And exactly the same sort of fear mongering, paranoia, and hyperbole will soon follow.
Eisenhower proved that the Soviet Union wasn't planning world domination by creating secret bases in the middle of nowhere through the U2 overflights and then the satellite program. But did that stop the warmongers from incessantly claiming it was occurring?
How are you defining secret bases in the middle of nowhere? Because they actually did have quite a few of them and the U2 overflights found many of them.
You're also sidestepping the fact that although the overflights were despised (but mostly because the USSR couldn't return the favor) they led directly to the spy satellites which both sides saw as absolutely critical in keeping the peace and thus welcomed to varying extents.
Quick. We had better get to the moon before they do. The safety of the entire free world is at stake.
Well, it worked back in the 60s...
Now we just need Reagan to step out of his grave and tell us to revive the Star Wars program to counter their non-existent ICBM program equipped with their mythical nuclear warheads.
Getting to the moon worked on a ton of different levels both in the short and the very long term. We're still living off the dividends of that whole effort and just because it was rooted in nationalism to the max doesn't discount the very obvious benefits we gained through it. And it wasn't just a technological dividend either, and the benefits were not restricted solely to the US.
As for the Star Wars program, it may not have ever come close to shooting down an ICBM, but there were a lot of merits and positive outcomes that came of that program as well. (Which is a different discussion than a straight-up cost benefit analysis since you seem to imply that it was a total failure on all levels. That's how I'm reading you anyway, correct me if I'm wrong.)
The Iranians do have an ICBM program, they don't try and hide the fact that they have theater- and medium- range ballistic missiles with high explosive warheads and most likely options to deploy chemical or biological warheads for use both offensively or defensively. Granted, the CEP of such weapons are such a joke that any non-nuclear warheads would be wasted on an offensive strike. This means that while you could credibly claim they're solely defensive in nature, you would still be bolstering the case that they are developing nuclear weapons which would make their innacurate missiles much more effective in either a defensive or offensive role.
In any case, you can't claim they don't exist as you seem to be hinting at. The difference between what the Iranians currently have and a full-on ICBM program is simply range, which is a function of their technical capability. There is no easy line you can draw and say it's a mystical non-existent thing when they are clearly in a grey area.
Further, if their sat launchers could carry a decent payload to orbit, they would have ICBM's by default as well. Also, the fact that
they are actively developing such capabilities de facto means they are developing ICBM's.
Whether or not they will couple such rockets with nuclear, chemical, biological or high explosive warheads is another matter, but you can't credibly claim they have a 'mythical' non-existant ICBM program.
