Quote:
Originally Posted by bhkad  Here's what Robert Spencer says about the subject. |
The problem is that it ignores Iran's history from the top down view. The leaders of Iran have
always sent
someone else to die for their agenda. Like all tyrants, they never risk themselves or their own power. Using a nuclear weapon would instantly place themselves and their power at risk. There is a reason North Korea won't use its nuclear weapon first. The goal of tyrants is to stay in power. Using a nuclear weapon that can easily be traced back is a surefire way to eliminate one's self.
Quote:
|
And this is from March of 2006, suggesting that depending on what the Mullahs and Ahmadinejad decided, nuclear weapons could be delivered in any number of ways and to guard against one way and not the others would be folly.
|
Of course nuclear weapons can be delivered in all sorts of ways. That doesn't mean we blow our money on defending against the least likely method of attack. One of the easiest is a donkey with a cart.
Quote:
|
And that doesn't even take into account the supersonic wave skimming missiles they have which could conceivably take out one of our carriers in the Gulf due to it's speed and stealth.
|
Which they have had since the 70s. Silkworms and sunburns aren't new and would require a feat of engineering from Iran to miniaturize a nuke to fit on. Israel spent quite some time and quite a pretty penny to mount a nuke on a tomahawk, But if you're worried about nuclear weapons, worry about the Granit. But last I recall, Russia hasn't let any of those out of their hands. And then there is the issue of reliability on a missile experiencing huge amounts of vibrations. Crude weapons, such as the type Iran would build don't go well with a super sonic weapon. If they really wanted to attack us, they'd simply put a nuke into a cargo container lined with lead and put a suicide bomber in it to ensure it went off. Load it from a French or British port and a month later when it comes into port, boom. High reliability, easy delivery, cheap. Why bother with missiles?
Quote:
|
You can't hit what you don't know is coming at you. And when you find out it's coming at you you can't hit it if you don't have enough time to gear up your defensive systems.
|
Of course. Hence why the Strait of Hormuz is always a dicey crossing.
Quote:
|
Nor does it address the fact that the USA nor any of our allies have ever had, in combat OR in practice, the occasion to defend against hundreds of missiles at once.
|
No one has, except maybe the Germans during the Soviet Salvos of Kursk. Still, not likely the way a nuke would come.
Quote:
|
The implications of this are profound.
|
Why? Iran had similar non-nuclear capacities before. Nothing really has changed.