If they didn't test it, then they wouldn't know if it will work when they want to deploy the weapon..

but it's like a high chance of not working

Or get relevant information...

that's what I meant by kinda

like needing rocket tests cause 99.9% of the time something goes wrong

Which is useful from a test

imagine

iran launches nukes at the US

build and test a functioning missile and get away with it

they don't detonate

uh oh

ruh roh

List of countries that no longer exist:

Do they even have ICBMs capable of reaching the USA?

+ Iran

Tbh, the US air defense system is tougher than we might think

not that I know of

no

they have like a 90% success rate at best

you can never know if a nuke will work when you fire it

so if you shoot 1000 nukes

https://iranprimer.usip.org/resource/irans-ballistic-missile-program

uh oh

you cant test a nuke

inasmuch as you can fire one

but they obviously arent reusable

>They don't even have a long-range delivery platform

Iran's ballistics are a tad outdated when compared to china's and russia's

test the design

you dont need a long range delivery platform

Breaking news: Tesla makes reusable nuke

even atom bombs are deployable via basic bombers

Thank you Elon, very cool

you can also make smaller dirty bombs and have spies deliver them

and the only country iran is likely to nuke is israel

Airspaces are hard to fuckin infiltrate now

We really forget the countries around Iran and North korea fucking hate them

they dont need an icbm to hit israel

Which requires miniaturization

Of weapons they don't have?

ICBMs are more efficient in terms of delivering payload to its target