joshbaumgartner

That is interesting. The primary target of the world's nuclear arsenals, including the United States, Russia, et al, is civilians.

I fail to see how it is any more or less likely that Iran would use its nuclear weapon, if it were to acquire one, against civilians than it would be for any other member of the nuclear club.

Developing, building, deploying, and maintaining the ability to deliver a nuclear weapon is a daunting and massive undertaking for any nation. The very size of the task means that if for some reason you do achieve that level, you are big enough to be a target for consequences. All societies have people willing to die for what they are convinced is the greater good. Some are even willing to commit suicide for it. But leaders, and more importantly, governments with enough size and power to build a nuke, are not suicidal.

The use of a single nuclear weapon by Iran as a city attack, on the battlefield, or through terrorists would be be met by the immediate nuclear extermination of its leadership, its military, its infrastructure, and most likely, its civilization.

The United States is in fact leading the charge in developing a way to have a "usable" nuclear capability. It is the leader in developing more precise limited yield weapons that presumably would be able to be used without crossing the threshold of triggering MAD. It is the leader also in developing a shield against the deterrent of foreign arsenals, theoretically allowing the United States to launch a nuclear attack without suffering a debilitating counter-strike, should they ever get the system to work right. Iran will not be getting the ability to defend against the US or even Israeli arsenals, and a 'surgical' nuclear strike capability (one which would not trigger MAD) is still questionable for the US, and is not something Iran will be able to develop.

Thus, I find it curious that Iran is seen as the bigger threat to actually use its nuclear weapons, were it to ever get any.