re: #514 KT Smells like Roses and Rainbows

I’m really unsure about this meme that North Korea’s nukes helped preserve the regime there. Can you explain that assertion at all?

And you realize the article you’re citing says this, right?

In fact, say analysts and nonproliferation experts who have studied the effect of the bomb on countries, coexisting with a nuclear-armed Iran – or at least a nuclear-capable Iran – may well be possible, even inevitable, whether a military strike delays that outcome or not.

Analysts say Iran is not an irrational, suicidal actor that can’t be deterred. Nor do they believe it is determined to destroy Israel at all costs. A recent Israeli think tank simulation of “the day after” an Iranian nuclear test came to the same conclusion: that nuclear annihilation will not automatically result.

And:

Yet American intelligence agencies agree that Tehran hasn’t yet decided to go for a nuclear bomb – and that even if it chose to, it would take years to create one and the means to deliver it. Israeli intelligence is also reported to have reached the same conclusion.

and:

A nuclear Iran would be destabilizing, but it would not threaten the existence of the US or Israel, he says – a view echoed by a number of senior Israeli security officials. Former Mossad chief Meir Dagan called an Israeli strike against Iran “the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard.”

The article does assert that having nukes is a good deterrent against being invaded by the US. I’d agree. I’d say that Iran already doesn’t worry about being invaded by the US, since it’d be profoundly stupid of us to do.

The above statements about the foolishness of a strike on Iran, the low likelihood of them using a nuke, etc. are all well-made and compellingly written in the article. Did you read them, too, or just the bit about how it’d help stymie an invasion by the US?