Block, Siteadmin, SkipCaptcha, Upload, Automoderated users, delete, edit, move, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, protect, rollback, Administrators, template
294,721
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 97:
Line 97: + + + + + + +
→Strategic Summary Late October 2026
*[https://global21.substack.com/p/the-use-of-a-nuclear-weapon-in-iran The use of a nuclear weapon in Iran may not destroy the mountain, but it destroys an entire model of international relations.]
*[https://global21.substack.com/p/the-use-of-a-nuclear-weapon-in-iran The use of a nuclear weapon in Iran may not destroy the mountain, but it destroys an entire model of international relations.]
The use of tactical missiles and direct attacks against a regional power like [[Iran]] would redefine traditional concepts of [[state]] [[sovereignty]], respect for [[border]]s, and, above all, the [[logic]] of global [[nuclear deterrence]].
In [[international law]] and [[International relations|relations between states]], territorial [[sovereignty]] is the fundamental pillar. A direct attack with tactical missiles would transform that dynamic and bring an end to traditional red lines. It would demonstrate that possessing a robust conventional army or a vast territory no longer prevents invasion or direct bombardment by [[technological]]ly superior forces.
This would consolidate the idea that states can violate the [[sovereignty]] of others on the basis of anticipated threats, a precedent we already live with, but one that would reach another level with [[nuclear weapon]]s.
The most dangerous shift would occur in how countries view [[nuclear weapon]]s. [[Historical]]ly, [[deterrence]] works on the premise that the cost of attacking a country is too high. If Iran, a country on the threshold of nuclear development, is attacked in a conventional and tactical manner, the [[geopolitical]] message would first and foremost be one of encouragement to [[proliferate]].
===Europe===
===Europe===