re: In today's world, how would the American public view the following...?

quote:

---

This is different from the calls for total destruction of a country though isn't it.

---

Well, that's up to the leadership of Iran, isn't it?

quote:

---

even calls for using nukes.

---

Would obviously defeat the entire purpose of the campaign. However, short of that, no, there's not necessarily a difference.

I'm going to ask you the same question I have asked probably 30-40 other people on here and maybe you'll be the first one to actually answer the question:

What is your understanding of the likely global effects of a nuclear exchange between Iran and Israel?

If your understanding ends up being similar to mine, I think you'll see that extreme measures are warranted in this case to MAKE SURE that it doesn't happen.

Here's a study for you from the NIH: Nuclear War Between Isreal and Iran

Now it only goes into detail about the local effects, deaths, etc., but what people forget is that our modern nuclear warheads are somewhere in the neighborhood—give or take—of 30 times more powerful than the bombs dropped in WWII.

It wouldn't just affect them. What I've read says that it would likely cause a regional (but widespread) famine, almost certainly cause a global economic collapse, and it's a reasonable if not likely possibility that ionization and nuclear winter could even affect citizens of the US directly.

Despite what the Huckster Carlson parrot morons over here think, it's not something that would happen far away that would have no effect on us over here. It definitely would.

And models put the final death toll (initial blast plus radiation deaths after the fact plus, starvation from regional famine, etc.) as high as 30 million people.

That's another Stalin-like world event.

If 100,000 innocent civilians in Iran have to die to save 29 million, nine hundred thousand people, then I really don't see how we don't do whatever we have to do to keep nukes from going off over there.