[nikcheerla]

I don't really find this objectionable. Maybe we have differing definitions of "Islamist regime"? If I imagine, say, the Taliban or ISIS in control of a country with nuclear weapons capability, I wouldn't blame our leaders for ordering a nuclear first strike.

[Synaesthesia]

Well they could be getting nuclear weapons to deter an American attack. I don't agree with any first strike with nuclear war. Every scenario that's been tried has, predictably escalated to a global nuclear war.

[maxharris]

Well they could be getting nuclear weapons to deter an American attack.

The Soviets are very different from the Islamic State. The former at least claimed to be concerned with this world, while the latter explicitly does not (this is what their religion tells them).

Although there were instances where we came perilously close to nuclear war due to chance events, the fact is that no nuclear war took place. Thanks to mutually-assured destruction and good luck, there has been a lasting nuclear peace for seven decades.

This all goes right out the window when the other side believes that heaven is fundamentally real, and that blasting infidels with the biggest weapon they can get will get them to heaven fastest.

It is true that America has its own religious fundamentalists, and they are a growing long-term threat. But they are not yet anywhere near the point where the Islamic State is right now. Furthermore, America's religious fundamentalist have serious opposition (you and I, for example) and we can therefore expect that they will continue to be restrained in the future. In the Islamic State, there is no opposition to religious fundamentalism of any kind, and there is no prospect of it emerging from within.

[Synaesthesia]

I don't think Islamic fundamentalists would launch a nuclear attack for a very simple reason, they know that they would be instantly vaporized. They're fanatical but they want to spread their empire, not obliterate it.