Originally Posted by
TURIN
In that case, no country should be allowed to have them, or,
are you suggesting that a 'Western' nation when faced with the same threat would not use nuclear weapons?
What I am suggesting is that the word 'deterrent' does not apply to Iran - at least, not in the same way that current nuclear countries understand and apply the term. The whole concept of MAD (which is still, practically, the role of a nuclear deterrent) falls down if there is no fear of Mutually Assured Destruction - and that is the case, imho, with the Iranian regime.
If we adopt the position that no western (or any current nuclear) nation would launch a first strike, then doctrine requires strong conventional forces to ensure that we can defend ourselves conventionally. That is where the west has gone badly wrong in that last 3 decades imho.