Replies

Like many on this thread, I am reluctant to have the U.S. use nukes on anyone, even Iran. As effective as they are, they are horrible weapons even when justifiably responding in kind.

That said, we're at the point now, and may be for a little while longer, where we can still stop the leadership of Iran from detonating such a horrible weapon on our shores, or those of our allies. I believe it is extremely likely that, given the chance, Iran would detonate a nuclear device in a heavily populated city, resulting in catastrophic damage, after which, someone in the Western nuclear club would have to respond at least in kind, and likely with an even worse response.

So, we can wait, lose at least one Western city, potentially another Iranian city (or two) with millions of innocents killed, economies damaged, large areas uninhabitable, radioactive fallout spread over the lands of friend and foe alike, etc. etc., and then we still have to either take out their leadership, or castrate them of the ability to produce and deliver more or the carnage will continue.

Or, we can take out the leadership now and/or remove their ability to develop these weapons, and prevent the millions of innocents on both sides who will be killed, the destruction of cities, etc. etc.

Decisions like these are the gravest, and certainly shouldn't be made lightly or without deliberation. However, at some point, choices have to be made, and that's why we elect leaders and voluntarily give them the power and means to act on our behalf.

Doing nothing (or engaging in something which is bound to be futile) is also making a decision, and the potential ramifications, at least IMHO, are far worse than even a nuclear first strike, especially if it was confined as much as possible to strategic targets in Iran.