Quote:
Originally Posted by Sly
Except it's not that simple.
1) A nuclear bomb in the US or Europe would be globally catastrophic.
2) We would not want to nuke Tehran as we have too many loose allies in that region that would suffer the fallout, not to mention, the immediate retaliation by Tehran. What hurts more? Losing Paris and London (New York/DC) or Tehran and Mashhad.
Iran wins.
Nukes are not a backyard brawl with punch and counterpunch. There will be one or there will be total annihilation.
|
A nuclear bomb in the US or Europe would not be globally catastrophic. Japan has been nuked twice and the rest of the country survived, The US and Russia has dropped dozens of nuclear bombs and none of them have been "globally catastrophic". Chernobyl set off alarms in other countries and affected milk production in Europe and god only knows what else, but still wasn't globally catastrophic.
We aren't afraid that Iran is going to launch a 25 or 50 megaton bomb at us, but instead a small suitcase sized device. While it might make a large city uninhabitable, it wouldn't be globally catastrophic.
At the same time if the US decided to nuke Iran we could destroy a city without having a large impact outside of the country, although obviously it sure could have some effect and would be less than ideal.