Iran, Nukes, Diplomacy and other options (catch all thread 2007-2010)

[Sean Osborne]

Laying aside the question of whether that action (the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki) was justified or necessary, do you really think that any nation, including, God forbid, the U.S., could repeat that today and get away with it??

Jeff,

"Getting away with" is not the end sum given the specific circumstances of a full scale war like we had with Japan in WWII. Nor is it today. There is no international law against a preemptive or retaliatory use of nuclear weapons in a conflict.

For example. Keep an eye on Damascus should Syria ever hit Israel with the chemical weapon warheads it is known to have been fiddling with recently. The Syrian's have been informed in no uncertain terms that should they perch chemical warheads on their missiles Damascus will cease to exist.

With respect to the U.S. - the stated policy of National Command Authority known as the ""Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations" answers your question with crystal clarity.

That warfare involving nuclear weapons will occur at some point in the future, by a state or non-state actor - is widely discussed as not a matter of if but when.

That was a unique moment in time when the U.S. had a huge advantage over the Russians in terms of nuclear warheads and inter-continental ballistic missles. In fact, Russia had none of the latter. Khrushchev was bluffing and had his bluff called.

Your statement is 100% incorrect. It was Soviet Russia that placed the worlds first ICBM on a launchpad. The R-7 (SS-6) went into operation in 1957.

Jeff - you need to check your facts - the R7 was the ICBM platform which orbited Sputnik.

However, with respect to the Cuban Missile Crisis is was the R-7A (SS-6 Mod 2) that was on the launch pads at Baikonur and Plesetsk in 1960 which provided Russia with a significant strategic nuclear deterrent.