Do you really are is Iran has the bomb?

[Princeps]

Wait what? The scuds used during the gulf war caused some damage and killed some people (most notably with a lucky hit on a barracks)

The primary land vehicles of the US army, M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley are quite delicate machines. They have to spend a lot time in the service depot, and often in great numbers, as they did in the gulf war. M1 with its POS turbine engine in particular. These neatly clustered vehicles are an easy target for a modern ballistic missile. If the Iraqis came close to destroying 20 - 30 or so Abrams tanks with a single scud, the Iranians will definitely be more accurate and deliver a bigger bomb.

I'm not saying that the Iranians would win, but they're probably developing ballistic missile capability for deterrence. The missiles themselves are dangerous even without a nuclear payload.

Oh daym. Miss.

 

[apocalypse105]

The question is would they fire it?

If they do then basicly there country becomes a dessert and no mands land.

France : nukes
England : nukes
america : nukes

alll allies and christianity

 

[Ajidica]

Not sure if serious.
For the record, China, Pakistan, India, and Israel all have nukes, and they are neither a no-mans land nor particularly christian.

 

[ParkCungHee]

When did perfidious Albion:

-Achieve Independence
-Acquire Nuclear Weapons
-Convert to Christianity?

 

[Ajidica]

The same moment my dream of a BachCain Train suffered a boiler explosion at the station earlier this night.

 

[History_Buff]

I'm not worried about the state abusing atomic power so much as I am about middlemen. MAD principles would be a good deterrent from Tehran not attacking anybody, but does that work for a suicide bomber?

Honestly, I'd say we face a far greater threat from terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons from Pakistan or a Russian security slip-up than we do from Iran. Iran at least seems to be in control of what's going on inside their borders.

 

[kochman]

Honestly, I'd say we face a far greater threat from terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons from Pakistan or a Russian security slip-up than we do from Iran. Iran at least seems to be in control of what's going on inside their borders.

Because the number one state sponsor of terrorism is trying to prevent terrorists from arming?

 

[Ajidica]

Because Iran wants to keep hold over their internation manhood-measuring object? The Iranians know full well that as soon as they reveal their mastery of nuclear weaponry will to the world (which they will do, no point in having a deterrant nobody knows about), every intelligence agency out there will start looking for the spot where Iran stashed the missiles. If Iran 'lost' a warhead, Very Bad Things will happen to Iran.

 

[History_Buff]

Because the number one state sponsor of terrorism is trying to prevent terrorists from arming?

Yes. Like Aji says, if a nuke were to go off in the U.S. next year, Iran would be at the top of the list for 'countries that deserve to be punished', regardless of whether they were responsible or not.

Also, I have serious problems with that list. Namely, that Pakistan wasn't/isn't on it.

 

[JohnRM]

Pakistan, with the bomb, gives me a lot more to worry about than Iran with the bomb.

 

[manim]

i - as an iranian citizen - am really concerned about iran getting a nuke but i dont think you guys should be because iran wont use its a-bombe as a bombe but as a reason to stop other countries from interfering in its internal affairs. they dont want what happened to gaddafi happen to them.(btw srry for my bad english)

 

[Tani Coyote]

Citation needed?

How do you cite a hypothetical? It hasn't happened yet.

The more countries with nukes, the less nukes are an advantage over other countries -> the more likely they are to be used would seem a pretty likely outcome. Especially with limited use (I mean come on, MAD itself was a pretty outdated concept by the end of the 60s). If Iran built 3 nukes which were known to the world, would it be any less threatening if they used one but kept the other two?

The fact you will be bombed to oblivion?

There's one school of thought which thinks the world would be safer if each nation had an arsenal - the idea is no one will push anyone else too far out of fear of nuclear escalation.

Yeah, and this doesn't make it any less likely that if they had nuclear weapons Iran wouldn't ever use them.

If Iran was truly that insane they'd have already tried to conquer the world. Their insanity is a clever act to convince everyone they could be dangerous.

Consider that they've supported Hezbollah and whatnot, but haven't actually tried to attack Israel themselves. If they were insane, they'd have done it, the US or Israeli response be damned.

Iran is pretty vocally adamant that it wishes to expand its Shia revolution throughout the Muslim world. Hense widespread Muslim support for Iraq in the Persian Gulf War, particularly strained relations with most of the Arab world, etc.

Obama pretty frequently states he's for the repeal of many Bush-era provisions, a supporter of drug liberalisation, and for higher taxes on the wealthy.

Once again, it's all about image. Geopolitics is as much an act as it is action.

Iran would be crazy to look further beyond Iraq(a fellow majority Shi'ite state) - the rest of the Arab world would surely put aside their differences and work to contain them. Never mind the US too.

Iran was eager to expand its revolution into Iraq back during the war, but that was ages ago. Iran has surely changed, in the same way the USSR changed between Stalin and Khruschev.

Citation, please?

How do you cite a hypothetical? It hasn't happened yet.

They are politicians. Politicians lie about whatever to maintain POWER. You cannot have power if the USA has vaporised you.

 

[Virote_Considon]

How do you cite a hypothetical? It hasn't happened yet.

Where are you getting this hypothetical from? What is your basis for this hypothetical suggestion that no one is "insane" enough to use their nukes?

The fact you will be bombed to oblivion?

Yes, that concept is the outdated one, based on the idea that those who head states are rational enough to know that using one bomb on one level (strategically nukeing military fortifications, for example) does not mean that the user would necessarily escalate to the next (i.e. nukeing of civillian centres just to break the enemies' resolve) and therefore it can be assumed by both sides that full-scale nuclear holocaust from either is probably not in the cards - what is more likely is that they'll respond in kind. Both sides want to win - that's why there is war.

There's one school of thought which thinks the world would be safer if each nation had an arsenal - the idea is no one will push anyone else too far out of fear of nuclear escalation.

True, but that is not what I'm talking about.

If Iran was truly that insane they'd have already tried to conquer the world. Their insanity is a clever act to convince everyone they could be dangerous.

Define "insanity" here. It seems Iran is acting pretty rational.

What I'm getting at is that it might not necessarily be irrational (insane) for a nuclear state to use nuclear weapons should they have them.

Ask yourself this: If Iran (or any country) used a nuclear weapon but had more would any third-party non-nuclear state want to risk their own peoples' safety to intervene?

Would a third-party nuclear state want to risk their own peoples' safety to intervene conventionally?

Would a third-party nuclear state want to be accountable to its own people for launching a nuke (or a number thereof) at Iran as a repurcussion?

Is it possible that any UNSC resolution on repurcussions for Iran's hypothetical nuclear actions, for whatever reason, be vetoed by Russia or China? How about in 10-15 years when either (or an alliance of both) might be a more significant counterweight to US/Western Power?

Consider that they've supported Hezbollah and whatnot, but haven't actually tried to attack Israel themselves. If they were insane, they'd have done it, the US or Israeli response be damned.

I'm not saying they are insane. I'm saying that they do have strategic interests in the region and one day in the future may quite rationally and sanely decide it is in their interest to use nuclear weapons in the region.

Obama pretty frequently states he's for the repeal of many Bush-era provisions, a supporter of drug liberalisation, and for higher taxes on the wealthy.

Once again, it's all about image. Geopolitics is as much an act as it is action.

That doesn't mean Iran wouldn't enact on its rhetoric if it could - especially if it meant the difference between looking good by doing what it says it believes and looking bad by not doing it when the opportunity more than presents itself.

Iran would be crazy to look further beyond Iraq(a fellow majority Shi'ite state) - the rest of the Arab world would surely put aside their differences and work to contain them. Never mind the US too.

I've just named 2 more countries (Bahraine and Azerbaijan) with Shia majorities (moreso than Iraq in fact, and the latter with a land border with Iran to boot).

Plus, most Arab countries have a significant Shia minority (i.e. some potential for a 5th column); significant anti-government sentiment which Iran could use soft power to influence; fair amounts of discontent in the Arab states which are on fair terms with Israel (Iran the perfect counterbalance); and of course they do not have the combined means to take out a nuclear armed Iran. Besides which, who is any coalition going to include? Of the three big guns in the region (one of them being Iran itself), Israel (the least powerful of the 3) would probably join, but I can see Turkey (the most powerful) sitting it out so long as no direct military action is exerted against Azerbaijan. With the lesser powers, Lebanon and Syria (esp. if the revelution is crushed) are firmly in Iran's camp, and the PA also tends to side with them. You're essentially left with a grand coalition of the Saudis, Jordan (lol), Yemen (double lol) and the Gulf States (they don't even get a lol). US involvement is shaky at best (just pulled out of Iraq, budget cuts are making them reduce overseas bases, as such I do believe they're pulling out of KFOR, for example.)

Iran was eager to expand its revolution into Iraq back during the war, but that was ages ago. Iran has surely changed, in the same way the USSR changed between Stalin and Khruschev.

Or the way in which NK changed between Kim I and Kim II, and Kim II and Kim III?

Or the way in which the ideology of the USSR changed between Khruschev and Brehznev? Hell, between Khruschev's Destalinisation and Gorbs' proclamation of Perestroika?

The fact is, there is nothing to suggest it has declined. And in recent years, Azerbaijan for one has complained of Iran trying to spread their revolution there.

How do you cite a hypothetical? It hasn't happened yet.

Citation for how you came to this hypothetical conclusion. What is it based upon? I mean, I can tell it's more reasoned than "And then the world became spaghetti". How would arming terrorists lead to (nuclear?) war for Iran? Who will lead this heroic charge of the Light Brigade? Do the powers that be in the US really want to involve itself in Iran when its involvement in Iraq has become so domestically faux pas?

They are politicians. Politicians lie about whatever to maintain POWER. You cannot have power if the USA has vaporised you.

Again, why would the USA make themselves respondible in the eyes of their own citizens for the vaporisation of the Iranian people? Especially if no American life was harmed in the triggering Iranian action?

 

[Tani Coyote]

Where are you getting this hypothetical from? What is your basis for this hypothetical suggestion that no one is "insane" enough to use their nukes?

Posturing is a key part of politics, foreign and domestic. Nobody really wants to use nukes, except maybe the crazy people on the ground. It's why the Cold War never turned hot; we seem to have gotten a lot smarter than the morons who were in charge of diplomacy during World War I.

Iran has a fairly educated, intelligent elite focused on keeping and expanding power. Starting a nuclear war is NOT a means of keeping power. It's a good way to lose it, though.

Define "insanity" here. It seems Iran is acting pretty rational.

Their insanity is the act they put up that they might be crazy enough to declare a jihad on the West given the chance. If anything, the acquisition of nuclear weaponry would be a deterrent against Israeli and American action against them. The irony is that by our attempts to stop their armament, we're probably just justifying it to their people.

What I'm getting at is that it might not necessarily be irrational (insane) for a nuclear state to use nuclear weapons should they have them.

Oh, definitely. Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind.

But then again, those aren't comparable - those bombs are nothing when put next to the modern ICBM, capable of killing tens of millions of people with just one missile.

Ask yourself this: If Iran (or any country) used a nuclear weapon but had more would any third-party non-nuclear state want to risk their own peoples' safety to intervene?

Well. It depends. What kind of weapon are we talking about?

If I recall, SDI could actually work on small scale with crude bombs. Not so much against the quality or quantity of say, American or Russian missiles, however.

Suitcase nukes enter the equation as well. Of course, if one goes off, Iran can kiss itself goodbye - for every one bomb it detonates, a hundred more can be sent their way.

Would a third-party nuclear state want to risk their own peoples' safety to intervene conventionally?

That would depend. Geopolitics seems to be one big game of calling bluffs. If you're right you're right, if you're not... well, you're not.

Would a third-party nuclear state want to be accountable to its own people for launching a nuke (or a number thereof) at Iran as a repurcussion?

In that case, no. MAD only works when the two involved are nuclear. The idea is if you nuke a nuclear nation or push them too hard, they will make you pay for it. Unless a third party nuclear state has a suicidal intent to honor its commitments(as the combatants of World War I did), it's unlikely they'd assist.

Is it possible that any UNSC resolution on repurcussions for Iran's hypothetical nuclear actions, for whatever reason, be vetoed by Russia or China? How about in 10-15 years when either (or an alliance of both) might be a more significant counterweight to US/Western Power?

Definitely. As I recall, China and Russia are very close to Iran.

Plus, most Arab countries have a significant Shia minority (i.e. some potential for a 5th column); significant anti-government sentiment which Iran could use soft power to influence; fair amounts of discontent in the Arab states which are on fair terms with Israel (Iran the perfect counterbalance); and of course they do not have the combined means to take out a nuclear armed Iran. Besides which, who is any coalition going to include? Of the three big guns in the region (one of them being Iran itself), Israel (the least powerful of the 3) would probably join, but I can see Turkey (the most powerful) sitting it out so long as no direct military action is exerted against Azerbaijan. With the lesser powers, Lebanon and Syria (esp. if the revelution is crushed) are firmly in Iran's camp, and the PA also tends to side with them. You're essentially left with a grand coalition of the Saudis, Jordan (lol), Yemen (double lol) and the Gulf States (they don't even get a lol). US involvement is shaky at best (just pulled out of Iraq, budget cuts are making them reduce overseas bases, as such I do believe they're pulling out of KFOR, for example.)

Point there.

However, if Iran started to dominate the oil-producing states of the world, I doubt the USA - or other industrial powers for that matter - would just sit idly by. No one wants war, and it's why a blind eye is often turned to the first few acts of aggression. After a while, however, it's decided the aggressor must be reined in.

Or the way in which NK changed between Kim I and Kim II, and Kim II and Kim III?

Or the way in which the ideology of the USSR changed between Khruschev and Brehznev? Hell, between Khruschev's Destalinisation and Gorbs' proclamation of Perestroika?

Fair enough.

The fact is, there is nothing to suggest it has declined. And in recent years, Azerbaijan for one has complained of Iran trying to spread their revolution there.

Well we try to spread democracy all the time so I can't exactly say I'd be surprised.

But that doesn't mean they're necessarily as radical as they were before. Radical sentiments tend to cool down and become insulated once they seize power, because they begin to understand that launching a global war or revolution or whatever the crap isn't exactly feasible. (Short of being in Call of Duty Modern Warfare)

Again, why would the USA make themselves respondible in the eyes of their own citizens for the vaporisation of the Iranian people? Especially if no American life was harmed in the triggering Iranian action?

I used the USA as an example. If they used some sort of nuke against us, they most certainly would suffer a massive reprisal.

Which is why they wouldn't - they want to keep power. And you can't keep it if you're dead.

 

[Virote_Considon]

Posturing is a key part of politics, foreign and domestic. Nobody really wants to use nukes, except maybe the crazy people on the ground. It's why the Cold War never turned hot; we seem to have gotten a lot smarter than the morons who were in charge of diplomacy during World War I.

1. The Cold War almost did turn hot many times.
2. WWI as we knew it was not inevitable.
3. Using nuclear weapons can still be "smart", even in this era. The nuclear taboo exists but can be dented and pierced and broken.

Iran has a fairly educated, intelligent elite focused on keeping and expanding power. Starting a nuclear war is NOT a means of keeping power. It's a good way to lose it, though.

If they can spin the outcome of the war as a win to their elite (if not objectionally winning it), then it is a brilliant means of keeping power. If they can spin their use of nuclear weapons as being the Right Thing To Do then it is a brilliant means of keeping power.

Their insanity is the act they put up that they might be crazy enough to declare a jihad on the West given the chance. If anything, the acquisition of nuclear weaponry would be a deterrent against Israeli and American action against them. The irony is that by our attempts to stop their armament, we're probably just justifying it to their people.

Red underlined: Exactly why they're not "insane" and are rational. That they'd only do so if "given the chance" is direct evidence of showing restraint until an action (what you term as "declar(ing) a jihad on the West") is a reasonable one to take, and thus is not the "insane" option (which would be to declare it regardless of whatever chance they have).

Oh, definitely. Hiroshima and Nagasaki come to mind.

But then again, those aren't comparable - those bombs are nothing when put next to the modern ICBM, capable of killing tens of millions of people with just one missile.

What is more significant than the damage the missiles can do is how they are used. A modern nuclear weapon can be used to inflict mass civilian casualties, but it could also be used resevedly - in one theatre of war, against (say) a large troop concentration or a strategic fortification, hell even otherwise uninhabited wasteland if it's for the purposes of slowing troop movements.

Well. It depends. What kind of weapon are we talking about?

If I recall, SDI could actually work on small scale with crude bombs. Not so much against the quality or quantity of say, American or Russian missiles, however.

Suitcase nukes enter the equation as well. Of course, if one goes off, Iran can kiss itself goodbye - for every one bomb it detonates, a hundred more can be sent their way.

But what makes you so sure that this would actually happen? Why would the American/French/UK official with the authoroisation to push the button allow themselves to be responsible for a retaliatory nuclear strike against another nation when their nation itself was not the victim? If the Iranians decided to, say, render a large chunk of uninhabited (or sparsely inhabited) Arabian Desert into no-entry zone to impede hypothetical Saudi forces, why would the nuclear powers-which-be launch ~100 nukes in retalliation? Where will they launch nukes? Tehran? I'm sure that would fly well with the domestic audience!

The fact is, it'd probably be a few rounds of ill-working sanctions and a couple of airstrikes, which'd last until one of the planes was shot down. There's just too little in such actions for the West.

That would depend. Geopolitics seems to be one big game of calling bluffs. If you're right you're right, if you're not... well, you're not.

Again, in this hypothetical, Iran has used a nuke and has more.

In that case, no. MAD only works when the two involved are nuclear. The idea is if you nuke a nuclear nation or push them too hard, they will make you pay for it. Unless a third party nuclear state has a suicidal intent to honor its commitments(as the combatants of World War I did), it's unlikely they'd assist.

Then you must agree that Iran would most likely suffer little repurcussions if it used a nuclear weapon in its immediate theatre?

However, if Iran started to dominate the oil-producing states of the world, I doubt the USA - or other industrial powers for that matter - would just sit idly by. No one wants war, and it's why a blind eye is often turned to the first few acts of aggression. After a while, however, it's decided the aggressor must be reined in.

This is very dependent on the wider context. If most of the domination is done via soft power, what justification can be used to reign them in? What if fortunes reversed for Iran and it found itself as the 1980s Iraq of the Middle East - with the support of the world against whoever its foe maybe. There's certainly plenty of scope for new "villains" to emerge, especially with the uncertainty of the implications of the Arab Spring. And then there's the fact that it's the Saudis who directly support the most prominant type of Islamist ideology favoured by anti-West terrorists. A coup de grace for them in the eyes of the West seems reasonable enough.

Well we try to spread democracy all the time so I can't exactly say I'd be surprised.

But that doesn't mean they're necessarily as radical as they were before. Radical sentiments tend to cool down and become insulated once they seize power, because they begin to understand that launching a global war or revolution or whatever the crap isn't exactly feasible. (Short of being in Call of Duty Modern Warfare)

I used the USA as an example. If they used some sort of nuke against us, they most certainly would suffer a massive reprisal.

Which is why they wouldn't - they want to keep power. And you can't keep it if you're dead.

But that's going on the logic that the USA would be the primary target for an Iranian nuclear strike. Some of their weapons would surely exist to make the US cautious to intervene militarily, but that doesn't mean the whole of a hypothetical Iranian nuclear stockpile would exist for this, nor that some of their stockpile couldn't well be served actually being used in their local theatre (Middle East) with minimal fear of retribution.

 

[Tani Coyote]

1. The Cold War almost did turn hot many times.

Almost. But calming down rather than condemning billions of lives to nuclear oblivion kept that from happening.

2. WWI as we knew it was not inevitable.

I know that. I'm just saying that that war is a colossal result of human stupidity: "Oh they attacked our alliance let's keep trading declarations of war because this makes so much sense."

I'd hope that the fact nukes are far more serious than assault rifles and battleships would be enough to keep MAD from ever failing.

3. Using nuclear weapons can still be "smart", even in this era. The nuclear taboo exists but can be dented and pierced and broken.

Oh, of course. But massive nuclear strikes on cities thus far haven't been attempted, thank God.

If they can spin the outcome of the war as a win to their elite (if not objectionally winning it), then it is a brilliant means of keeping power. If they can spin their use of nuclear weapons as being the Right Thing To Do then it is a brilliant means of keeping power.

Of course, they can't spin and there's no one to be convinced if they're all obliterated. Which is what I meant - no one wins in an all out nuclear war, especially not someone with a tiny arsenal. Whoever Iran fights will be there to bury them.

What is more significant than the damage the missiles can do is how they are used. A modern nuclear weapon can be used to inflict mass civilian casualties, but it could also be used resevedly - in one theatre of war, against (say) a large troop concentration or a strategic fortification, hell even otherwise uninhabited wasteland if it's for the purposes of slowing troop movements.

Fair points. Suddenly a nuclear-armed Iran is looking a lot more menacing.

Of course, the yield would likely have to be low - after all, fallout can travel quite a ways and I doubt India or whoever will play nice if a bunch of irradiated crap from the Arabian desert lands in their territory.

But what makes you so sure that this would actually happen? Why would the American/French/UK official with the authoroisation to push the button allow themselves to be responsible for a retaliatory nuclear strike against another nation when their nation itself was not the victim? If the Iranians decided to, say, render a large chunk of uninhabited (or sparsely inhabited) Arabian Desert into no-entry zone to impede hypothetical Saudi forces, why would the nuclear powers-which-be launch ~100 nukes in retalliation? Where will they launch nukes? Tehran? I'm sure that would fly well with the domestic audience!

Well, again, I mean if they detonated one in a nuclear power city. USA, Israel, Britain, etc.

What would happen in the event of an attack on a non-nuclear power remains to be seen. I just hope we wouldn't take the Chamberlain approach and wait until they've got a massive arsenal to do something.

The fact is, it'd probably be a few rounds of ill-working sanctions and a couple of airstrikes, which'd last until one of the planes was shot down. There's just too little in such actions for the West.

Until Iran gets too big for its britches and starts threatening to monopolise the oil supply, anyway. Then it will suddenly be VERY in the West's interests. (Albeit slightly more in America's as we're less inclined towards alternatives)

Then you must agree that Iran would most likely suffer little repurcussions if it used a nuclear weapon in its immediate theatre?

It would depend on how honorable the USA feels - we're formal allies with Egypt and Arabia and whatnot. How eager we'd be to honor such commitments would remain to be seen.

Of course it's all a question of legitimacy - if we didn't back up Arabia, or Iraq, or any of our close friends, we'd lose face with all the others. It'd be the nail in the coffin of US hegemony, as nations would be looking for other friends to trust instead.

This is very dependent on the wider context. If most of the domination is done via soft power, what justification can be used to reign them in?

Well, proportional response dictates that we'd not use military force in all likelihood. If we seriously wanted to undermine Iran, we'd go for a less direct route - weakening their economy, spreading propaganda, funding resistance movements, etc.

And then there's the fact that it's the Saudis who directly support the most prominant type of Islamist ideology favoured by anti-West terrorists. A coup de grace for them in the eyes of the West seems reasonable enough.

Most terrorists see the Saudi government as illegitimate too as I recall, due to its close ties to America and the West.

But that's going on the logic that the USA would be the primary target for an Iranian nuclear strike. Some of their weapons would surely exist to make the US cautious to intervene militarily, but that doesn't mean the whole of a hypothetical Iranian nuclear stockpile would exist for this, nor that some of their stockpile couldn't well be served actually being used in their local theatre (Middle East) with minimal fear of retribution.

Fair point. They know - I imagine - they can't hope to win a nuclear struggle against the USA, and so would maneuver very carefully to gain influence and not our attention.

 

[MjM]

Do you really are is Iran has the bomb?

You know, you can edit titles after you mess them up.

 

[cav scout]

The primary land vehicles of the US army, M1 Abrams and M2 Bradley are quite delicate machines. They have to spend a lot time in the service depot, and often in great numbers, as they did in the gulf war. M1 with its POS turbine engine in particular. These neatly clustered vehicles are an easy target for a modern ballistic missile. If the Iraqis came close to destroying 20 - 30 or so Abrams tanks with a single scud, the Iranians will definitely be more accurate and deliver a bigger bomb.

I'm not saying that the Iranians would win, but they're probably developing ballistic missile capability for deterrence. The missiles themselves are dangerous even without a nuclear payload.

Oh daym. Miss.

I'm well acquianted with both the M1 and M2 (well actually the M3 CFV in my case). Let me assure you that they are not "quite delicate machines." Yes they both require maintenance like all tracked AFVs, but they don't need to be lined up neatly in motor pools like the one in your picture. Motor pools with tightly packed vehicles are a peacetime thing and most all maintenance can be handled in an austere field enviroment (including during very high tempo combat operations). Fixed maintenance infrastructure is not required to operate heavy armor/mechanized forces.

I'm guessing the motor pool in the picture was a pre-existing Saudi facility and we were staging equipment there in an administrative fashion (presumeably since the Iraqi threat was so neglible). It certainly looks like there was a lucky hit from something but i'm not even seeing any tracked vehicles damaged.

Using one anecdotal picture to make broad generalization about the vulnerability of U.S. forces doesn't really hold up. If ballistic missiles become a tactical threat it is quite easy to disperse out a bit and effectively negate that threat.

...oh and don't knock the engine on the M1 until you try it