> Among Iran (if it acquires a nuclear bomb), Israel, and the USA,
> the only country that doesn't have to fear retaliation in kind is
> the USA.
I guess my point is that I'm not sure that _anyone_ fears that kind of retaliation, at least not enough to make it much of a deterrent. It sounded good in the 50s, but really: does anyone actually think that if (say) Iran acquired the capability to nuke Israel and they used it in a first strike that the US response would be to nuke them back? There's the possibility that Israel would immediately strike back, but there's also a good bet that they might not be able to respond in time. That scenario only really worked in the Cold War because of the physical distance between the US and the Soviet Union. It's much less likely that Israel would get their missiles in the air.
I think the response in that case would be similar to what happened with Taliban-controlled Afghanistan after 9/11: the world would unite to unseat the government of Iran. They wouldn't be allowed to continue to rule, but they wouldn't get nuked. The use of nuclear weapons is obviously bad for those on the receiving end; it's also pretty bad for the rest of the world through fallout and the mess it leaves behind.
Do you think the US population would put up with such a blatant revenge move that left the world so much worse off? I mean, what's the thing about not shitting where you eat?
> If any country ever employs the first strike, the most likely
> is the one that has already used it once, has not regretted it,
> and will have no fear of retaliation.
I think that's one way to look at it. But then why would _anyone_ ever have nuclear ambitions? Surely you don't think that the threat of a retaliation by the US figured into Pakistan's restraint in the late 90s, do you?
BTW, I think we should distinguish in this conversation between the 'first-strike' that Morris proposes -- a crushing, all-out destructive act -- from 'first-use' which is much more likely from the Israeli side[*]. This talk of using mini-nukes along with bunker-busters is altogether different than the scenario Morris paints. And your (unstated but clear) statement about the US seems faulty: if you're saying that the US is the most likely to use a first-strike capability, then you are basically saying that no one will ever do it, because the US will never do it.
Since Iran is not known to have nukes at this point, the question remains: what would their response be to an attack on the sites of Natanz, Isfahan, and Arak? Would they respond with an indiscriminate attack on the cities of Israel? Or would they nurse the wound like Iraq did with Osirak and vow to 'get back at them' sometime in the future?
My guess is that we're going to get to find out :-(
/jordan
[*] http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2535310,00.html