Quote:
Originally Posted by Fidei Defensor
Understand, I am not advocating war. I simply believe it unrealistic to assume a state such as Iran "would refrain from supplying a terrorist organization with a nuke- much less actually using one- knowing full well that it would result in that nations total obliteration were it to be used." One of the benefits of fighting by proxy is the difficulty in attribution of attacks. Consider the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Did you know what state was responsible? There was no invading army or navy bearing Afghanistan flags. The identity of the attackers was discovered through some good police work, but even today the culprit is the subject of frighteningly widespread belief in conspiracy theories.
It is reasonable to believe that conspirators who do a good job of covering their tracks would be reasonably well assured that attacks would not be linked back to them with sufficient clarity to result in counter-attacks.
|
It behooves you to explain why they have not already done this with their existing stockpiles of WMD...
And you need to answer the question of nuclear forensics. Any nuclear explosion in the world carries with it a unique signature of where the materials originated. There would be no mystery as their was with 9/11, which was not really a mystery anyway as the FBI knew fully who the culprits were immediately after the event.
When you really consider this issue the chances of iran handing over the culmination of decades of nuclear research and development to a non-state actor who does not share her interests would be ludicrous.
The potential danger warrants only a very minimal level of concern.
Andrew