Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
Iran central command HQ threatens to bomb northern Israel if Israel bombs Beirut
Iran - Israel/US War: Israel-US declare war on Iran, Iran responds
- Thread starter Khorasan Black Flags
- Start date
Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
Yasser76
Elite Member
Starlord
Trusted Member
The appetite of war is dying, they are forced to because the Masters has told them not to take any deal, Israel has a once in a life time opportunity to kill as many people in the region as they can without using a nuke, Arabs are useless cucks (sorry 1-2 Arab guys here) and with America providing Military/diplomatic cover because of operations like Epstein files/videos they have both Republicans and Democrats in their pockets, clearly America people are very negative about America, but they can't do anything as people have to go to work, pay bills etc. As many has mentioned Bibi is motivated by a religious ideology, he maybe even working towards this whole "Final War" to bring back the messiah, we do hear some news regarding that in their media.
SecularNationalist
Elite Member
There is no deal. And there won't be any.
I guess this will be a on and off thing and ultimately US withdrawing from the conflict. They learned it the hard way that using conflict against Iran they cannot acheive anything infact that will damage US more.
I guess this will be a on and off thing and ultimately US withdrawing from the conflict. They learned it the hard way that using conflict against Iran they cannot acheive anything infact that will damage US more.
kobra
Registered Member
PakistanLVR
Registered Member
I think Iran would need either need to develop nukes and or truly ICBMs to hit any part of the globe.
Focusing strictly on your original prompt:
“If you were a leader of a country during times where there are no friends or enemies but rule of the jungle where countries can attack you from thousands of miles away, would you develop ICBMs?”
Under that assumption—yes, I probably would.
If I genuinely believed:
then developing a credible long-range deterrent would be rational.
The logic is simple: if an adversary can strike your homeland from thousands of miles away while you cannot threaten theirs, they possess a coercive advantage. An ICBM capability changes that calculation by imposing risk on any potential attacker.
Historically, countries such as China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have all pursued long-range missile capabilities largely because they did not want their national survival to depend entirely on the goodwill of stronger powers.
Now, whether those ICBMs should carry conventional warheads, nuclear warheads, or whether they’re worth the opportunity cost is a separate question. But if we’re accepting your premise of an anarchic international system where distant powers can attack you and nobody is coming to save you, then a leader concerned with long-term sovereignty would have strong incentives to develop some form of long-range strike capability.
That’s not a moral judgment—it’s the logic of deterrence in a self-help international system.
You just can’t trust non-Muslims. Sorry not sorry
Focusing strictly on your original prompt:
“If you were a leader of a country during times where there are no friends or enemies but rule of the jungle where countries can attack you from thousands of miles away, would you develop ICBMs?”
Under that assumption—yes, I probably would.
If I genuinely believed:
- No alliance could be trusted,
- Powerful states might attack from great distances,
- Survival depended primarily on self-help,
- And my country had the technical and financial means,
then developing a credible long-range deterrent would be rational.
The logic is simple: if an adversary can strike your homeland from thousands of miles away while you cannot threaten theirs, they possess a coercive advantage. An ICBM capability changes that calculation by imposing risk on any potential attacker.
Historically, countries such as China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea have all pursued long-range missile capabilities largely because they did not want their national survival to depend entirely on the goodwill of stronger powers.
Now, whether those ICBMs should carry conventional warheads, nuclear warheads, or whether they’re worth the opportunity cost is a separate question. But if we’re accepting your premise of an anarchic international system where distant powers can attack you and nobody is coming to save you, then a leader concerned with long-term sovereignty would have strong incentives to develop some form of long-range strike capability.
That’s not a moral judgment—it’s the logic of deterrence in a self-help international system.
You just can’t trust non-Muslims. Sorry not sorry
Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
Ali Abdollahi had them agreeing a ceasefire within minutes lmao
Fuk Trump hes an imbecile but just cant undertsand why Iran not produced some nukes now now now.
For the last 10 years I been waiting for Iran to become a nuclear power and then I realise they actually meant they wouldnt produce any.
This is the ultinamate error by Iran
For the last 10 years I been waiting for Iran to become a nuclear power and then I realise they actually meant they wouldnt produce any.
This is the ultinamate error by Iran
Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
Persian Gulf
INT'L MOD
look into what his sister said about him
Users who are viewing this thread
Pakistan Defence Latest
-
-
-
-
-
Can Pakistan Win Bangladesh’s Trust Without Apologizing for the Genocide of 1971? (2 Viewers)- Latest: Al-Zakir
Country Watch Latest
-
-
-
-
-
Taliban Wants To Build Afghanistan’s Air Defenses With Russia’s Help (2 Viewers)- Latest: Hopefully Pessimistic
