TheImmortal
SENIOR MEMBER
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2017
- Messages
- 7,091
- Reaction score
- -12
- Country
- Location
Assuming Iran went nuclear, the US or any other country would think twice before launching any sort of attack on Iran since the risk of escalation leading to an exchange of nukes would always be there.
First you didn’t have a valid rebuttal against my topography comment nor about the fact that securing Iran would require 500K soldiers. Probably because it doesn’t fit your narrative that nukes are needed. Saddam had the largest standing army in Arab world and lived next door and couldn’t pass Kermanshah.
But sure let’s indulge your nuclear weapons fantasy. Tel what risk is there for US ? Iran has zero missiles that can reach US mainland. So who are they going to nuke? Saudi Arabia? A carrier group? Israel? Iran can’t hit US mainland.
You play too many video games. Both Pakistan and India have had skirmishes. China and India have had skirmishes. You can’t just magically go from “hey let’s fire at each other’s military bases to let me fire a nuke”. Even when Soviets thought US was launching nukes at them they stood down instead of ordering retaliatory strikes. People like to say risk of nuclear war between powers is there, it really isn’t as likely as widely believed. All nuclear powers are very shy from even thinking about using them.
Nonetheless, You (Iran) don’t fire nukes against a country that has 3000+ of them and can literally end your country as a civilization for next 100 years.
Iran getting into nuclear exchange is a losing cause considering Iran has no true second strike capability (nuclear tipped submarines) thus US could nuke every Iran city 100 times over along with every military installation before Iran could even fire one makeshift ICBM back towards US.
So let’s not talk about hypotheticals. Nukes wouldn’t help Iran prosper today economically or physically. Smarter men in Iran than you have decided it wasn’t worth the chase.
As for your energy comment it’s also not in the realm of reason. The world is moving towards clean energy (fusion, wind, solar, natural gas, etc) so no one is invading Iran for petrochemicals and oil. Now if you would have said WATER you would have a valid point. Except Iran is destroying its water tables faster than most countries in the Middle East so if any country in the next 100 years will be invading other countries for a resource it will be Iran for drinking water, not the US that is largely energy independent and has one of the largest land masses in the world.
Lastly, outside of China, Russia or US. No other country in the world has the resources (money, energy, etc) and military (500K+ active soldiers along with necessary war machine) to even ATTEMPT a land invasion of Iran. You are talking about a war that would cost an opposing country potentially more than $5T US Dollars in costs without factoring in global recession from high oil prices . That would bankrupt most nations even if they won.
So no one is invading Iran in next 100 years barring a complete implosion of Iran from within (Balkanization).
Last edited: