Iran makes some of the world’s toughest concrete. It can cope with earthquakes and, perhaps, bunker-busting bombs

http://www.economist.com/node/21548918

After the first attack we will make our first nuke.

Everything can be destroyed, it's only a question of which method you use.

After the first attack, you will only be able to build a stone sling.

During WW2 the UK would use an earthquake bomb that demolished every thing that was near it when it went off. It would penetrate mountains and collapse the tunnels, it blow up Hitlers bomb proof sub pens which were some 20 feet thick made of concrete and steel.

Originally Posted by 42RM

Everything can be destroyed, it's only a question of which method you use.

After the first attack, you will only be able to build a stone sling.

Which method? you mean your nukes. well if it is, we can get two results from your comment.
first you doubt to your conventional weapons ability in a war with Iran and you scare from Iran's revenge so you select a WMD weapon.
second you can't predict the influences and consequences of using nukes, even one of them, on the International relations. Be sure the world will never be more safer for you if you even wipe out Iran by nukes and I think it will be more insecure.

The West wouldn't have to use nukes you cretin. Even if conventional weapons couldn't mange it they could borrow the Lancaster from the Battle of Britain memorial Flight, arm up the 22,000 pounder on display and drop that on your freaking head.

To be honest guys, this bloke is a moronic pillock, ignore him and he will eventually go away.

Originally Posted by BritinAfrica

The West wouldn't have to use nukes you cretin. Even if conventional weapons couldn't mange it they could borrow the Lancaster from the Battle of Britain memorial Flight, arm up the 22,000 pounder on display and drop that on your freaking head.

To be honest guys, this bloke is a moronic pillock, ignore him and he will eventually go away.

You know I can understand Western confidence in its military capabilities and I can understand that even in Iran's wildest dreams they know they can not defeat a full on US invasion however there is one thing I also have learnt through the years and that is not to underestimate your enemy.

Development of weapons goes hand in hand with development of defences and given that they have had 20 years of watching and analysing the effects of US bombs on Iraqi infrastructure I have little doubt Iran has improved its ability to withstand US ordnance.

As for the Lancaster well if you don't mind seeing your 22,000lb bomb land within 5 miles of its target and you don't have 999 more of them I am not sure it could be considered a threat any longer.

One question. what will happen if one country use it's nukes for first time?
well, it depended on who use it for first time and who is the first victim.

Most of countries suppose that the superpowers never use their nukes but after first nuke attack everything will be changed . First some countries who have making nuke technology but they don't have it, like japan or Germany, will make it quickly. And the others will start to achieve it. it will not be very difficult for them.
New block will be formed the same as NATO, there won't be any trust between nations and the fear of using nuke will be reduced.

Originally Posted by MontyB

You know I can understand Western confidence in its military capabilities and I can understand that even in Iran's wildest dreams they know they can not defeat a full on US invasion however there is one thing I also have learnt through the years and that is not to underestimate your enemy.

Development of weapons goes hand in hand with development of defences and given that they have had 20 years of watching and analysing the effects of US bombs on Iraqi infrastructure I have little doubt Iran has improved its ability to withstand US ordnance.

As for the Lancaster well if you don't mind seeing your 22,000lb bomb land within 5 miles of its target and you don't have 999 more of them I am not sure it could be considered a threat any longer.

While its true at the beginning of RAF raids getting within 5 miles of its target due to lack of night navigation equipment, this was not the fact later on in the war as better and more accurate equipment became available. The RAF managed to sink the Tirpitz and destroyed the Bielefeld viaduct, so your statement that 999 22,000 pounders would be required is absolute nonsense and churlish.

Besides which my statement was tongue in cheek, I should have realised kiwi's don't have any sense of humour or perhaps kiwi's fail to understand what tongue in cheek means. Just in case you don't "Tongue-in-cheek is a phrase used as a figure of speech to imply that a statement or other production is humorously or otherwise not seriously intended and it should not be taken at face value." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tongue-in-cheek

Smart concrete? Does it play chess?

Originally Posted by hamidreza

Which method? you mean your nukes. well if it is, we can get two results from your comment.
first you doubt to your conventional weapons ability in a war with Iran and you scare from Iran's revenge so you select a WMD weapon.
second you can't predict the influences and consequences of using nukes, even one of them, on the International relations. Be sure the world will never be more safer for you if you even wipe out Iran by nukes and I think it will be more insecure.

Not necessarily with nukes. There are several ways to take out a bunker. The old Soviet Union had a doctrine during the Cold War on how to put NATO command bunkers out of action without the use of nukes.