There has never been a real threat of an American invasion of Iran. More likely a surgical strike at nuclear facilities. Any nuclear retaliation for that would be against American targets in Afghanistan or Iraq, which would only hurt Iran.
Considering the damage we do to our victims, using nukes on their own soil to stop an invasion would certainly do less damage. And even if we were talking about only a few thousand dead American soldiers that would be enough to deter America. America is a nation of bullies; we’d cheerfully kill a million Iranians, but only so long as we suffer negligible casualties ourselves.
If Iraq had gone well, we’d have attacked them long since. Why should the Iranians trust the restraint of an implacably hostile and irrational country like America ?
Thats not my point, what i am trying to say is that yes, MAD is stable, however from the point of view of the country that currently has nukes, the current position is far better than MAD, is in effect EAD (Enemy Assured Destruction).
It would not be rational for the USA to atack Iran, it would not be rational for Iran to attack Israel, however as **Alessan ** said not all actors are rational all the time.
[quote=“Notassmartasithought, post:157, topic:493495”]
A preemptive nuclear attack would be justified IMHO only if Iran were about to launch nukes not just for developing them.
Having coincidentally just read the extract here from The Stoning of Soraya M. I’m inclined to echo the member upthread.
Go Israel!
The mere thought of this regime of lunatic medieval Islamicists with nuclear weapons is horrifying.
Here, finally, is an authoritative US response to the issue.
Satellite News and latest stories | The Jerusalem Post
So the dance continues…