Let's assume, that (somehow) Iran could be prevented from building their own Nuclear Missiles.

Iran and North Korea are quite close in many ways. What if North Korea delivers "ready to fire" nuclear missiles to Iran?

Actually, 1 missile would be enough as todays nuclear warheads are a hundred times more powerful than what the US dropped over Hiroshima, turning Europe into a waistland.

Outlandish, unthinkable?

I (for one) think that this is a very likely scenario in case Iran can be prevented from developping their nuclear visions.

I stay tuned, quite sure that soon something like that will make the headlines.

1 minute ago, swissie said:

Iran and North Korea are quite close in many ways. What if North Korea delivers "ready to fire" nuclear missiles to Iran?

They may already have and Iran is too scared to use it because they know it will mean complete annihilation of them. They would immediately cease to exist.

2 minutes ago, novacova said:

They may already have and Iran is too scared to use it because they know it will mean complete annihilation of them. They would immediately cease to exist.

Threathening Europe with such a weapon alone, might put the Iranians into a position of becoming a "untouchable rogue nation".

I don't think 1 is enough to turn all of Europe into a wasteland. It will decimate a small area and cause untold damage though. Talking about only physical damage. Not economic.

2 minutes ago, blaze master said:

I don't think 1 is enough to turn all of Europe into a wasteland. It will decimate a small area and cause untold damage though. Talking about only physical damage. Not economic.

Again: Todays "bombs" are a hundred times more devastating than the Hiroshima bomb. It's the radioactive nuclear "fallout" that will make Europe "uninhabitable".

1 minute ago, swissie said:

Again: Todays "bombs" are a hundred times more devastating than the Hiroshima bomb. It's the radioactive nuclear "fallout" that will make Europe "uninhabitable".

Yes they are bigger but you're overestimating the fallout.

21 minutes ago, swissie said:

Threathening Europe with such a weapon alone, might put the Iranians into a position of becoming a "untouchable rogue nation".

Not going to happen.

Iran's learned their lesson. Control of the Strait of Hormuz is a deterrent but it's not permanent. In a decade or so the GCC countries will have developed export pipelines away from the Strait.

At that time the only defense Iran will have against the maniacal Israelis and their client/benefactor superpower will be nuclear weapons. And the Iranians have proved over the past couple of months that they are a pretty capable lot so they'll get them.

And it will be good for the world and, particularly, the ME for the only nation in that part of the world willing to stand up to Israel to finally have power parity with them.

Edited May 24May 24 by Autocan

2 minutes ago, novacova said:

Not going to happen.

Why not? Remember, in an Islamic Nation to die in war on behalf of Islam brings you straight to paradise (72 virgins awaiting you). Hard to fight an enemy that sees "death in battle" as the ultimate reward from a cumbersome unrewarding earthy life. Europeans have no such expectations.

I fully expect Iran to buy a nuclear weapon or two from one of its allies.

17 minutes ago, swissie said:

Why not? Remember, in an Islamic Nation to die in war on behalf of Islam brings you straight to paradise (72 virgins awaiting you). Hard to fight an enemy that sees "death in battle" as the ultimate reward from a cumbersome unrewarding earthy life. Europeans have no such expectations.

1 nuke is not going to destroy Europe the below link will answer all your questions

the largest bomb is the tsar bomba 27metric tons in weight so it is a bomb not a missile yield of 50 megatons of TNT

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

Edited May 24May 24 by MikeandDow

31 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

1 nuke is not going to destroy Europe the below link will answer all your questions

the largest bomb is the tsar bomba 27metric tons in weight so it is a bomb not a missile yield of 50 megatons of TNT

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

The Tsar Bomb was constructed for the "exlosion effect" and not optimised for maximum "fallout" effect. And it was detonated in the arctic (Novaya Temlaya). Inhabited by a couple of polar bears. Far away from Paris or Berlin.

43 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

I fully expect Iran to buy a nuclear weapon or two from one of its allies.

I am afraid that this will happen. Making efforts to stop the Iranian pathway to "nuclear empowernement" an exercise in futility.

2 minutes ago, swissie said:

I am afraid that this will happen. Making efforts to stop the Iranian pathway to "nuclear empowernement" an exercise in futility.

I am well aware of the testing of the Tsar bomb I used it as example of the largest test device

i agree it is an exercise in futility to try and stop iran tell that to trump !! But 1 device Can not even come close to destroying Europe you are way off !!

Only US has used atomic weapon agaist a civilian population, no other. Like Trumps buddy in North Korea the only purpose of these weapon has been to keep a equilibrium and per now pollution is a far more import subject to discuss

17 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

I am well aware of the testing of the Tsar bomb I used it as example of the largest test device

i agree it is an exercise in futility to try and stop iran tell that to trump !! But 1 device Can not even come close to destroying Europe you are way off !!

1 is enough. You will not want to eat radio active potatoes. Today, it's no more who can produce the "biggest bang", it's about how much and how long can I radioactively contaminate "enemy territory". For the next 10 thousand years.

24 minutes ago, swissie said:

1 is enough. You will not want to eat radio active potatoes. Today, it's no more who can produce the "biggest bang", it's about how much and how long can I radioactively contaminate "enemy territory". For the next 10 thousand years.

Wrong !!! use this link and see how many it takes it will even give you ground burst or air and map fall out

it is not 10thousand years Uranium-235: Half-life of 700 million years.

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

obviously you know very little about nuclear energy, elements and nuclear devices and the isotopes created when a device is detonated

Edited May 24May 24 by MikeandDow

17 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Wrong !!! use this link and see how many it takes it will even give you ground burst or air and map fall out

it is not 10thousand years Uranium-235: Half-life of 700 million years.

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

obviously you know very little about nuclear energy, elements and nuclear devices and the isotopes created when a device is detonated

You are defeating your own arguments. But thanks, knowing that I and my food will only be contaminated for a measely 700 million years puts me at ease. Radio Active contamination can never be a "local event". It's the wind that carries your dreams across the globe, including radio active contamination. But that's fine, as we live in a "globalised world".

As I've stated in the past I actually like the idea of Iran having a few nukes, as it would be a great deterrent to aggression committed by both America and Israel, and possibly lead to considerably more stability in that region.

Having said that I truly despise the regime over there but as this ridiculous war has proven, changing that is not an easy task to achieve.

33 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

Wrong !!! use this link and see how many it takes it will even give you ground burst or air and map fall out

it is not 10thousand years Uranium-235: Half-life of 700 million years.

https://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

obviously you know very little about nuclear energy, elements and nuclear devices and the isotopes created when a device is detonated

Forgive my ignorance but isnt Hiroshima and Nagasaki populated today 81 year after they got nuked?

1 minute ago, swissie said:

You are defeating your own arguments. But thanks, knowing that I and my food will only be contaminated for a measely 700 million years puts me at ease. Radio Active contamination can never be a "local event". It's the wind that carries your dreams across the globe, including radio active contamination. But that's fine, as we live in a "globalised world".

Please explane how am i defeating myown arguments simply pointing out it takes more that 1 nuke to destroy europe and again you do not under stand element half life

A radioactive isotope with a half-life of 700 million years (like Uranium-235) is already safe. The longer the half-life, the slower and less intensely the material emits radiation. You can handle natural samples today without significant health

Radioactive decay works on the principle that long half-lives equal very low activity.

A half-life means that each atom has a 50% chance of decaying in that time span. When you start with trillions of atoms, a half-life of 700 million years means only a tiny fraction are actively decaying per year.

Highly radioactive, short half-lives: It is the materials with very short half-lives (hours, days, or years) that are highly dangerous. They release all their energy rapidly, producing massive amounts of immediate, harmful radiation.

Nature is full of it: Uranium-235 has been naturally decaying since the earth formed billions of years ago, and it remains present in low quantities in the earth's crust, rock, soil, and water without posing acute health hazards to the general population.

3 minutes ago, Kandinski said:

Forgive my ignorance but isnt Hiroshima and Nagasaki populated today 81 year after they got nuked?

correct !!

Uranium-235: Half-life of 700 million years.

The longer the half-life, the slower and less intensely the material emits radiation. You can handle natural samples today without significant health

Radioactive decay works on the principle that long half-lives equal very low activity.

the previous does not understand Radiation and fallout there are many different types of isotopes created when a device goes off

These unstable byproducts emit dangerous alpha, beta, and gamma radiation as they decay. The most hazardous isotopes pose unique, long-term and short-term threats to the environment and human health due to their chemical properties and half-lives, Uranium-235 is one that is created when a device goes off and is natural occurring and if the poster had known any physics and elements he should have known about this natural element half live telling me he know nothing!!! get it !! why do you not think people are ok in japan what we are talking about is nuclear fission its a bit different when it comes to Hydrogen fission

Edited May 24May 24 by MikeandDow

1 hour ago, swissie said:

You are defeating your own arguments. But thanks, knowing that I and my food will only be contaminated for a measely 700 million years puts me at ease. Radio Active contamination can never be a "local event". It's the wind that carries your dreams across the globe, including radio active contamination. But that's fine, as we live in a "globalised world".

It doesn't carry across the globe with enough to radiate North America.

.

Edited May 24May 24 by blaze master

On 5/24/2026 at 6:35 PM, MikeandDow said:

Please explane how am i defeating myown arguments simply pointing out it takes more that 1 nuke to destroy europe and again you do not under stand element half life

A radioactive isotope with a half-life of 700 million years (like Uranium-235) is already safe. The longer the half-life, the slower and less intensely the material emits radiation. You can handle natural samples today without significant health

Radioactive decay works on the principle that long half-lives equal very low activity.

A half-life means that each atom has a 50% chance of decaying in that time span. When you start with trillions of atoms, a half-life of 700 million years means only a tiny fraction are actively decaying per year.

Highly radioactive, short half-lives: It is the materials with very short half-lives (hours, days, or years) that are highly dangerous. They release all their energy rapidly, producing massive amounts of immediate, harmful radiation.

Nature is full of it: Uranium-235 has been naturally decaying since the earth formed billions of years ago, and it remains present in low quantities in the earth's crust, rock, soil, and water without posing acute health hazards to the general population.

Quote: Highly radioactive, short half-lives: It is the materials with very short half-lives (hours, days, or years) that are highly dangerous. They release all their energy rapidly, producing massive amounts of immediate, harmful radiation.

= This is what modern nuclear weapons are designed for.

It seems to me that some posters here are making an effort to "belittle" atomic warfare. According to Donald Trumps statement "We have atomic weapons, why don't we use them". Frightening.

I too know a little about radioactive decay. For example: Even a Banana emits radioactivity. Althoug only measurable by very advanced "detectors". Did you know that?

2 minutes ago, swissie said:

Quote: Highly radioactive, short half-lives: It is the materials with very short half-lives (hours, days, or years) that are highly dangerous. They release all their energy rapidly, producing massive amounts of immediate, harmful radiation.

= This is what modern nuclear weapons are designed for.

It seems to me that some posters here are making an effort to "belittle" atomic warfare. According to Donald Trumps statement "We have atomic weapons, why don't we use them". Frightening.

I too know a little about radioactive decay. For example: Even a Banana emits radioactivity. Althoug only measurable by very advanced "detectors". Did you know that?

potassium is a naturally radioactive isotope

I dont think anybody on here is trying to belittle atomic warfare !! Atomic Bombs are survivable japan as example , but it is Thermonuclear warfare which is the unknown

On 5/24/2026 at 3:46 PM, swissie said:

Why not? Remember, in an Islamic Nation to die in war on behalf of Islam brings you straight to paradise (72 virgins awaiting you). Hard to fight an enemy that sees "death in battle" as the ultimate reward from a cumbersome unrewarding earthy life. Europeans have no such expectations.

It is a mistake to think that they are crazy. From their POV, they are rational.

As to the Shia martyrdom, it is understood as a sacrifice to preserve the true religion. Not the annihilation of the Shia religion, which would be the case to a large extent if Iran got nuked.

49 minutes ago, MikeandDow said:

potassium is a naturally radioactive isotope

I dont think anybody on here is trying to belittle atomic warfare !! Atomic Bombs are survivable japan as example , but it is Thermonuclear warfare which is the unknown

It's the thermonuclear issue that I have tried to adress here.

Back on topic: What are the chances that North Korea supplies Iran with "ready to fire" nuclear weapons?

46 minutes ago, candide said:

It is a mistake to think that they are crazy. From their POV, they are rational.

As to the Shia martyrdom, it is understood as a sacrifice to preserve the true religion. Not the annihilation of the Shia religion, which would be the case to a large extent if Iran got nuked.

??? If Iran gets nuked, it would be the end of Islam? Me not understand nix of what you are trying to say.

In case you wnt to re-invent Islam, you are too late.

18 minutes ago, swissie said:

It's the thermonuclear issue that I have tried to adress here.

Back on topic: What are the chances that North Korea supplies Iran with "ready to fire" nuclear weapons?

your guess is as good as mine !!!