of Iran and nuclear weapons

@cptmaxon -- "fanatics with nuclear weapons," eh? Hell, we've had fanatics with nuclear weapons for fifty years. Stalin was a fanatic, he had nukes (and Khruschev was pretty scary too). A couple of US presidents would easily qualify for fanatic status too, the current one for example. They haven't used their nukes.

Things will only get really ugly if non-state actors will get hold of nukes, 'cuz they're the only ones who can actually use one and get away with it (especially if they don't mind dying). If you want to worry about nukes, worry about the ones in Pakistan -- that regime is very, very wobbly, and the next in line for power is the Taliban. Now, *those* guys I wouldn't trust with the Bomb.

But any state that knows it's facing retaliation in kind will not use a nuke. States may act in completely delusional ways, as I'm sure all of us know, but they are not knowingly suicidal.

@bjon -- the IDF's capacity for striking as deep as Iran is very limited: they do have aircraft that can make it there and back, but only just, and not too many. Compared to American air power already in the region, they can't do much. On the other hand, politically, the only mistake America could make that's bigger than hitting Iran would be hitting Iran with Israeli support. Hoo boy, the lines to the turban recruitment offices would reach around the block everywhere from Kuala Lumpur to Brixton.

Prime , yes I agree with you that generals play for keeps and if one of them thinks that he needs to level a city he will. it's the reality of war and he'll try to win the best he can, on the other hand you've got terrorist who only care about inflicting as much civilian casulties... I still can't see how they can be compared .... but again that's my opion.
anyway the IDF can only send planes (prob f-15s) and prime is right in saying it will just rail all the middle eastern Arabic states against Israel and the US.

I think this discussion has gone too far. I'm ending it, NOW!!