Assume Iran had a nuclear weapon - what is the likely long-term outcome for the world?

Question

We fear use of nuclear weapons (i.e. wipe Israel off the map, striking the Great Satan, etc...) and nuclear extortion (used as a bargaining chip); but what is the long term outcome if Iran were to acquire nuclear weaponry? Would the world be BETTER OFF or WORSE OFF?

Answer 1

They'd use it as a bargaining chip to avoid being pushed around by the U.S.  I don't believe for a second that Ahmadinejad is crazy enough to actually use a nuke in an attack, and the government is stable enough that we wouldn't have to worry about it collapsing and the nuke falling into crazier hands.  

So, yeah...I don't think it would be better OR worse, really.

Answer 2

Worse off, I don't think he is kidding about Israel. He even denies the Holocost even occurred. He would be crazy enough to use it on Israel.

Answer 3

worse off.  but then pakistan has them, go figure.

Answer 4

The world will be worse off because another nuclear weapon was made.

However, I have little doubt that Iran will use it against anybody.  More than likely it will be used as a deterrent to invasion.

The term Mutual Assurred Destruction (MAD) still applies.

If Iran uses a nuke, they can expect to get nuked in return.

Answer 5

Much worse off.  We don't need another madman with a nuke.

Answer 6

If the US and Israel handle this correctly, the outcome could be neutral. Iran is not a rogue nation, it's a stable and sovereign democracy. The popular US characterization of Iran's president as an insane or unreasonable war monger is based on little more than a few assertions repeated over and over by the US administration and Bush's characterization of Iran as an axis of evil. How many times has this administration been wrong?? Unpredictable madmen do not rule nations, or if they do, they don't last long. Further, Ahmadinijad is not the dictator, he's a president with limited powers and is answerable to a council of mullahs.

Iran IS an enemy of the US. However, nations can reach agreements using diplomacy, and economic incentives or sanctions. Consider the fact the US kept an uneasy peace with a huge nuclear super-power, the USSR, for over 40 years. Each nation had thousands of nuclear missiles aimed at the other, yet tensions were diffused, treaties were signed and nuclear weapons were dismantled.

Answer 7

MAD has worked for fifty years, raising tensions but ultimately stabilizing conflicts between nuclear powers.

But, I fear that the game has changed, first after the collapse of the old oppositional exchange game, or the "triumph" of global capitalism and the consumer-capitralist paradigm (the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War), and secondly, after the precedent of premptive war was set by the United States in its invasion of Iraq.

I fear that Israel will premptively strike Iran with its nuclear arsenal if the Iran gets too close to nuclear power.