Fletcher Christian:

sfrcook; the cost of permanently ending the threat of nuclear violence from Iran could be (if the USA was ruthless enough) extremely small. Strategists would have to confer about the details, but the cost could be very small indeed in terms of a country’s defense budget. Non-financial costs would be high, however.

What am I talking about? Well, what is the replacement cost of one Trident missile including warheads? A little difficult for a government to order, plan and execute any attack, when said government is a rapidly expanding cloud of highly ionised plasma.
Sep 10, 2008 – 12:26 pm
————————————–
Cheaper yet is doing nothing.
Same result. (Iranian Threat)

Completely disarm and spend it all on healthcare?
Same result.(Iranian Threat)

Who says nuclear weapons must be used. A lot of damaged can be dealt with cheap oil and air strikes on infrastructure. Why do air strikes work now? Ground forces to back them up.

Putin is going to play cold war with or without us. If we don’t play we lose. We had better win.

The robber robs the rich defenseless types. Source: BC-Why They Fight thread

The criminals greatest fear: a homeowner with a gun. Source: American Rifleman.