On the contrary. I try to distance myself from idiots whenever possible, and so have no intention of coming at you.
Outstanding. Continuing your education will do much good. Might want to put a comma after the word "school", however, just to separate it from the next clause.
Those are impressive credentials. Please continue.
I don't believe that, have never believed that, and have never made a statement that would imply that I believed that. If you think you can demonstrate otherwise, be my guest.
I do realize that, actually. Again, I apologise if any of my preceding posts indicated to you that I did not.
As a highly resourceful person myself, I am acutely aware of this.
So what you're saying, essentially, is that the major advantage of a solid-fueled rocket is that it has solid fuel. Astounding. To hear some people talk, you'd think rocket science was hard.
Ah, yes. The SCUD missile. About a deadly as a Cadillac filled with high explosives launched from a catapult. Off a barge.
Maybe they could hit the East or West Coasts. Maybe.
If only we had surveillance satellites and a navy, we might be able to detect and stop them. Alas.
I find that a single incision up the belly from genitalia to jaw seems to work best, but if you've found a better method, let me know.
Most of Eastern Europe, you mean. The KH-55 has a range of 2500 kilometers, or 1300 nautical miles. Even if launched from the very north-westernmost corner of Iranian territory, a missile might make it to Hungary. It would never make it to Paris.
But they do. Malaysia Airlines 370 was a Boeing 777, which Iran Air also has.
You mean affix nuclear cruise missiles to a Boeing 777, fly it within range of a major US target, and launch the missiles. Hmmm. Has potential. Better than the barge idea, in any case. And if September 11th is any indication, the Air Force would be powerless to stop a nuclear-armed enemy aircraft from approaching American airspace.
These are all interesting hypotheticals, but it all comes down not to "what can Iran do", which despite all of what you've posted, still amounts to "not much, relatively speaking", but rather, "what WOULD Iran do, under which circumstances?"
Despite the proclivity of US conservative media to portray the Iranians as "insane", they are just as cold, calculating and interested in self-preservation as any civilisation that has been around in some form or another for six thousand years.
And even if they were insane, they're not stupid. To launch an unprovoked nuclear strike against the United States or her allies would be suicide. It would mean immediate retaliation and annihilation. Whether the attacker is Iran, Syria, North Korea, Israel, France, Russia or China, the result would be the same. Immediate retaliation and annihilation.
I, for one, would give the Iranians a bit more credit than to suppose they would invite annihilation on their entire population for no good reason.