Cold War Question

[AZRedhawk44]

I've been thinking about Iran and nuclear proliferation.

In the dawning of the Cold War, it was just the US and Russia that had nukes.  Great Britain and France followed with the west, then China got spooked by Russia and joined the bandwagon.  India pursued China, probably over northern border concerns, then Pakistan followed India over Kashmir concerns.

So in the "west" corner, we have US/France/England, with India nominally as an ally.
In the "iron curtain" corner, we have Russia. 
China was always leery of Russia so despite both being socialist, they're not allies in this regard.
Pakistan went nookyular due to religious tensions, not political ideology.

Through the entire history of the Cold War, was there any other "Iron Curtain" ally/satellite to Russia that became a nuclear power?  The brief incident in Cuba doesn't count... [Obama] They didn't build that. [/Obama]

[grampster]

Don't forget that Israel is also part of Club West.

[roo_ster]

I've been thinking about Iran and nuclear proliferation.

In the dawning of the Cold War, it was just the US and Russia that had nukes.  Great Britain and France followed with the west, then China got spooked by Russia and joined the bandwagon.  India pursued China, probably over northern border concerns, then Pakistan followed India over Kashmir concerns.

So in the "west" corner, we have US/France/England, with India nominally as an ally.
In the "iron curtain" corner, we have Russia. 
China was always leery of Russia so despite both being socialist, they're not allies in this regard.
Pakistan went nookyular due to religious tensions, not political ideology.

Through the entire history of the Cold War, was there any other "Iron Curtain" ally/satellite to Russia that became a nuclear power?  The brief incident in Cuba doesn't count... [Obama] They didn't build that. [/Obama]

Rooskies had no problem stationing nukes on allied territory.

[French G.]

To answer OQ, no. The Soviets had no true allies, vassal states aplenty. Station nuclear weapons there under full control of the motherland is fine, give the peasants a technological means to attain parity, not so fine. AKs and 2nd line tanks for all.

[tokugawa]

Why the interest?    Just curious, and thought I would pass on what I think is the best Geo-political site on the web-  "the belmont club", at PJ media, by Richard Fernandez.  As soon as I am elected president, he will be a Nation Security Adviser- the guy is brilliant.

 http://pjmedia.com/richardfernandez/

[AZRedhawk44]

Just fomenting anarchy.

Pakistan has ginormous turrrrrrr'ism links, but being a nuclear power, the US doesn't seem to want to invade them and spend 12 years trying to change a 1500 year old social structure.

Iran, on the other hand, has approximately the same amount of ties to turrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrism, just a different flavor of it.  However, they're not a nuclear power, so the US is more belligerent against them.

I'm wondering if things will die down to Paki-levels of diplomacy with Iran once they do go nookyoular.  Because Obama is not interested in stopping them from releasing the genie.

Or, if our outlook on Iran is more tailored towards Cold War policies, since Iran is mostly armed by Russian weapons.  The US military has had about 12 years to shift its mindset from MAD and spheres of influence, to international Stateless guerrilla warfare.  I am wondering if the nuclear strategists in US policy circles have adapted their philosophies in regards to this, or if it's mostly the combat units that have adapted to new warfare while the MAD gang is still happily wargaming in their Colorado caves. 

Wondering if the dog wags the tail or the tail wags the dog when it comes to military doctrine and its approach to Iranian diplomacy:
-Do we not want them nuked up because they represent a customer/ally/whatever of a Russian-centric worldview?
-Do we not want them nuked up because they represent a threat to the petrodollar and IMF policies?
-Do we not want them nuked up because they are a force behind Syrian terrorist strikes against an ally in the Middle East?

[tokugawa]

if you are speculating about stuff like this,you will REALLY like the  previous link ! Some very sharp commenters also.

 in effect, what we are teaching our opponents is this- if you want autonomy, get nukes ASAP.- then no one messes with ya.

 your example- Pakistan. My example-Libya-other side of the coin-Kaddaffy gave up his WMD program, and got slammed.  That is a lesson our opponents will take to heart.

 And as we withdraw from the mean streets of the world, soon we will see that any country that previously relied on the US umbrella (pax Americana) is going to run not walk to a nuke deterrent.

 I expect Saudi Arabia,  Japan, South Korea, Australia, and a few more I can't think of now to be on that list. The Philippines would love to be on the list, but I suspect they don't have the tech. SA will just buy them, Japan and South Korea are probably  "insert tab A into slot B"  close to a nuke.

 There are a lot of costs to maintaining an empire , and a lot of calls for "yankee go home". But like Fernandez points out, many of the nations who called for the US to leave are finding great concern now that we no longer have their backs.

 We live in interesting times.

[roo_ster]

Just fomenting anarchy.

Pakistan has ginormous turrrrrrr'ism links, but being a nuclear power, the US doesn't seem to want to invade them and spend 12 years trying to change a 1500 year old social structure.

Iran, on the other hand, has approximately the same amount of ties to turrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrism, just a different flavor of it.  However, they're not a nuclear power, so the US is more belligerent against them.

I'm wondering if things will die down to Paki-levels of diplomacy with Iran once they do go nookyoular.  Because Obama is not interested in stopping them from releasing the genie.

Or, if our outlook on Iran is more tailored towards Cold War policies, since Iran is mostly armed by Russian weapons.  The US military has had about 12 years to shift its mindset from MAD and spheres of influence, to international Stateless guerrilla warfare.  I am wondering if the nuclear strategists in US policy circles have adapted their philosophies in regards to this, or if it's mostly the combat units that have adapted to new warfare while the MAD gang is still happily wargaming in their Colorado caves.  

Wondering if the dog wags the tail or the tail wags the dog when it comes to military doctrine and its approach to Iranian diplomacy:
-Do we not want them nuked up because they represent a customer/ally/whatever of a Russian-centric worldview?
-Do we not want them nuked up because they represent a threat to the petrodollar and IMF policies?
-Do we not want them nuked up because they are a force behind Syrian terrorist strikes against an ally in the Middle East?

1. Iran earned itself our enmity with the embassy & hostage deal while Jimmah was POTUS.

2. Israel is closer to Iran and Iran pays surrogates to do mean things to Israel.  Lots of folks in the USA got a hard-on for Israel.  Pakis might pay lip service to hatin' on the Jews, but the Iranians put their money where their mouth is.

[MechAg94]

I'd be surprised if Japan doesn't already have them or a very short path to them.  

Back to the OP, I would say the closest Soviet "Ally" to upgrade to Nukes would probably describe China to some extent.  They took Soviet support in fighting us in Korea and Vietnam.  I can't remember when they go their own Nukes.  They were never the conquered vassal state to the Soviets that the Eastern European nations were.    

[MechAg94]

1. Iran earned itself our enmity with the embassy & hostage deal while Jimmah was POTUS.

2. Israel is closer to Iran and Iran pays surrogates to do mean things to Israel.  Lots of folks in the USA got a hard-on for Israel.  Pakis might pay lip service to hatin' on the Jews, but the Iranians put their money where their mouth is.

I thought I also heard someone say that a lot of the bombs and other toys Al Queda hits us with in Afghanastan are coming from Iran.  Not sure how true that is.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Pakistan has ginormous turrrrrrr'ism links, but being a nuclear power, the US doesn't seem to want to invade them and spend 12 years trying to change a 1500 year old social structure.

Uh...  The US would no interest in invading Pakistan even if they didn't have nukes.

[Azrael256]

I'd be surprised if Japan doesn't already have them or a very short path to them.  

Back to the OP, I would say the closest Soviet "Ally" to upgrade to Nukes would probably describe China to some extent.  They took Soviet support in fighting us in Korea and Vietnam.  I can't remember when they go their own Nukes.  They were never the conquered vassal state to the Soviets that the Eastern European nations were.    

1964.  They started getting lots of Soviet support in the late 50s to build their nuclear program.

And I think the phrase is that Japan is a "turn of a screwdriver away" from pumping out nukes whenever they need to.

[Tallpine]

When nuclear weapons are outlawed, only outlaws will have nuclear weapons.

 

[Scout26]

South Africa also had them for a while.

[Gewehr98]

And I think the phrase is that Japan is a "turn of a screwdriver away" from pumping out nukes whenever they need to.

I wouldn't bet on that. I've lived there for a while, and it's "unique" amongst all the folks who split atoms on a regular basis.

Nippon has a very serious aversion to nuclear weapons, and it's for fairly obvious reasons. That's both the government and the people.  

The Japanese government took great pains to minimize the news reporting of the Tokai-Mura reprocessing accident, when mismanaged bucket chemistry went critical.  (We discovered it during a training sortie on final approach to Yokota AB!)

Yes, they have a strong nuclear power program, but those are power reactors, not breeder reactors.

They also reprocess spent fuel rods (see Tokai-Mura), but not for weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. They use the recovered plutonium for MOX thermal reactor fuel.

That's not saying they couldn't reconfigure.  But the whole mindset has changed since WWII, with their military purposely built as a defensive capability, right down to the names of the branches of service.  (JASDF, etc)

[RoadKingLarry]

This should explain it all

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGptO6j3G-U

[tokugawa]

I wouldn't bet on that. I've lived there for a while, and it's "unique" amongst all the folks who split atoms on a regular basis.

Nippon has a very serious aversion to nuclear weapons, and it's for fairly obvious reasons. That's both the government and the people.  

The Japanese government took great pains to minimize the news reporting of the Tokai-Mura reprocessing accident, when mismanaged bucket chemistry went critical.  (We discovered it during a training sortie on final approach to Yokota AB!)

Yes, they have a strong nuclear power program, but those are power reactors, not breeder reactors.

They also reprocess spent fuel rods (see Tokai-Mura), but not for weapons-grade uranium or plutonium. They use the recovered plutonium for MOX thermal reactor fuel.

That's not saying they couldn't reconfigure.  But the whole mindset has changed since WWII, with their military purposely built as a defensive capability, right down to the names of the branches of service.  (JASDF, etc)

 Unless they are terminally stupid, they are busting butt on nuke development. This is no longer a feel good -feel bad issue- it is existential -