Who is Deterred?

Back in the Cold War, as land-based missiles were gaining in accuracy there arose the theoretical problem of whether our land-based missiles could survive a Soviet first strike. The problem was that our land-based ICBMs were our primary counter-force asset (capable of knocking out enemy silos). While Trident added counter-force capabilities to our sea-based nukes, the Polaris subs were counter-value only (for use against cities).

So if the Soviets hit our ICBMs and knocked out most of them, what would we do? Our cities would be intact (if under radioactive fallout) but our surviving counter-force missiles would be too small a force to attack Soviet missiles sites.

At the point, our deterrent had failed and our only response could be to strike at Russia's cities. But Russia hadn't struck our cities in this scenario and would retain the capability of a second round of strikes directed at our cities. Would we risk our cities in such a scenario?

Luckily, we never faced that decision. One reason is that with so many nukes detected heading our way, we'd probably launch on warning.

But we might be faced with this dilemma if Iran gets nuclear weapons. Some who argue we should learn to live with the Iranian bomb say we can deter Iran. Iran, the theory goes, isn't nuts and if they nuked us we'd nuke them back. We'd never let them use nukes against us without responding in kind. The mullahs don't want the much greater American retaliation to land on them.

But what if Iran secretly fields a dozen nuclear missiles? What if Iran uses only a couple to hit either an American military target in the Gulf or a critical piece of the oil infrastructure in Saudi Arabia? What if Iran then says if we respond in kind that they'll destroy an American city with a nuke? Or any Western city, really. Would we respond in kind with that kind of second round threat hanging over us?

Would we even remain in the Gulf if the Iranians demanded we leave the Gulf or see a Western city nuked? All of a sudden, deterrence is working the wrong way.

And don't count on Israel to save us in those circumstances. After letting Iran go nuclear on the theory that only Israel is really at risk, Israel would not put their cities on the line if Iran wisely refrained from attacking Israel with nukes.

We may think of scenarios where it is safe to live with Iranian nutball mullahs owning nukes. But have we thought of their scenarios?

Letting Iran have nuclear weapons is a horrible idea. They will think of ways to use them against us.