The Nuclear question

[Incongruous]

Uuuuhh It will be a cold day in hell when Iran lauches a Nuke.
If they do then its obviously going to get alot worse for Iran.

[Louis VI the Fat]

No, why nuke a million Iranians? The US has enough conventional firepower available to utterly detroy everybody involved. There is no need to kill innocent civilians.

[BHCWarman88]

No, why nuke a million Iranians? The US has enough conventional firepower available to utterly detroy everybody involved. There is no need to kill innocent civilians.

Why? Hmmmm, Three Letter Word. War. another 4 Letter Word, Nukes. Nukes+War = Millions of Deaths

in Every War to date,there been Innocent Civilians Killed. that how War is played, no matter how "careful" you are, Civilians will die,rather you like it or not

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

Even a reactionary neanderthal like myself realizes there should be some thought put into a nuclear strike to reduce civilian losses.

Why? Hmmmm, Three Letter Word. War. another 4 Letter Word, Nukes. Nukes+War = Millions of Deaths

in Every War to date,there been Innocent Civilians Killed. that how War is played, no matter how "careful" you are, Civilians will die,rather you like it or not

You, sir, worry me.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Its a pretty big hypothetical "given" Strike.

Just because the nuclear response is justified, does not mean it is practical.

Primary difficulty would be targeting. USA has not considered "counter-value" targeting a valid choice, and where are we going to find a largely "force"-type target for an appropriate strike?

Nuking Tehran, even if it did get all the decision-makers involved would also mean killing hundreds of thousands of people who were largely innocent.

A better hypothetical premise would have been that compelling evidence was available that Iran had supplied a nuclear device for a terrorist group that then took out London or some such. This is a more likely "hook" than a direct strike by Iran -- we'd sorta notice if they put missile tubes on the new subs.

[Redleg]

Conventional bombing of Iran by the United States is only realistic on certain targets.

Some people are failing to realize how deverse the terrian in Iran truely is.

A nuclear strike on Iran is un-realistic until such a time that Iran actually uses such a weapon. As I have stated before - welcome into the club and advise them to the nature of the power platform that they have attained. A weapon that if they dare use other then for defending against the possiblity of attack - then they get the worse scenerio - a total relatition (destruction) of their nation.

[Kanamori]

As far as I know, there isn't much use for nukes beside leveling cities. I'm not in favor of doing that with conventional bombs, so certainly not with nukes. Although they've been doing research into tactical nukes that were 'bunker-busters', or something like that, that had a contained area of effect, I'm pretty certain we wouldn't need a tactical nuke to fix the problem.

If some wacko decides to launch a nuke at us, I'm definitely not in favor of launching a nuke at a bunch of civilians that had nothing to do with it. Time would be better spent finding out where it launched from, and how to deal with them, than it would be with barbaric and grotesque ideas of getting back at a nation by killing millions of civilians.