I read the link to the Samson Option, and came away with a strange impression. It seemed that the article kept referring to it as either a deterrent, or a retaliatory tool. Isn't deterrence or retaliation only used to prevent an attack, or in the case of being attacked first?
The words were " deterrence strategy of massive retaliation with nuclear weapons as a “last resort” against nations whose military attacks threaten its existence, and possibly against other targets as well.". Massive retaliation with nuclear weapons means that we no longer enjoy life as we know it. Let's say Iran decides to invade/attack Israel conventionally. Does this mean that Israel has the right to, as Americans are fond of saying, nuke Iran back to the stone ages/turn Iran into a country full of glass?
That is what I find troublesome. Possessing them and threatening to massively attack countries with them if attacked are two different types of deterrents.
Iran has to have one of the most efficient and thorough security forces in the world. If the protestors are opposed to Iran, why aren't they "disappeared?"
I was unaware that they do. With all the technology and money spent on intelligence gathering, I would have bet it was the US not Iran, and you don't see them being disappeared. I mean, they might cut the head off the snake, but would you or I hear about them?
P.s. I looked at the thread you linked to, and it seemed that for whatever reason it degenerated really quickly to anger, loss of reason, calls for kicking people out, etc. I thought at first I should have posted in that thread but, by the end of the first page, it was pretty clear that it was hopeless.
Yes it was, and I'm embarrassed to say that I was a part of the problem.