>More significantly - the very fact that a nuke has not yet been dropped on Tehran is itself confirmation by the US military and government that they themselves do not feel the pros outweigh the cons otherwise it would have been done already. They surely understand more about the ramifications of such an act than anyone else, especially us laymen which, I assume, includes your pro-nuking friend.

I haven't spoken to this 'pro-nuking friend' the last three years. And although we were kind of friends (a co-worker), we did have different opinions all the time.

Having said that...

>>>1. Agression will induce more agression. [...]
>>
>>Tell that to Iran's president, Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Hamas, the terrorists. Who started?
>
>No fingers pointing west for anything at all?

Who's fingers, mine? I was merely trying to give another argument that the pro-bombing wing will present. I think it's a never ending story. A hurts B, B reacts, A reacts, B reacts, and so on. And the reactions get tougher and tougher. Sometimes it does matter who started. Other times it should not matter, or the reaction was way over the limit. That's one of the important issues in conflicts: Does it matter who started? Were reactions over the limit? How many generations will be held responsible for what their ancestors have done? I think it should be decided per conflict. Courts can be a solution most of the times. There are some international courts, but they are not the right place for certain conflicts, for example conflicts we have with Al Qaida. In any case a court should be perceived as acceptible, beforehand, by both or all fighting groups. That is really a problem. The world has become a village, but the courts are not yet covering the whole village. That's a nice target for this century.


>>>2. It serves no military goal, other than it will enforce Irans decision to develop nuclear weapons and will use arguments of the right to defend itself.
>>
>>But what if such a fierce attack on Teheran effectively destroys Iran's capacity to further develop nuclear weapons? In that case it would be a military (and political) goal.
>
>It would serve only to destroy Tehran and probably the current government of Iran. Nothing more.

So, you deny it would destroy their power to build a nuclear bomb? That's not realistic.


>>>3. It will have a negative effect on the US image world wide as it now would reflect the strong muscled guy who acts like an elephant in a chinashop.
>>
>>A negative effect on who? Do these people think positive about the US now then?
>
>It will legitimize the use of WMD by all sides and for any reason perceived as just by the attacker.

It will not legitimize the use of WMD (what's that?). At most, some people will say and think it legitimizes it. Same argument for the next two.


>>>4. Nations like china, north korea and even russia will build up their military forces and expand their influences as they realise that they could be next.
>>
>>Do the US currently threaten China and Russia? Why should they feel they might be next? They might also decide to cooperate.
>
>It would legitmize the use of WMD and hence send a clear message to any nation which opposes the will of the US.
>
>
>>>5. The international finance market could react [...]
>>
>>It will sure do. But if it results in a lessening of the threat that Iran poses, it may well lead to a positive effect after a while.
>
>It will galvanize the Muslim world and give justifcation and focus for all their hatred and anger.
>
>