Does anyone actually think we should NUKE IRAN?

We should not nuke Iran unless we're talking about tactical nukes as a precursor to a full-scale ground invasion.

But yes, they have to believe there will be military repercussions for flouting the United Nations.

That's why the U.N. is useless; because too many fingers are in too many pies for it to ever authorize the use of force.

Letting the nuclear Genie out of the bottle is a very serious option.

Iran is a major threat to the safety of the Western world, even those who court favor from them. But that does not mean that sending nukes is viable.

People do need to realize that some folks over there, in fact a whole bunch of them do not want to "make nice" and be your friend on any level what so ever. They do not regard life, peace, honesty, equity, in the same fashion that is thought of (if not always acted on) in the West.

It will demand constant containment, and not a few lives, to keep from being backed into using the nuclear option.

The problem with nuking Iran is that Russia and China will nuke us. Neither of those countries want nukes dropped in their own back yard; not to mention the fact that they are both Iran's allies. Dropping nukes on Iran would also only further secure the image of America as brutal oppressors in the minds of the people in that region.

I personally believe that Iran has as much right to a nuclear power program as any other country, but that suitable steps need to be put in place to ensure that Iran can't create a nuclear weapon. Thus negotiations have to happen. Sanctions aren't the right way to go because again, it will look like America is just pushing the rest of the world to oppress a (apparently) peaceful nation.

There is a peaceful way, but it will take a willingness to negotiate, on both sides. But the US has to give up its "100% no nuclear research in Iran" stance. Without that, negotiations will go nowhere.

I think that any lesser country with a nuke should have enough common sense to know that if they ever ever ever decided to use it, they would become a smoking hole in the earth within the hour. That means every man, woman, child, dog, cat, chicken, baby, germ and plant would be vaporized. They know that and this it why I think it is not necessary to worry about Iran or any other country having a nuke. No one is that stupid. And, they also know that they would not just get nuked by us, but by a large number of other nations who may or may not be friends of ours. After all, any nation that deploys a nuke for no reason other than some idiotic religious principle will be perceived by all of the planet as way too dangerous to exist. Not only for the idiots who are their leaders but for the idiots who allowed them to become leaders in the first place. You read it here first.

Advocating nuclear warfare is bloody insanity at best.

The moment there a nuclear weapon is used, it's endgame. It'll be taken as license by any other nuclear power to use their armaments as they please instead as using them as a detterent. And once that line is crossed, there's no turning back.

Also, the appearance to be prepared to launch a nuclear attack could be construed as the real thing, so what would stop anyone from launching a pre-emptive strike? Sweet nothing. Because if anything, there is a nasty little thing called Mutually Assured Destruction out there, and it's going to rear its ugly head as soon as the first mushroom cloud forms. The know they'd be done, but then again, they'd have hit you first.

And if a regime change is desired in Iran, nuclear warfare, even in the form of high-precision low-yield strikes will not do much to win hearts and minds. Would you feel really friendly towards somebody who just nuked your country?

Should we commit global suicide? I'm presuming you're talking about tactical nukes taking out the hardened nuclear facility at Natanz? Any strategic nukes will takeout approx. 200 million people with another 190 million from radioactive fallout in nearby countries whose sole guilt would be living near the Middle East.

While it would be nice to solve the problem in one blow and while it's imperative that we stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, the consequences of your actions would be monumental.

No reason to Nuke Iran.. at least not before the end of the month.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is going to be in NYC for a visit to his friends at the UN.

Perhaps I could get my cousin Vito to make him an offer that he can't refuse.

Should we? Eventually, we will probably have to. Once they get close to having a weapon - which should be shortly after they test a nuke - one can only imagine the horrific possibilities of what they would do.

Unless they stop their support of terrorism, or submit to inspections per the UN, the only sane action will be to take them out before they nuke Baghdad, Jerusalem or NYC. That means nukes.

God damn them for putting us in the position of having to do this!

No, why should we NUKE Iran??? If sending flowers and having them over for dinner & a movie would work why would you not pursue that instead of more killing?? Why aren't you calling for the NUKING of North Korea?? They're more of a threat than Iran ever will be. What makes us any better than Iran if we even "threaten" to nuke them? We're supposed to be better than that..............

limited nuclear strike using low yield earth penetrating warheads to knock out the hardened buried bunkers housing the nuclear research facilities and a number of key military sites. As well as a conventional surgical strike to decapitate the leadership (the oligarchy of mullahs), combined with special operations to aid the people who want change to retake their country.