> nobody can remotely come up with a reason for why Iran getting a nuclear weapon would be a positive development for anybody.
Whether it's a positive or negative development really doesn't matter. What matters is what actually happens once that occurs.
When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, etc. didn't start their own nuclear programs.
So in the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely nothing of consequence will happen.
> When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region
Both hostile reactive (Pakistan against India) and (at least semi-)cooperative (Pakistan, or at least AQ Khan as a rogue actor, to other states) proliferation occurred as a result of the Indian and then Pakistani nuclear programs.
When India did it, it did lead to proliferation, specifically, in Pakistan. Pakistan’s program lead to (as well as their own bomb) proliferation through the AQ Khan network (to North Korea, as well as several states that never, at leadt yet, tested a weapon.) Myanmar also appears to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 00s, with assistsance from North Korea, which may or may not have since been abandoned.
Similarly, Israel's program contributed to the motivation for Iran's and Syria's programs (reactive [both of which appear to have also gotten cooperative aid from the Khan network and/or North Korea, which circles back to India/Pakistan]) and to technology for South Africa’s nuclear weapons (cooperative).
> When India did [nuclear weapons testing], it did lead to proliferation, specifically, in Pakistan.
And, in the end, neither of them has used those weapons offensively or defensively in close to 50 years (25 years for Pakistan).
> Myanmar also appears to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 00s, with assistsance from North Korea, which may or may not have since been abandoned.
Yet they haven't advertised it or tried to use them (if they ever had them) in any capacity. As for North Korea, while they do test missiles on occasion, they have not made use of any nuclear capability against another country.
> Similarly, Israel's program contributed to the motivation for Iran's and Syria's programs (reactive [both of which appear to have also gotten cooperative aid from the Khan network and/or North Korea, which circles back to India/Pakistan]) and to technology for South Africa’s nuclear weapons (cooperative).
Yet, all the focus is on Iran in terms of sanctions and fear/warmongering about them developing nuclear capability. Every single example in the past has shown that developing such capability has not resulted in any type of nuclear conflict.
> And, in the end, neither of them has used those weapons offensively or defensively
The goalposts moved pretty quickly from the original wildly false claim that their programs did not contribute to further proliferation in the region, to something like “well, neither they nor the states in the area of further proliferarion they contributed to have, to date, used nukes in anger, so it doesn't matter”.
I would suggest that waiting until after a nuclear war to take proliferation concerns seriously is... not a great idea.
> The goalposts moved pretty quickly from the original wildly false claim that their programs did not contribute to further proliferation in the region
My original claim was that nuclear weapons did not proliferate in the region beyond India and Pakistan (and there was a 24 year gap between India's and Pakistan's first nuclear tests). You claimed that:
>>> Myanmar also appears to have had a nuclear weapons program in the 00s, with assistsance from North Korea, which may or may not have since been abandoned.
But this wikipedia page[1] does not mention anything like that. Do you have a source for your claim?
> I would suggest that waiting until after a nuclear war
Again, this has not happened so far, and it doesn't look like the probability of that happening will change regardless of whether or not Iran has a nuclear weapons program.
> When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region.. therefore... So in the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely nothing of consequence will happen.
Whether the domino theory is at play depends on the balance of power and specifics of each geopolitical region. It simply doesn't follow that because India-Pakistan was contained such a thing won't happen in the Middle East.
In fact you'd notice that is a pair. The counterparty to Iran having a nuke would be Saudi Arabia having a nuke, an extremely likely outcome.
Whether it's a positive or negative development really doesn't matter. What matters is what actually happens once that occurs.
When India and Pakistan developed and tested nuclear weapons, we didn't see proliferation or development of nuclear capability in the region. Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, etc. didn't start their own nuclear programs.
So in the event Iran gets nuclear weapons, it's likely nothing of consequence will happen.