Originally Posted by obvious Child

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.



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.



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?



Of course. Hence why the Strait of Hormuz is always a dicey crossing.



No one has, except maybe the Germans during the Soviet Salvos of Kursk. Still, not likely the way a nuke would come.



Why? Iran had similar non-nuclear capacities before. Nothing really has changed.