kobra
Registered Member
ICBMs are useless without nuclear warhead. Any missile flying towards US will be considered Nuclear by Pentagon, hence the launching country will be targeted by dozens of n-bombs.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:
- 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
If Iran really wants to fend off US, it has to develop Nukes simple is that.




