@VEVAK
Now what if Iran is attack and Iran responds with conventional missiles and yet the retaliation to Iran's response is a nuclear attack? What then?
I'm not saying nukes are a necessity for Iran but worst case and at the very least we need to have the equipment ready at a safe location to build them in a very short timespan so if ever a single nuke drops on Iran we can retaliate in kind in under a week so it never happens again!
This is the key to this issue: Yes Irans nuclear weapon break-out infrastructure and potential must be nuclear-blast-proof to let this concept work. Furthermore Irans delivery method must be nuclear blast proof or highly survivable (outlined in detail here:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iran-and-conventional-counter-force.601382/ ).
Plus (and this is what we see Iran is doing): Irans nuclear warhead design should be autonomous and not depended on nuclear isotope based neutron generators or booster gases.
The good news is that points are fullfilled by Iran:
- Nuclear-blast-proof weaponization at mountain facilities in Parchin. Plus the compact Soviet thermonuclear design which the Koreans tested.
- Nuclear-blast-proof Fissile material production at Fordow. Plus a centrifuge generation is coming with a SWU capability that enables fissile material for an
significant arsenal within days.
- Nuclear reactor independent warhead design: A key requirement since otherwise a underground nuclear reactor would be necessary something a latent nuclear power is not allowed.
Irans leader plus Zarifs capability have got Iran exactly all these key capabilities in a legitimized way.
Japans latent capability is not survivable, Irans will be.
Hence a MAD scenario is created: The high survivability of Irans future strategic potential can't be neutralized with confidence. No confidence of stopping an even limited nuclear retaliation means --> you won't use nukes. MAD mechanism is created.
Iran would be the only country in the world with just a latent nuclear capability but MAD concept applied.
Nuclear safeguards would also confirm that Irans conventional ICBM arsenal is not yet tipped with nuclear warheads --> enabling their global conventional use --> giving Iran a unprecedented global force projection potential --> confirming Salamis statement of a world military power.
Also if the U.S. continues to equip the Saudi's with nuclear tech that will lead to a Saudi Nuke then we really don't have a choice because Iran simply can't afford to be a none nuclear state that's surrounded by nuclear powers from every side
Agreed, the Saudis could become a problem here. However it all depends on China and Pakistan. Plus their fissile weapon designs have no thermonuclear potential.
Iran could reach a conventional power level in which any future Saudi nuclear strike could be taken out pre-preemptiv, even just using conventional means.
We should hope that the U.S/China don't want to create a nuclear proxy against Iran with Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately things go in that direction.
The major nuclear powers of the world have air dropped nuclear bombs, cruise missiles armed with nukes, torpedo nukes, Air to Air nukes, nuclear artillery,..... & nuclear powered BM's so if ever U.S. fires cruise missiles at us or deploys bombers against us we wouldn't know if they have nukes on them or not until they hit so why should Iranian BM be any different?
As mentioned its the IAEA safeguards that will assure that there has been no break-out. This is the insurance for the use of the conventional ICBM arsenal. The U.S won't use nukes because they would be aware of Irans survivable latent nuclear potential --> can't take that retaliation risk.
And I believe the argument that no one would use a none nuclear ICBM were for the day's the accuracy to take out targets with high accuracy didn't exist and that argument will continue to fade as the tech to make the projectiles smaller and more accurate
If for example a $10 Million USD Iranian ICBM armed with decoys and 10 highly accurate MIRV with a CEP of 10 meters and ability to take out 10 fortified aircraft bunkers up to 10,000km away I'd say that's well worth the cost
same with a larger diameter $40 Million USD missile carrying 40 conventional MIRV even it it's for targets within 3,000km I would still say it would be well worth it without nukes as long as you have the accuracy to allow you to use larger number of lighter projectiles to take out bunkers and yes compared to a nuke the structural damage and death toll may not be so significant but for Iran the real prize is the military assets not the death toll or structural damage
Yes accuracy was the issue plus the fact that the risk of a thermonuclear tipped RV among those launched. Remember that all powers with ICBMs are automatically also nuclear ones and Iran would be the only safeguarded latent nuclear power.
Maybe in future a yet unknown, widespread used nuclear warhead detection sensor could enable the use of conventional ICBMs for established nuclear powers. Avantgard like hypersonic weapons will make the issue more complicated as they can simply change their attack vector towards another opponent.
Trident D5 had a <90m CEP accuracy, but could never be used conventionally for those reasons.
Cost-wise it is worth it, especially because of cost-efficient and innovative IRGC-ASF design school.
The calculation is clear: Iran has created the Sedjil for <=400k USD, upscale that to a heavy ICBM and you won't go above a 5x or 10x multiplicator.
Then calculate a MRV/MIRV throw weight potential and a arsenal for 2025 or so.
Alone 4 MaRV warheads for each missile and a small arsenal of 100 missiles would mean ~400 critical/high priority targets taken out, at will...
@Sineva
The survivability requirements for such a latent nuclear arsenal would be enormous. I outlined the benefits Irans missile-city concept brings in this thread:
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/iran-and-conventional-counter-force.601382/
Irans latent capability means that its delivery potential must remain intact against a massive strike of strategic nuclear warheads. Rail basing would not reliably enable this.
It is superior to rail basing but I agree that this is also a good option for heavier ICBMs. Iran can make best use of its rugged topography.
Disclaimer: What I say here are no secrets anymore. Netanyahu and later Trump realized that Irans nuclear deal is engineered to enable exactly this latent nuclear capability. They are perfectly aware about the points I wrote here and that's why Trump had no other option than to leave the deal.
History may remember Zarif as the man who enabled Irans survivable latent nuclear capability that in turn enabled Iran a superpower-level, global force projection capability via conventional ICBMs.
Obama gave Iran that nuclear deal and Trump could be the man that enabled that legitimized (due to threatening) conventional ICBM capability.
Use the "opportunities created by enemy actions" concept.
This is a good display of the amazing capability of Iranian strategic decision making.