"...threaten to lob a couple nukes at some target ... EU cannot credibly respond ... they lack the capacity.
IIRC the UK has currently some 60 Trident SLBMs with a total of about 200 MIRV megaton-range warheads available; France around 64 SLBMs and 380 warheads (probably less accurate than the UK ones).

And 500+ thermonuclear wepons will surely ruin your entire day. Your entire subcontinental landmass, come to that.

France pretty certainly has useful numbers of other nuclear weapons (bombs, IRBM warheads); the UK likely does not, but has the facilities to produce them in relatively quickly, and might be able to mate them to Tomahawk SLCMs.
Both lack a long range "strategic" bomber (as the force structure still reflect the legacy of Cold War requirements) but both the Mirage 2000 and the Tornado GR are capable of striking targets in western Iran from airbases in Cyprus.

In short, after an Iranian nuclear attack or openly stated threat, Iran would be annihilated.

The UK and France have nukes - but do they have the will to use them? Having witnessed the reaction of France to the suburban rioting a couple of months back, I'm not at all convinced that they do.

If Iran is lobing missiles at Paris, do you really think Blair will give a damn?

How do you support an intifada with long-range missiles? The point of insurgencies has always been that they have no center of power to retaliate against. The second Iran gets unequivocally tied to any terrorist movement, Rumsfeld sighs with relief. And if they're not so tied, how can they threaten anyone on the terrorists' behalf?

P.S.
And when Rumsfeld sighs with relief, many people die!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hizbullah

[...]

Foreign Relations

[...]

Those who consider Hezbollah to be a terrorist organization consider its sponsors (in particular Iran, Syria, and Lebanon) to stand in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions 1373 and 1566. Further, UN Security Council Resolution 1559 calls for the dismantling of Hezbollah and all other militias. Israel has lodged continuous complaints[53] about Hezbollah's actions. Israel has bombed several Syrian targets in retaliation for terrorist and guerrilla attacks by Islamic Jihad and Hezbollah that Israel claims were sponsored by Syria. An Israeli official said that those attacks are a "message to Syria to stop sponsoring terrorism".

[...]

James Robertson:
You were expecting the French to nuke les banlieus, maybe?
:)
The French used martial law regulations in some of their towns. There are better ways to deal with the problem, which is basically a combination of criminal druggie street gangs and bored kids on welfare than some Islamist intifada (at this point) than putting armoured divisions on the streets of Paris.

maggie:
If Iran is lobing missiles at Paris or any where else in Europe, any British PM will give more than just a damn.
OK, a lot of Brits (like me) are tempted to take the attitude to France and Belgium of "next time you've got a problem with the neighbours, phone Madrid".

But a nuclear attack anywhere in Europe means -
1) Massive economic dislocation: the UK economy constant flow of components and products to and from the Continent.
2) An enormous death toll among Britons in Paris (we're talking tens of thousands)
3) A fair chance of the UK catching the fall-out plume
4) Rather spoils the point of that expensive new rail station and track in London if there's no Paris to go to for a weekend.
5) OK the French government is a pain, but I like France and the French well enough that seeing millions of them nuked would piss me off.

This also applies to Italy, Spain, Netherlands, Germany (Hey, no flattening German cities! That's our job!) etc. etc.
In short, a nuclear attack anywhere in Europe, or an openly declared threat of such attack, equates to a declaration of war on the UK (and France).
The missiles fly.

Iran isn't going to do anything with thier nukes other than bluster. Nukes=security from attack whether it be from the US or anyone else. Despite popular opinion, the mullahs may be nuts by western standards but they're not crazy. Yes, I know the whole martydom, 72 virgins in paradise thing but that's what the Islamofascist powers that be tell the rank and file. You don't see any of the big fish jumping to the head of the suicide bomber line.

As for Europe, if riots in France start reaching downtown Paris and the average 'white' Frenchman starts feeling the pain, you'll see the Legion get called in and heads cracked. Germany will commit suicide before they do anything remotely resembling a 'racist' policy toward thier Muslim population. As for the rest of Europe, who knows. I can tell you that Eastern Europe won't be as squeamish.

If Iran is lobing missiles at Paris, do you really think Blair will give a damn?

John F. beat me to it. My question was "Which way is the prevailing wind?"

Do not forget that most of Europe still belongs to NATO. And an attack on NATO is an attack on the U.S. That being said, all of Europe falls under the protective nuclear umbrella wielded by the U.S. Regardless of what we may feel about the French and some of the other less friendly nations in Europe today, the U.S. will defend them. I don't think for a minute that GW would allow a threat like that to stand without U.S. guarantees of massive retaliation.

Munn may be a professional but his post here is just nonsense. Iran is a threat to Israel and its neighbors only.

Brussels has a muslim female mayor or 2nd in command????

How can one seriously make the statement that Iran is a threat to its neighbors only when being a threat to its neighbors makes it, in and of iteslf, a threat to everyone?

You have heard of a certain commodity called oil, right?

I think that many people tend to under estimate the ability of the European peoples to stand up for themselves. Its all very well talking about Europe not having the stomach for the fight, but by and large the two greatest conflicts in human history were fought and bled in Europe. Memory of that kind of thing lives long, and Europeans would do anything to avert that sort of thing again, hence the love of dialogue and diplomacy to bullets and bombs.

That said, if the time came again, Europe could easily kick ass.

Living in Brussels temporarily - I can say that while the Europeans on the surface seem complacent, they are not. While in the US the Mexicans fill the role of taking jobs that US citizens don't want, here it is the N. Africans - and if push came to shove, the Euros would slaughter the N. Africans, no compunctions. At least in the US, the Mexicans want to assimaate and good luck trying to spot the difference with the other Latinos - they are mostly middle class and seem to follow the traditional US assimilation patterns. I find no aminimosity towards the Black africans here in Belgium, only the muslmans, mostly because they don't respec the locals. I mean, would you respect men you constantly ask if you want to have sex with "une blanche" just because you wear jeans and don't wear a scarf like a blond haired friend on mine in St. Josse? It is just rude.

The point is, Euros may seem weak, but that is only because most of them remember losing family members in the last war. They will fight, but they know what is costs in more personal terms. But when they fight, they won't be as nice as the US. You bomb Paris (or hell, even Brussels), I doubt Mecca or Medina will exist within a week.

Should the day come the Tehran lobs missiles at anywhere in the EU, Tehran (and probably most of Iran) will be no more.

Europe may dillydally around and try to work things out with word, but you hurt them delibrately; please - the powers the police have here make the Patriot Act look tame.

They won't even ask the UN. Europeans may talk a tolerant, pleasant west coast game, but when it comes down to it, they'll kill.

Visit any graveyard in northern France, Belgium or Luxembourg and you'll see.

Yeah, I've heard of oil. So? Short term disruption of oil supply is not a real threat. Even long term. It just costs money.

I am not saying we shouldn't prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Just that Iran is not a nuclear threat to Europe. Even if it was in theory, the US would never allow it to happen. How many warheads on one Ohio class sub? About a hundred. More than Iran will have in a hundred years.

Hi -

The question increasingly is not if, but when terrorists get their hands on a Bomb.

The way things are going, we're all f*cked.

http://21stcenturyschizoidman.blogspot.com/2006/01/misperceptions-and-deceit.html

And I'm not the JohnF up above, although I wish I had written what he says (and he's right).

We're once again at a cusp of international affairs, and there are a lot of parallels to the tragic, slippery slides into both previous world wars.

The road to hell is paved with best intentions. War will return due to misperceptions and deceit, and when it comes, millions, as usual, will die. As usual, mostly civilians.

And the left are busily tuning their violins while Cassandra keeps on talking to a wall...

John

Iran is not a threat 'to its neighbors only'. It has backed Hizb'allah and other terrorist organizations that have done significant damage to the U.S.! And I'm not talking about just the insurgency now and the 9/11 attacks, it goes back to Lebanon, and the Marines killed there, etc. Anyone remember Iran-Contra? The arms-for-hostages? Even if they killed a small amount of Americans, it's enough. Propaganda and guerrilla warfare that they support take serious hits to American foreign policy morale and economically as well! We don't have to have a missile aimed at the U.S. to consider it a threat. What about possible weapons proliferation? Fallout that could hit U.S. bases in the region? We have a military prescence in those 'neighbors'. More to the fact that they fund and arm people who want to kill Americans and their allies. This stuff is contagious, especially in a region that is highly volatile when it comes to zealous religion. A nuclear Iran would have reverburations (sp?) around the world. 'No man is an island'-- to paraphrase, neither, in terms of world events, is any country. We're all connected here. What affects one, effects us all. And mullahs with nukes, would definitely effect us.