[samtheman]

Gingrich pointed out that such a sneak attack – especially if launched from a merchant ship at sea – could have the added benefit of deniability by Iran.

We have to be clear about this to Iran: once something this catastrophic happens to us, we aren't going to be listening to anybody's denials.

[BushMeister]

I'd like to look into this a bit more, but I think the threat is overstated. The US exploded many nuclear weapons in space during its atomic testing heyday. I don't recall reading about any negative ground effects other than a temporary disruption of radio communications in Hawaii. Then again, the bombs weren't set off directly over Kansas...

If this IS a serious threat, I hope the gov't and mil are taking necessary steps to alleviate the problem. We might need a Y2K-like focus to harden our infrastructure against EMP weapons.

[TheCrusader]

"We have to be clear about this to Iran: once something this catastrophic happens to us, we aren't going to be listening to anybody's denials."

I have a better plan, less of the modern thought and more logical, responsible and wiser. How about we don't wait till we're nuked before respond to Iran?

Iran's burgeoning nuclear capability, their bold "f... you" to the free world's demands that they halt nuclear development, their ever-expanding military and their insane threats to Israel and the U.S. should be enough warning for us to take action. Do we really need to wait until we see a major U.S. city being melted by a nuke and millions of dead Americans?

[Prophet in the wilderness]

" We have to be clear about this to Iran: once something this catastrophic happens to us, we aren't going to be listening to anybody's denials. " ....

That would include the denials from the MSM/Democrats/Liberals also.