Non nuclear missiles are an extremely minor threat to the US. We aren't weak or tiny like Israel, and we outmass Iran's conventional firepower by orders of magnitude.
Nukes are several orders of magnitude more threatening than conventional missiles, and don't even need to strike a target directly to do crippling damage to our power infrastructure. Most people haven't realized because of very good cover jobs, but our power infrastructure has been demonstrated to be very vulnerable.
Nuclear proliferation shouldn't be tolerated from a national security standpoint. Especially to hostile nations. If Iran shot a missile at us, they'd do negligible damage and quickly be bombed into the stone age. If they snuck a nuke through the southern border or sent one up to go off in the upper atmosphere, they could cause tens of thousands of dead, and severely damage our electrical grid or our satellite network.
So are Iranian nukes, or really any weapon as long as the US stays out of the region which they have no reason to be in, other than to protect the nation that has attacked as of now 3 or 4 unprovoked directly... but here we are, right?
It isn't how big or bad they are - even the H.S missiles brought Israel down to their knees, but Iran refused to use them until attacked. Re-read that paragraph again if you're not hearing what I am saying.
The claim that Iran can't have this weapon as they'll use it - has been proven false. Why don't you see that simple logic?
Iran totally won't use nukes so it's fine to let homicidal jihadists have a strategic weapon that bypasses typical conventional military capability
really guys believe me the jihadis definitely won't use nukes so just let them have weapons that literally redefined war and don't even need to reach a target to be effective
No. Retarded position. Nuclear proliferation is a failure, and allowing demonstrated lunatics that hate us to get nukes would be an absolute failure for a president.
Let me put this in terms you will understand. If some retard at the end of the block is constantly yelling how he hates you and hopes you die, and he gets a fucking mortar tube set up that he could easily point at your house, allowing that to continue to exist is retarded.
If you truly believe that, then why not start with Israel?
Also, Nukes have arguably been the biggest weapon for peace. Recall prior to it, we had wars every decade. Not really anymore.
Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, etc.... all were equal "bad guys", but 1 wasn't fucked with. So, please smarten up.
Again, Iran even if they had the weapons, and even if they wanted to attack the US, just like with Iraq before, it doesn't matter what they want, as they have no method of getting anything here. FFS, again, smarten up.
Someone screaming at you from across the world isn't a threat to you - stop being a coward.
Definitely did not stop because of nukes. There was constant war during the 20th century, many of which the CIA participated in and instigated.
I would gladly wish on a lamp for Israel to not be a nuclear power, but that ship has sailed. They already have a lot of nukes. You can't stop a nuclear power once they reach that stage, you have to stop them before they get them.
Someone screaming at you from across the world isn't a threat to you
You do not understand the strategic capacity of nuclear weapons beyond "big fireball hiroshima" clearly and that means you have not been reading my posts, just flinging "but what about da jooos" at me. Stop wasting my time, then. Getting an ICBM isn't beyond Iran's capacity, and ICBMs are far from the only viable delivery mechanism. You don't actually need to directly strike a target with a nuke either. I explained this already. A high altitude detonation could be used to disrupt our power grid or damage our satellite network.
Non nuclear missiles are an extremely minor threat to the US. We aren't weak or tiny like Israel, and we outmass Iran's conventional firepower by orders of magnitude.
Nukes are several orders of magnitude more threatening than conventional missiles, and don't even need to strike a target directly to do crippling damage to our power infrastructure. Most people haven't realized because of very good cover jobs, but our power infrastructure has been demonstrated to be very vulnerable.
Nuclear proliferation shouldn't be tolerated from a national security standpoint. Especially to hostile nations. If Iran shot a missile at us, they'd do negligible damage and quickly be bombed into the stone age. If they snuck a nuke through the southern border or sent one up to go off in the upper atmosphere, they could cause tens of thousands of dead, and severely damage our electrical grid or our satellite network.
So are Iranian nukes, or really any weapon as long as the US stays out of the region which they have no reason to be in, other than to protect the nation that has attacked as of now 3 or 4 unprovoked directly... but here we are, right?
It isn't how big or bad they are - even the H.S missiles brought Israel down to their knees, but Iran refused to use them until attacked. Re-read that paragraph again if you're not hearing what I am saying.
The claim that Iran can't have this weapon as they'll use it - has been proven false. Why don't you see that simple logic?
No. Retarded position. Nuclear proliferation is a failure, and allowing demonstrated lunatics that hate us to get nukes would be an absolute failure for a president.
Let me put this in terms you will understand. If some retard at the end of the block is constantly yelling how he hates you and hopes you die, and he gets a fucking mortar tube set up that he could easily point at your house, allowing that to continue to exist is retarded.
If you truly believe that, then why not start with Israel?
Also, Nukes have arguably been the biggest weapon for peace. Recall prior to it, we had wars every decade. Not really anymore.
Iran, Syria, Libya, North Korea, etc.... all were equal "bad guys", but 1 wasn't fucked with. So, please smarten up.
Again, Iran even if they had the weapons, and even if they wanted to attack the US, just like with Iraq before, it doesn't matter what they want, as they have no method of getting anything here. FFS, again, smarten up.
Someone screaming at you from across the world isn't a threat to you - stop being a coward.
Definitely did not stop because of nukes. There was constant war during the 20th century, many of which the CIA participated in and instigated.
I would gladly wish on a lamp for Israel to not be a nuclear power, but that ship has sailed. They already have a lot of nukes. You can't stop a nuclear power once they reach that stage, you have to stop them before they get them.
You do not understand the strategic capacity of nuclear weapons beyond "big fireball hiroshima" clearly and that means you have not been reading my posts, just flinging "but what about da jooos" at me. Stop wasting my time, then. Getting an ICBM isn't beyond Iran's capacity, and ICBMs are far from the only viable delivery mechanism. You don't actually need to directly strike a target with a nuke either. I explained this already. A high altitude detonation could be used to disrupt our power grid or damage our satellite network.