Discussion on Military Strategy and Deterrence

Um…

We have a concept that’s like, if you drop a bomb on you, say, I’ll drop a

bomb too. We have a concept, right? Much more

severe costs in various areas will

have to be paid.

I believe that to reach this point, we don’t necessarily

need an atomic bomb. Israel

is a small country, and it’s full of internal crises

of its own.

If there’s a military resolve, with these same

conventional weapons, these same

Kheybar-Shekan missiles,

their newer generations have significant

capabilities.

Even if it’s a dirty game, I said somewhere

else that these come in different versions.

Israel, because of Iran’s large

area and population, won’t destroy all of Iran, even in

the worst-case nuclear war

scenario, and cannot destroy it.

First proposition. Second proposition: Iran

can make Israel uninhabitable with the same conventional

and non-conventional weapons available

to it.

What do you mean, Doctor, by “non-conventional weapons available”?

Types of weapons—

Like the dirty bombs we can make right now.

A dirty bomb is chemical, and, and, and, and, and other issues.

Well, now—

If the level of nuclear deterrence really, right now, if those 400 kilos...

if we have 60 percent of it, then we have a certain level of deter-

nuclear deterrence with a dirty bomb. I mean, if we launch that very thing—

—

I said something else somewhere, actually—

Yes, it makes a large part of the territory uninhabitable.

There's also this understanding that that's all Iran's uranium is.

There's also this understanding, and I like this understanding.

I like this understanding that exists.

But no—what you need to look at, exactly, is

what this perfect deterrence says. It has to

be certain that if anyone makes a misstep,

it'll make him pay, even in his own corpse.