Replies

These 'experts' miss a distinct difference (or several).

1. Soviet missiles could 'destroy' the US; Iranians lack the lift vehicles and the warheads. Back in the 60s, putting Soviet warheads and missiles in Cuba made them no more or less dangerous than placing them in Siberia. The differences in flight time affected our military response and our false sense of security WRT missiles and bombers coming over the pole.

2. Missiles in Iran cannot destroy the US, but warheads in Achmed's Ryder truck can.

3. The Soviets were not intent on delivering warheads unless they had to. Achmed IS intent on getting them here and detonating them.

4. We would have been hard-pressed in the 60s to truly defeat the USSR (and vice versa) in a nuclear exchange, although both countries and much of the world would be wasteland for centuries. We *can* devastate Iran if need be via conventional, electronic, financial and yes nuclear means. **IF** we ever decided to go nuclear, AND wage war with other viable means, in the space of a less than a week, Iran would have no electrical power, no EMF capable electronics, no financial system, no military, no means to communicate within or outside its borders, on and on.

5. A nuclear action by the US WILL NOT happen unless we are attacked and blame can be laid. Period.

5a. 90 minutes after a verified attack, Iran would cease to exist.

5b. CNN international and Reuters would NOT be able to broadcast from the hot zones, but would of course be able to immediately interview 'dignitaries' opposed to and condemning US actions. They have previously drawn up target lists, just like the military does. ;-)

This is exactly how I see it. Iran IS at war with us. Iran's leaders believe they have the divine right to rule the world in the name of Allah. Iran will use their nuclear threat to intimidate the western world while their terrorists continue to attack the West believing that we don't have the balls to attack them directly...and if we do..well then, Allah wants it that way so they use nukes on Israel and Europe. A military action is inevitable.

Back in the 60s, putting Soviet warheads and missiles in Cuba made them no more or less dangerous than placing them in Siberia. The differences in flight time affected our military response and our false sense of security WRT missiles and bombers coming over the pole.

I'd have to disagree. The differences in flight time are crucial. Missiles flying in from Siberia to the CONUS have about 30+ minute flight times. Enough time to alert our own missiles and more importantly flush our bombers. Thus the Soviets could be assured of getting hit badly in our second strike response, and thus be deterred. Not so with missiles fired from Cuba, the flight times would be much shorter, and given the state of our own missiles at that point, either unhardened or very lightly hardened in "coffin" launchers, and how long it took to erect and fire them, most of them could also be lost before they could respond, as would the alert bomber force. The Soviets could have figured that they could handle the few on airborne alert. Thus deterrence could have failed. Only a few boomers were in commission, and fewer still operational at that time.