Just a city or two.

I don't want to give atrios any traffic for this post, even though I'd probably only send about two or three people his way.
Check out this Corner post, for most of the story, and they link over to atrios as well, if you really want to see it on his site.
He says that neuclear iran isn't a big deal...cause even if they did manage to destroy a city or two, we'd still be able to destroy iran completely.
I think a city or two (think London and Jeruselem, like York does) is a big deal...thats about thirty million people, gone. But it doesn't end there...cause we'd retaliate, and Iran would be glass...so thats around another 50 million (I don't really know how many). And thats only the direct deaths from the five or six nukes that would end up going off...then we have to consider the fallout. THere would be two or three neuclear clouds going around the earth...and we wouldn't be able to go near the cities that were destroyed. I'm thinking the after effects would cause more harm than the initial bombs. So, mutually assured destruction isn't a good strategy anymore...cause we all die. I'd much rather blow up Irans power plants and then have a conventional war there, which would end up removing the repressive religious government in Iran and installing a government that would probably include my friends from over there...who would be much more reasonable to deal with. And it would at least be democratic for a long while, which is a plus.
So I don't see how we can ignore even one neuclear missle in a country that is likely to use it. I've already talked about my opinion on the US keeping them...I think they are a waste of m0ney and space.