Pointing to the fact that Iran's present deterrence assets have successfully averted military aggression is not dogmatic though.These arguments against nukes only go to show how strong ideology and dogma is and how it defeats logic at every turn.
They didn't prevent the USSR from collapsing and from being dismantled.doesn't that tell you al you need to know about nukes? the cost of production, the cost and security of storage, the cost of delivery and practicality. it wins wars and keeps nations safe.
Yes, it would spare Iran some setbacks in the propaganda and psy-ops departments. But that's what these terror attacks / assassinations mostly boil down to: occasional psy-ops successes, not geostrategically game-changing events.Why is Iran being humiliated and afraid to retaliate or do anything while North Korea is left totally alone? Because they have nukes and no one can touch them. They can in fact do whatever they like and no-one can do anything.
Iran has not been fired 100 missiles at, nor would Iran leave such an overt, all out aggression unanswered.The north can fire 100 missiles into south korean capital and what can South Korea or America do? not a darn thing. They would sit there and take it. like Iran does now.
I don't see Iran being "picked apart" in any way.some here think Iran isa danger to someone because of these missiles. This is a joke. Iran is being picked apart and prepared for a syria scenario. And there is nothing it can do. the missiles have stopped a more robust approach, but they will not help Iran in the Long run. I don't think the west wants regime change, they just want to destroy he country and this regime can keep the rubble.
The recent terrorist assassination is certainly neither proof nor an indication for such an assumption that a Syrian scenario is feasible in Iran.
if missiles were that scary, Iran would not be permitted to haven them. there would already be a war.
The same could be argued with regards to nuclear weapons: there would be a war, Iran would not be allowed to have them etc. And if one believes that missile production can be prevented easily, then what reason is there to assume that nuclear weapons acquisition can't.And I do believe that if Iran tries to make nukes it will automatically trigger an invasion, but the crucial thing is, the moment a nuke is tested, that invasion will simply stop.
Also if Iran's missile force - in addition to Iran's network of regional allies as well as the vulnerability of global energy supplies to interdiction by Iran, weren't serious game-changers then in fact a war would already have taken place.
Their hostility is not going to cease if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. It didn't towards the USSR or towards the Democratic People's Republic of Korea when they armed themselves with them.Iran will be invited to be a part of the club. Similar to Pakistan.
Pakistan is at the same time an official ally to the US but the Taleban weren't. Pakistan's nuclear arms couldn't prevent Washington from killing scores of Pakistani civilians in drone strikes, even Pakistani soldiers were killed on at least one occasion.my goodness, Pakistan harboured Bin Laden, and when Afghanistan did it, they invaded the country and killed their people for 20 years, and when Pakistan harboured him, they just pretended like nothing happened, they even made excuses for Pakistan saying, maybe it was rogue elements that did it.
But nothing much would come out of such negotiations, as the North Korean example suggests.If Iran had nukes, it could fire a missile into the Saudi Mistry of defence and the US would be like, "oh come on, that's not a nice thing to do, there is no military solution tot his argument. lets have a negotiation."
If Iran does that now, it would be the end of Iran.
Thus Pyongyang won't fire a missile at Japanese or south Korean ministry buildings, even if it could do so with impunity.