing and he was trained in chemical warfare. Chemical dispersion by ballistic missile is difficult and clumsy and more of a nuisance than a weapon of mass destruction. These very expensive anti-missile systems make sense only if the threat is from existing nuclear warheads.

3. The United States does not need to maintain between 60 and 90 B-61 nuclear gravity bombs at Incirlik Air Base in Turkey unless there is a localized nuclear threat.

4. The United States and some of its European allies have been promoting a very costly ballistic missile shield for Europe, even at the risk of antagonizing Russia. The vehemence of this expensive effort only makes sense if the threat is current and real, and if it is a nuclear threat.

5. Finally, the United States and Israel have all but ruled out air strikes on Iranian nuclear targets, which only makes sense if Iran has the ability to respond with tactical warheads. For Iran, giving such warheads to terrorists or having its own special operations forces covertly use the warheads would leave no Iranian fingerprints because the radiation signature from any detonation on a Western target would merely reveal that they were Soviet warheads, which would not implicate Iran. Without credible and hard evidence of Iranian involvement, a nuclear counterstrike on Iran would not be possible. The question is whether Iran has been blackmailing the West for decades with these warheads.

The actual number of tactical nuclear weapons manufactured by the former Soviet Union is stunning. Rough estimates have it producing 4300 nuclear missile and air dropped warheads, 2000 nuclear artillery and mortar rounds. 1500 nuclear torpedoes and other Naval ordinance, and 14,000 nuclear land mines. That does not include specially designed Spetznaz warheads. Many of the tactical weapons were dispersed in Soviet republics which underwent revolutions when the Soviet Union broke up. In January 2006, the prestigious Washington, D.C.-based Council on Foreign Relations, in a background paper entitled: “Loose Nukes,” rejected the above estimates and stated that the Soviet Union had even more nuclear warheads. Its estimate was 27,000. The reality is that no one in the West knows for sure how many tactical and strategic warheads were produced or where they are today.

President Obama’s National Security Advisor reportedly has a list of lost or missing nuclear warheads from both U.S. and Soviet stockpiles (the U.S. reportedly has lost at least 11 warheads). Thomas E. Donilon should be pressed to reveal the total number of warheads that are not unaccounted for. The number is likely to be shocking.

On May 13, 2009, Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller sent a cable to the U.S. State Department in which she recounted a briefing that Egypt’s Ambassador to the United Nations Maged Abdelaziz, gave to her and other officials during meetings on May 5th and 7th. Abdelaziz stated that Egypt had been offered nuclear weapons after the breakup of the Soviet Union but had declined them. Under questioning Ambassador Abdelaziz stated that he had personal knowledge of this as a result of his being in Moscow. The cable was reported by the Guardian newspaper on December 19, 2010, in its story: “Egypt Turned Down Nuclear Weapons After Collapse of the Soviet Union.”

On March 22, 2004, Fox News reported on Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir’s interview with al-Qaeda’s No. 2, Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. Dr. Zawahiri told Mir that so-called suitcase nuclear weapons (each weighing 50-80 kilograms) were available on the black market in central Asia for anyone with $30 million. He stated that al-Qaeda had sent representatives to Tashkent, Uzbekistan and to one other regional country (allegedly Kazakhstan) and had purchased several.

Western news reporters need to pose carefully phrased questions to Secretary Clinton and to State Department, Pentagon and White House spokespersons in order to eliminate any wiggle room. They also need to insist on yes or no answers. One suggestion question is:

“Does the United States have any intelligence that suggests that Iran ever acquired any type of nuclear warhead?”

The answer has to be “Yes” and then the inquiry can continue forward regarding the specificity and reliability of the intelligence information.

There has been much criticism from Republicans in the United States regarding President Obama’s policy of reconciliation with Iran. If all the facts be known, that policy may be a reasonable one. If Iran does possess nuclear weapons, then those proponents who recklessly advocate preemptive air strikes on Iran and the commencement of a new war are acting irresponsibly. A nuclear conflict should not be risked solely so that politicians can score points with fringe elements of their political base.

Part of the problem is that there is deliberate short-term memory within the U.S. Government regarding Iran. Some of the facts regarding Iran’s nuclear program are never discussed in the West as they are uncomfortable reminders of Western mischief. One such basic question is:

“How did Iran’s nuclear programs begin?”

The answer is that in 1975, Shah Reza Pahlavi signed a multi-billion dollar deal with a German joint venture company to construct two nuclear reactors outside of Bushehr, Iran. Then in 1977, in meetings between representatives of the Shah and President Jimmy Carter, the U.S. Government endorsed Iran’s pursuit of nuclear technology. It did so even though the Shah had no civilian need for nuclear power at the time. The American motivation was money. The Shah proposed to purchase four nuclear reactors from the United States, specifically from Westinghouse. There were no reported Israeli objections to the Westinghouse sale. While that specific deal was never finalized the Shah continued his construction at Bushehr, Iran. Its two reactors were later completed by the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In conclusion, the Iranians know they have tactical nuclear warheads, as do Western governments. Everyone else is being kept in the dark. Secrecy in this instance is counterproductive. The world’s policy regarding Iran needs to be formulated, but only after a full discussion of all the facts, options and risks. That is what democracy is supposed to be all about. The world community also needs to engage in an open debate about the true scope and perils of black market nuclear warheads. Finally, the citizens of those nations that are potential targets for these weapons need to be better prepared for the consequences of their possible use.

EXCLUSIVE: Iran

 

[fd24]

Ever since he took power three years ago, President Obama has done his level best to avoid a confrontation with Iran over its nuclear programme. Mr Obama began his presidency with a direct video appeal to Tehran to abandon decades of hostility towards America and establish a dialogue based on “mutual interests and respect”. This innate belief that he can persuade the ayatollahs to mend their confrontational ways has meant that, even when presented with clear-cut evidence of Tehran’s wrongdoing, he has proved reluctant to offer an effective response.

When the regime launched a brutal crackdown against anti-government protesters following the disputed presidential election in 2009, Mr Obama agonised for days about whether he should back the opposition Green movement. By the time he did so, most of the opposition leaders had either been killed or were languishing in jail, and the most serious challenge to the ayatollahs’ rule since the 1979 revolution had been stopped in its tracks.

Even when Mr Obama was handed unequivocal evidence in the autumn of 2009 that Iran was building a second nuclear enrichment facility at Qom, he still preferred to take a softly-softly approach. The inevitable new round of sanctions was implemented, but no meaningful action was taken to curtail Iran’s obsession with developing nuclear weapons.

As we know from the 1930s, appeasement achieves little when it comes to confronting a determined foe for whom the normal laws of international conduct do not apply. And next week, the full extent of Iran’s duplicity will be laid bare, with the publication of the latest International Atomic Energy Agency report on its nuclear ambitions.

Unlike previous IAEA reports – which, under the leadership of Dr Mohamed ElBaradei, deliberately sought to obfuscate the true nature of Iran’s activities – this one will demonstrate unequivocally that Iran is well on the way to acquiring nuclear weapons. It will show that the country is seeking to engineer and test components that are only used in the production of nuclear weapons, and that this illegal activity is taking place at sites that would not even exist if Iran was in compliance with its international treaty obligations.
Why, for example, are Iranian scientists experimenting with triggers that are only used for detonating nuclear weapons? Why are Iranian technicians devoting so much energy to developing a ballistic missile warhead that can carry a nuclear warhead? And why have they designed simulation programmes whose sole purpose is to test nuclear weapons systems?

The inescapable conclusion is that, for all Tehran’s protestations that its nuclear intentions are entirely peaceful, the ayatollahs are close to achieving their long-held ambition of joining the exclusive club of nuclear-armed powers. And rather than trying to ignore the apocalyptic implications, Mr Obama may find himself obliged to do something rather more robust than merely freezing the bank accounts of senior Iranian officials.

Certainly, one of the main conclusions that should be drawn from the IAEA report is that the sanctions regime has failed to have the desired effect. As one senior Whitehall official conceded to me this week, “The Iranians have proved to be surprisingly resilient at overcoming the impact of the sanctions. They don’t seem to have made any significant impact on the nuclear programme.”

In fact, the only measures that have had any demonstrable effect on slowing Iran’s nuclear progress have been undertaken by Israel, via a skilful combination of targeted assassinations and cyber-warfare. The introduction last year of the Stuxnet computer virus, which was developed at Israel’s Dimona nuclear research centre in the Negev desert, knocked out thousands of the centrifuges used to produce weapons-grade uranium. Iranian efforts have also been hit by the assassination of three of their top nuclear scientists in the past two years.

But as the IAEA report will demonstrate, a combination of ingenuity and determination has enabled the Iranians to overcome these setbacks, to the point where their uranium enrichment activities have been fully reconstituted. Moreover, to ensure they do not suffer any further such attacks, they are relocating much of their nuclear equipment to underground bunkers. This includes the facility at Qom, which is buried deep below a mountain range, safe from foreign meddling.

If Iran continues at its present rate, it is estimated that all the key nuclear components will be safely hidden away within 12 months, which would make it impossible for either the US or Israel to launch pre-emptive strikes. For this reason, a more bellicose response can be expected from the major Western powers when the IAEA presents its report.

In Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has already sought Cabinet support for a strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities while they are still visible. By way of underlining the seriousness of his intent, the Israeli military earlier this week test-fired a missile capable of hitting Iran.

Given the appalling repercussions that a unilateral attack on Iran would have on regional stability, it is highly unlikely that even Mr Obama can distance himself from the coming storm. The Iranians have made it abundantly clear that, if attacked, they will respond by trying to wipe Israel off the map. Mr Obama does not enjoy the best of relationships with Mr Netanyahu, who has been accused of constantly undermining Washington’s attempts to revive peace talks with the Palestinians. But he also knows that America cannot afford to stand by when Iran threatens the very existence of its closest regional ally.

Iran is on the verge of getting the Bomb. It is time for President Barack Obama to act - Telegraph

 

[Cheetah786]

i wonder when is IAEA is going to inspect Israels Nuclear facilities or American and British or other nations that demand only Muslim nations nuclear facilities be inspected oh wait That will Expose western hypocrisy.

 

[longbrained]

i wonder when is IAEA is going to inspect Israels Nuclear facilities or American and British or other nations that demand only Muslim nations nuclear facilities be inspected oh wait That will Expose western hypocrisy.

Inspections and demands are only for nations that are politically not in service of white people. The truth is very simple. If nuclear weapons are that bad then why US and UK are not giving them up. While they are sitting on top of thousands of them and go invade other countries killing millions they object to any country which is holding nuclear weapons only for its own defense. This their level of hypocrisy.

 

[drunken-monke]

sice it have came on pdf, its not a secret.

 

[longbrained]

sice it have came on pdf, its not a secret.

It is secret like, it has not been confirmed by Iran or others. Otherwise it is open knowledge.

 

[Arian]

MOSCOW, April 3 (RIA Novosti) - The chief of Russia's General Staff said Monday he could neither confirm nor deny reports that Ukraine had sold 250 nuclear warheads to Iran.

"Russia's General Staff has no information about whether Ukraine has given 250 nuclear warheads to Iran or not," General Yury Baluyevsky, also deputy defense minister, said in response to an article in Novaya Gazeta newspaper Monday. "I do not comment on unsubstantiated reports."

The newspaper said that Ukraine had failed to return 250 warheads to Russia in the 1990s when the former Soviet republic declared itself a nuclear-free zone. The paper suggested the warheads could have been sold to a third country, including Iran.

Russian military stalls on reports Ukraine sold warheads to Iran | Russia | RIA Novosti

According to Jerusalem Post, Iran might've obtained some nuclear weapons from former soviet republics. This issue has been reported here too:
http://fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/9580.pdf
DOCUMENTS INDICATE IRAN HAS NUCLEAR WEAPONS

 

[TARIQ BN ZIYAAD]

if iran had nuclear weapons they would not waist a single min to do the test to quite u.s and its allies as nk did
make the whole world shut its mouth just explode the nukes

i think iranians and its supporters r now shaking but only blame the regime for not keeping low profile of its defense developments

TARIQ

 

[Chogy]

Keeping nukes a secret is dumb. Secret nuclear bombs don't deter... proven ones do.

I've never understood why Israel doesn't simply announce it. If Iran has the bomb, then they should demonstrate it.

The reason the USA, Russia, China, etc have a lot of nukes has roots in the cold war. 35 years ago, there was a very real fear of a full-blown nuclear war, and only the bizarre philosophy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) kept NATO and the Warsaw Pact from a full-up war that would have made WW2 look like a school fight.

 

[Zabaniyah]

Keeping nukes a secret is dumb. Secret nuclear bombs don't deter... proven ones do.

I've never understood why Israel doesn't simply announce it. If Iran has the bomb, then they should demonstrate it.

The reason the USA, Russia, China, etc have a lot of nukes has roots in the cold war. 35 years ago, there was a very real fear of a full-blown nuclear war, and only the bizarre philosophy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) kept NATO and the Warsaw Pact from a full-up war that would have made WW2 look like a school fight.

Sir,

I think the reason why Israel doesn't officially confirm or deny that it has nukes or even test them is because the Americans told them so.

Seems to me that they (Americans) didn't want a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

And sadly, they are mistaken.

But my question is: Why would they actually allow Israel to have nukes in the first place? They didn't even allow the Koreans to have nukes. The Israelis even have the capability to deliver missiles from Israel to Washington and Tokyo. Don't you think that's a bit too much power there?

 

[Harry_Thomason]

Keeping nukes a secret is dumb. Secret nuclear bombs don't deter... proven ones do.

As I answered in other thread: Iran shouldnt confirm/openly test it, unless they have big enough stock and means to deliver them. Just having 2 nukes in the basement wont deter anyone, however 50+ nukes with ICBM would.

 

[Arian]

Keeping nukes a secret is dumb. Secret nuclear bombs don't deter... proven ones do.

I've never understood why Israel doesn't simply announce it. If Iran has the bomb, then they should demonstrate it.

The reason the USA, Russia, China, etc have a lot of nukes has roots in the cold war. 35 years ago, there was a very real fear of a full-blown nuclear war, and only the bizarre philosophy of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) kept NATO and the Warsaw Pact from a full-up war that would have made WW2 look like a school fight.

In fact announcing you have nukes is dumb. Ambiguity always work better if you ask me, Japan is a de-facto nuclear state and it's not any less scary than the nuclear-armed states if it comes to a nuclear conflict. It solely produces more than 400 Kilo grams of plutonium monthly, enabling it to produce more than 60 nukes every month.

Why should Iran announce that it has nukes? It's not 1940's any longer, you can't use nukes against another country. Having nukes will not bring respect or anything positive for Iran's international image, It'll only lead to more sanctions and unpopularity in the world. Iran is no North Korea, so comparing Iran's case with North Korea's is fundamentally wrong.

 

[Chogy]

But my question is: Why would they actually allow Israel to have nukes in the first place? They didn't even allow the Koreans to have nukes. The Israelis even have the capability to deliver missiles from Israel to Washington and Tokyo. Don't you think that's a bit too much power there?

First, we don't "own" Israel... they are a sovereign nation, have their own secrets, and don't need our permission.

How odd, usually it's "Israel owns the USA!!" but here it's "The USA owns Israel." Neither is true.

As far as announcing nukes or not, let's look at what a nation gains by having proven stocks... they gain massive deterrence. I don't buy the ambiguity argument. If I am dictator of Northern "Bavatania" and I hate South Bavatania... and I have a huge army, I might be tempted to invade. If the South has known stocks of powerful nuclear missiles, it deters me. But if they are ambiguous, and I think they are bluffing, it's more likely that I'll call their bluff and invade. That would be bad for both N and S Bavatania.

 

[Arian]

First, we don't "own" Israel... they are a sovereign nation, have their own secrets, and don't need our permission.

But Iran, as a sovereign nation who has fully cut its ties with you since late 1970's, needs your permission? lol =))