he said i will tell you our most expensive that are 400k. so only our 2000km range are the most expensive.
let us just say 300 missiles. its still a big number
I agree. Plus a long range bomber drone.
Usually our 2000km missile are more expensive but you must consider the fact that they are not the bulk of what we use in battle , they are there to deter enemy from starting something like the war of the cities we previously faced. In case of war in certain the missile of the fate family or something like Qiam and also rocket like fajr will be the weapon of choice and those are a lot cheaper than for example Sedjil .
Individual missiles not utilising WMDs are of a minimal value. The most they can do is attack military bases and civilian centers. The latter which would be a very cowardly thing to do and why Saudi Arabia didint use theirs during the Gulf war. CEP is not a concern when using WMD because the warhead will affect a great area. Its tricky business to make a accurate missile and I don't think it's something the Iranians actually need. Who are they going to be attacking in the case of war? Cities,military bases. These are large targets that don't need a good CEP. If your Gulf neighbors get nukes which they could It would be unadvisable to launch missiles in fear of retaliation of a much more deadly scale. It wouldn't be hard or them to get Uranium after all Jordan the country has at least 65000 tons of uranium underground which could be enriched made into a simple nuclear weapon such as the gun type which is very crude but effective. Thaad and patriot systems would be ineffective at destroying barrages of missiles so thats where I would go if I was an Iranian missile commander. Once the missiles would be launched Iran's fate would be sealed. If Iran attacked Israel there's nothing you could really do. Nukes would get through. You probably won't be able to penetate their anti ballistic missiles though. Don't be offended if I told you this. I recognise the capabilities of Iran without bias and you should too.
Yes minimal value. You call Kurds a threat? They are barely developed. Yes they are a minimal value. There is maybe a few thousand pound warhead. One tomahawk missile with a nuclear missile could destroy Tehran. It would take probably 50-100 Ballistic Missiles to destroy Riyadh. Unless of course you armed them with chemical weapons which would be a dirty bomb.
Yes precision missiles but the U.S. rarely launches the from land. Those missiles in the video arent cruise missiles they are tac ballistic missiles. U.S. never uses Tactical Ballistic Missiles. Tomahawk missiles are either launched by Air,or sea. Land bases launching of missiles are too risky and too stationary. Those missiles are not good at evading air defences compared to nap of the earth cruise missiles. So there is a major difference between your precision guided weapons and the U.S. precision guided weapons. Again with land launched missiles you have to move them into position and they have no ability to avoid retaliation by the enemy.
Do you think the U.S. would not have Patriot or THAAD missiles protecting their troops. Both of those could easily intercept any missiles that China fired. Saudi Arabia and Gulf countries already have the Patriot and some have THAAD. And yes the U.S. would know where the missiles are launched from as easily as finding where they are launched from the sea. Do you honestly think that the U.S. can't see everything China, Russia and, Iran are doing? There retaliatory attacks would be overkill. Missiles are hard to launch in barrages especially because Iran's Missiles are not launched from Silos they are launched from TELs which could be easily spotted from satellites. You need to stop overestimating Iran. And no I'm not underestimating Iran, I'm factoring in the Big Daddy the USA.Literally half of your reply is sticking to the word "land" and "U.S tomahawks" when I said "huge fleets of warships, or jets, or land" AFTER that fact I mentioned half a dozen countries that have missiles (some of which, on land too). Sometimes it is safer to fire a 2000km missile from a huge land mass where it is difficult to find, than it is on a ship that can constantly be tracked at sea.
Let me give you an example. Tell me this. Would it be harder to find a 2000km range Chinese missile launcher on the Chinese land mass or is it harder for the U.S to track the location of Chinese missile carriers?
Look at where China can launch missiles at U.S targets in Manilla from land.
Do you think huge Chinese ships that are monitored 24/7 are safer? You cannot hide!
Also, I'm not going to waste my time with you about the maneuverability and speed that a SRBM is capable of when it comes to air defenses penetration.
lol
lran has silos too fyi.
You don't know most of the capabilities the u.s. has. Stop being retarded and look at all the satellites they have. The U.S. knows everything in these days.
