On Mon, 19 Mar 2012 14:00:52 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
The greater danger is that they might attack Riyadh over the
Shia-Sunni split. Especially as they know the Saudis don't have nukes.

And have the entire arab world put them on their hit list? Even iran
needs some friends.

After all even one missile has 12 MIRVs. Once you've targeted Tehran,
or Pyongyang, what are you going to do with the other 11 warheads?

Target other cities. I'm not saying thats right ...

Why? There is no possible rational for targeting anything other than
the capital city.

Of course there is. No sensible government puts all its eggs in one basket.
Apart from that you can guarantee if war broke out then Achmed Dinnerjacket
and his flunkies would be nowhere near Tehran.

mind. Also, as the current paralysis over Syria demonstrates, you
wouldn't necessarily want to tell the Russians what you were up to in
advance.

The russians just like to stick their oar in. They don't actually give
a **** about Syria other than using it as a tool to prove that they won't
blindly follow western wishes at the UN.

If the first one doesn't get through, fire another. It would be mixed
up in a salvo of conventional missiles anyway. Also if the Iranians

In which case why bother in the first place?

India is not the problem, it is the target. Not sure what you mean
about if Pakistan goes the way of Afghanistan, Pakistan is actually the
sponsor of the problems in Afghanistan.

True, but its not yet overtly hostile to the west and it limits itself to
regional powermongering. If some taliban supporting islamic nutters got
control of the nuclear missiles then god help us.

B2003