No. of Recommendations: 3
Yep. We're not launching a nuke just because someone attacks one of our airbases. We're not launching a nuke because a country invades another country that has one of our airbases.
That's not how a nuclear umbrella works. Nukes are there to counter other nukes. In short, they're largely political weapons.
That's the difference. Countries physically located in the Gulf face existential threats to their national security that the U.S. does not.
I think you fundamentally misunderstand the calculus around nuclear weapons.
Having a problem isn't the same as being in a hot war. The neighborhood thug is definitely a problem - but in your hypothetical, he's not actually murdering people. Probably because murdering people is an escalation well above what he's actually doing. If you respond to his thuggery by actually trying to kill him, though, then there's nowhere left for the escalation to go - you've already responded to his depredations by escalating to the highest possible level. So even though he might not have thought of trying to kill you before (closing the strait of Hormuz), there's no longer any reason to hold back, because now you're outright trying to kill him.
I said "tune him up" which means "kick his a$$ hard enough that he learns his lesson or finds other targets to prey on". Either outcome is acceptable.
No one is saying Iran isn't terrible. Or that they don't cause terrible problems. We're pointing out that this response to their terribleness isn't going to help, and will probably result in us being worse off.
And you all have made this point 1000 times already. That's nice; it just also happens to be largely irrelevant because we are where we are at this point in time.
