As a statement to the world and especially the people of Iraq that they have entered the modern world. It’s a point of national pride that the people of the country can feel good about - morale of a people goes a very long way.
You can also play the role of the rouge and insane leader that just may use them, but Kim Jong Il already has that role and 2 insane leaders just doesn’t make for a good storyline in this world, and it’s a tough act to land and may get you kicked out of the play very easily if you try.
By threatening nearby military bases belonging to the bombing power, generally. Not that it matters much, since air strikes don’t threaten the existence of Iran; a ground invasion does. They don’t need to reach the US for deterrence to work, they just need to be able to reach our troops. Modern Americans are bullies and cowards; we only fight wars if we expect near-zero casualties on our side. If they can guarantee we’d lose even just a few thousand we’d never dare attack them.
President Madison also briefly exercised battlefield command at the Battle of Bladensburg, Md. in August 1814, just before the British burned the White House, and President Lincoln personally ordered troops to attack near Hampton Roads, Va. in May 1862, even scouting out where they might land.
But airstrikes can be used as a method of attrition. We could move aircraft carriers into the area, their nukes would be useless against those because they are constantly moving and if their nukes were bombs they would never get delivered by aircraft. We can fly B-52/B1-B sorties with impunity from bases outside their weapon’s reach and/or refuel in midair. We could hit and take out their nuclear plants and/or weapons with airstrikes because eventually we will find out where they are, no matter how hardened the target. We can completely shut down their economy in such a way by destroying their oil production/transport, etc and their nukes wouldn’t matter in that instance.
I am not advocating such a measure but to say that airstrikes don’t threaten the existence of Iran isn’t true.
And as for us being bullies and cowards that wouldn’t “dare to attack” if we would lose a few thousand troops, Vietnam, the Iraq War and Afghanistan are calling.
And airstrikes would genuinely have very few casualties on our side.
Vietnam is another era. U.S. losses in Iraq and Afghanistan have been low compared with the overall deaths in those wars (other combatants and civilians), and compared with those in previous wars.
Plus, the neocon idiots thought the people of Iraq would spread rose petals under the feet of American soldiers, rather than the the landmines they actually used.
Afghanistan, well, that was for revenge for an attack. And again, had they gotten bin Laden and left immediately, casualties would have been far lower.
They don’t actually have to reach the US. They just have to nuke a major strategic asset. An aircraft carrier would be a great example. They wouldn’t need to attack another country’s soil, and it would be a staggering loss to the US military both financially and strategically.
Of course the likely US response would be overwhelmingly disproportionate, but still, even Andre the Giant hesitates to throw a punch if he knows his hand may get chopped off.
As said, Vietnam was a different period; I said modern America. And not only did we expect Afghanistan and Iraq to be much easier than they were, our casualties have been extremely low. It’s just that we consider any American casualties at all an earthshaking matter, just as we don’t consider it important if we kill foreigners by the tens of thousands.
The more complicated response is that not only does having “working” nukes act as a great deterrent, you also demonstrate that you have the know how , technology and werewithal to be moved from the kids table to the adult table at family meetings ie, the World stage. (therefore taken more seriously). For a leader it gives them credibility with the populace and mucho propaganda value. It also would be thier ‘legacy to thier people’. So the answer I have for the OP is that the weapon itself is of little intrinsic value, but the spin-offs of increased State security (less likely to be invaded), technological advances, and international bragging rights mean that they are well worth the effort for the country that pursues them.
My $.02
As a side note, the idea that the Iranian leadership, or anyone who manages to keep power in such regimes, are a bunch of ignorant madmen is widely missing the mark. Public statements by politicos of any stripe are seldom how the apparatus of the government is run.
Reenforcing what others have said. Given that if country actually uses a nuke that country is likely to be wiped out, the only time you would use a nuke would be if you feel you have nothing else to lose. Therefor by having nukes, you put yourself in a position where it is in everyone’s best interest that you don’t find yourself with nothing left to lose. So they won’t stop a Falklands type invasion, but will stop an Iraq style invasion. It will also make sure that the world help to prop-up you unstable dictatorship as in North Korea.
(Quote snipped) I doubt Andre has given a damn since 1993.
One of the things that we are missing here is that the US/Allies/NATO/EU/Whatever relationship with Iran is nothing like the scenario in the Cold War. There is no Mutually Assured Destruction. If Iran were to sink one of our capital ships (carrier or whatever), it would be responded to in much the same way that the Gulf of Tonkin or the “attack” on the USS Maine were: ass-kicking time (with varying degrees of success and commitment).
Since 2002, I’ve thought that the way the battle map has been drawn is interesting (possibly conspiracy-Rat thinking here): first, we hit Afghanistan (to Iran’s West); then, we hit Iraq (to the East). Saudi Arabia is an ally (of sorts), we have Turkey (mostly). Iran is essentially in a full envelopment. Coincidence?
I think that if Iraq had gone smoothly with hardly any post war problems, Iran would have been next in very short order. However, I have no evidence of this at all, just my sense from the administration’s general eagerness to launch a war.
I did quite readily stipulate that the US response would likely be wildly disproportionate. What I’m saying is the US risk tolerance is also wildly disproportionate. In terms of realpolitik, it is probably worth trading an aircraft carrier for an end to the Iranian regime and its nuclear weapons program, but the US lacks the appetite for suffering that kind of loss.
The US is kind of like a shark in that regard… certainly a fearsome killing machine, but beats a hasty retreat if you punch it in the nose, because a top-level predator cannot afford to be injured even in a small way. But you certainly do not want to corner it under any circumstances.
Baldwin IV of Jerusalem. 16 years old, leper, could barely stay on his horse, his lance had to be tied to his arm because he couldn’t grip it. Took a couple thousand men (and only 400 cavalry) on a mad dash across the desert, ran smack into Saladin’s 26.000 strong invasion force. Led the charge. Won.