I see you and SalarHaqq are discussing "deterrence" here. I am not a expert on this topic but I came across 2 articles that are somewhat related to what you are discussing. You can check them out if you want. I will post the links below.
Part 1:
With a gradual easing of tensions between North Korea and the United States in the months following Pyongyang’s final intercontinental ballistic missile and nuclear
militarywatchmagazine.com
Part 2:
Continued from Part OneUnited Populations or Fifth Columns?When staging military interventions overseas to overthrow undesirable governments Western powers have long
militarywatchmagazine.com
If you pay attention, not a single one of my arguments was rooted in religious considerations, nor was I even referencing religion in any shape or form.
The notion that nuclear weapons deter enemies from even the slightest act of aggression is not accurate, as proven by concrete events of the past. British nuclear bombs did not deter Argentina from declaring war on the UK in 1982 and landing troops on territory London considers its own. Pakistani and Indian nuclear weapons did not prevent skirmishes and fighter jets being shot out of the skies. Nuclear powers are subject to attacks by guerilla forces backed by other states. Two or three threatening "Tweets" by Trump, and the Leader of nuclear-armed North Korea went to sit down with the clown and offered to give up his entire nuclear program in exchange for a lifting of sanctions - whereas non-nuclear Iran stood its ground and did not go to the negotiating table despite "maximum pressure" being exerted on it. And so on, and so forth.
So yes, if you look at the surface of things, if you restrict yourself to the symbolic level and to the realm of psy-ops, if you react in an emotive way to geostrategic developments, you might think Iran is weak(er than X, Y, Z)... But not if you grasp the entire depth of the situation, irregardless of any religious or ideological talking points.
Which is why arguments put forth by some anti-clerically inclined commenters are regularly fraught with issues of logic. Like suggesting Iran's Supreme Leader was "coerced" by the US and Isra"el" to impose a 2000 km limit on Iranian BM's, but leaving out that to any American president, Isra"el" matters just as much if not more than Washington D.C.. Or conveniently forgetting that the same Supreme Leader ordered an extension of Iran's missile range to 4000 km with the Khorramshahr BM, which was unveiled years ago. Not knowing what to do with the latest demonstrations of ICBM technology and being forced to resort to absurdities such as that "scientists" or the IRGC developed these against the will of the Supreme Leader, when in fact it's of course the Leader and nobody else who gave the military the go ahead for producing these items.
Or take an argument like the one that claims Iran is "afraid" to build nuclear weapons because if it set out to do so, the US would strike and weaken the IRGC... But since those who make such arguments also believe that nukes are the ultimate weapon of invincibility, any weakening of the IRGC in this scenario would thus be temporary and wouldn't last more than a few weeks until the first nuclear device is assembled, after which the IRGC would become untouchable for all eternity, by the logic of those who hold such views. In other terms, this "weakening", which could only be temporary, would be fully worth it and thus, fear of the IRGC getting weakened for a while could never deter Iran from going for nukes if really deemed necessary.
At the end of the day, it's the end result that counts. If like takfiris you believe there's a "secret under the table alliance between Rafidha and Jews" and that the intense conflict between Iran and the US is "bogus", or that Washington does not actually seek to violently overthrow the Islamic Republic and change the status quo in Iran, then well, you're in dire need of medical care. If however you know what's going on and how rabid, intense and vivid zio-American enmity is towards Iran, and how impatient they've been to carry out "regime change" in Tehran, then you need to look at the result first and foremost. What happens along the way, is secondary.
The most respected local user in terms of military-technical knowledge of Iranian forces is PeeD. And as far as I understand, PeeD believes in conventional counter-force. Meaning that Iran has not just successfully deterred her enemies from a conventional military aggression, but is in the process of ensuring deterrence even against hypothetical nuclear strikes, and is doing so purely through conventional, asymmetrical means. I am fully convinced by the validity of this analysis, and I'm confident that most Iranian users would concur.
www.rt.com
