Iran: Hezbollah has 100,000 missiles

[bemildred]

“We have a large stockpile of ballistic missiles of different ranges. They are ready to hit enemies and targets from different parts of the country,” Fars news agency reported Salami saying.

Speaking to reporters on the second day of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC)’s missile tests, Salami said the embargo imposed on Iran boosted its domestic production of missiles.

“The Zionist regime will collapse in the near future. When Hezbollah has stockpiled over 100,000 missiles it means Iran has ten times more than that. Iran is in possession of different classes of missiles and this power is unstoppable,” he added.

https://www.middleeastmonitor.com/news/middle-east/24412-iran-hezbollah-has-100000-missiles

The classic response to concentration of force (Israeli first strike capability) is dispersal of defense, which is what you see here. Millions of missiles dispersed across distant, difficult terrain fired in salvos. N. Korea does it with artillery, aimed at Seoul. Hezbollah used to do that too. Iran seems to have arranged to do it with ballistic missiles. Hezbollah is important to them because it is close to Israel and can use smaller. cheaper missiles.

Those missile defense systems fire missiles too, they are expensive and there is a limited supply. It will be necessary to buy a lot more. Arms races are very expensive.

Of course he is probably exaggerating.

[sabbat hunter]

1. probably overstated

by a factor of at least 100. and I highly doubt that Iran has a million missiles. If even Iran has 100,000 I would be shocked.

[bemildred]

2. Yes. They do make stuff up. But the problem is real.

On the other hand, I'm fairly sure Putin wil slap them around if they interfere with his plans, and China, as well as Uncle Sugar, and his plans seem to include Israel. He has allowed Bibi to hit Hezbollah when they try to import forbidden weapons, You have Obama telling everybody today they better learn to get along. So I think you have a couple of big friends, but not obedient at all.

If you want to bet on the election, and a more friendly adminstration, you can, but I think you will lose that bet.

[Albertoo]

3. I am surprised by the use of the word 'defense' in this context

The classic response to concentration of force (Israeli first strike capability) is dispersal of defense, which is what you see here. Millions of missiles dispersed across distant, difficult terrain fired in salvos.

This implies Israel is on an offensive mode, a potential aggressor.
And that Hezbollah would be 'defending' itself with 100,000 missiles.
If Israel was allowed to live peacefully within its borders, would missiles be needed?

[bemildred]

4. It is not an indication of your moral rectitude, is an indication of who is firing at whom.

Israel would defend itself against an attack by Iran by attacking Iran in return.

Iran would defend itself against Israeli attack by ['b]attacking Israel in return.

This is normal English usage.

Questions of the sort you raise are about who started it, which depends pretty much on where you choose to start, as IT has been going on for a very long time now. You just start right after the last provocation somebody on your side made, and then when the other guys reply, they started it.

In this case we were talking Bibi bombing Iran, which he has threateded to do many times, perhaps because they made a nuke, or some similarly red-line-ish situation.

[Albertoo]

5. I am aware of your point in post#4, but it is distinct from the OP

The Op clearly states an enmity against Israel and a desire to see it fall,
and expressly links that fall to the 100,000 missiles:

“The Zionist regime will collapse in the near future. When Hezbollah has stockpiled over 100,000 missiles it means Iran has ten times more than that. Iran is in possession of different classes of missiles and this power is unstoppable,” he added.

Yes, the text doesn't literally say "we'll use our missiles" on Israel, but with "The Zionist regime will collapse", it doesn't take a very thin skin to feel it is the subtext.

[bemildred]

6. It is the subtext. The do hate Israel. Israel hates them too.

What do you want me to do about it?

[Albertoo]

7. My only point was about the use of the word 'defense' as used in the OP

yes, I am aware (your post #4) we can go back to 1400 years of grudges. But in the present situation, it would be a fair assessment to say Israel is on the defensive and Hezbollah/Hamas on the offensive as the charter of Hamas (unsure about Hezbollah) calls for the destruction of Israel.

Which is why I expressed surprise at the way the Hezbollah missiles could be viewed as 'defensive'. I would add that the way some Palestinian fringe groups throw rockets into Israel could also be called rather aggressive rather than defensive.

[bemildred]

8. OK.

Thanks for allowing my point.

I acknowledge yours, I do agree the neighborhood is hostile, General Salami (such a name) is not talking defense, he is making threats. Very popular activity in the Middle East, making threats. But it's a weak tactic. Smart people don't overindulge. You cry wolf all the time people stop listening.

The General doesn't mention defense, he is too candid, so you must be talking about me, but I meant what I said. I don't consider Iran to be the good guys, or Putin, or Bibi either, or Obama. Somethmes people do good, sometimes they don't. Assad giving up his WMD is good, even Bibi says so. Putin making him do it is good, Obama says so. That doesn't make them "good people".