For now, maybe. But things change. Tweak a frw variables and the whole equation changes. I’d rather not wait for that to happen.
But acting without very thorough long term planning and strategy has its own risks, as we’re finding out right now. We may be strengthening Iran and increasing the likelihood they get nukes (which is what I believe).
What, do you think the Iranians haven’t gotten nukes until now thanks to the kindness of their hearts? They’ve had a clear and incontrovertible need for nuclear weapons since 1979. The fact that they don’t have them now is through lack of ability, not lack of motivation.
I’m unconvinced.
That, or salvaging one from a sunken warship.
Or stealing one.
Or being given one, by a semi-sane Nation.
I had also assumed that early on there was a notion that a strategic nuclear war could be fought and won. Along with that, the idea that there needed to be the capacity to take losses and still be able to fight means that they needed more delivery systems and more warheads to say… be able to have 30% destroyed and still be able to achieve the mission.
At some point, warhead numbers became a sort of international dick measuring competition that took on a life of its own, independent of the actual warfighting needs.
So do most countries. But non-state actors like terrorist groups aren’t really easy to nuke, which is why I was wondering.
For most of the past decade or so Iran seems to have pursued a nuclear threshold strategy that a lot of countries go with.
It never really made sense to me to do this as itvseems like it invites strikes like in 2025 (and possibly now) - would nake more sense to either go all the way to getting nukes and have that veto ccard forever or not give anyone a reason to think they have one final chance to bomb your nuclear program. But a lot of countries do it so apparently there’s some reason. Also possible that it’s a way to resolve an internal struggle between factions (i.e. one faction wants to get a nuke, one doesn’t and the compromise is to develop 70, 80, 90% enriched uranium and the deployment technology but technically not develop an actual nuke) but doesn’t actually make sense as a coherent strategy.
I have no idea. My only theory is that they’ve tried and failed.
No sane national leader would actually use nukes if he had them. The problem is that if enough countries get them, there will eventually be an insane leader.
If Israel is so weak, where even a nuclear strike will fail to defeat Iran, then it seems the only rational move is peace, not the escalation we have been seeing? That or invade with ~1 million guys.
We’d love to make peace with Iran, but they don’t seem to be in the market.
The conflict between Israel and Iran was initiated by the latter and could be stopped by it in a second if it wanted to. It doesn’t, so we’re going with Plan B.
I’d think reincarnation would make them less likely to nuke the world. Who would want to reincarnate in a nuclear wasteland?
Now, people who believe in Heaven, they’ll be happy to toss a few nukes, because they think they’ll never suffer the inevitable consequences of a nuclear war. One quick flash, and then you’re sitting at the right hand of God.