Quote:
Originally posted by 928ram
Except that nukes are useless against an invading force unless you plan on wiping out your own fighters/towns/civilians.
Recent history would certainly have Iran fearing possible invasion from Saddam were he still in power, but pursuing delivery vehicles with a mere 1200 mile range protects against who at this point?
|
You're thinking about nuclear wareheads being used as tactical weapons ("battlefield nukes"). That's not their main value and never has been.
If Iran had nuclear warheads on missiles with a 1200 mile range, and they were faced with invasion, they wouldn't waste their missiles on US armor and infantry. They'd aim them at Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Israel, Turkey, major Middle East oilfields, etc. They'd try to smuggle them into the US, UK, or other Western countries on ocean shipping containers.
What do you think the nuclear destruction of Riyad, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Istanbul, and the five largest MidEast oilfields would would do to the world's political and economic stability? How about the near-shutdown of ocean container cargo shipping? How certain could the US be that we could locate and destroy all the missiles before they could be fired, and all the other bombs before they could be smuggled, considering the failures of intelligence in Iraq? So then under what situation would a US president take the risk of invading Iran?
Add to that the fact that, when you think about it, the US doesn't really have a compelling reason to attack Iran. They don't have huge amounts of oil, they haven't led the list of terrorist-supporting countries (not like Libya who blew up the PanAm flight or the Saudis who have been the terrorists' main money source).
So, if Iran had nuclear weapons and medium-range missiles to put them on, I think they'd be pretty much immune from US invasion.
Edit: I see everyone beat me to this thought. Sorry for the duplicative post.