Part of "us" is a large contingency of America's finest within range of missiles.
I could buy that as well, but Paul believes we shouldn’t have our troops stationed around the world, and while I don’t agree with a lot of what he says, again it’s a compelling constitutional argument that the founders did not intend for us to station armed forces permanently in other countries around the world.
And if our forces were not around the world doing peacekeeping duties, they wouldn’t be targets.
Anyway, there is no more evidence that Iran would use nukes against our troops in other countries than they would use them against us. If they SAID they were going to attack us, I wouldn’t care that they don’t have the ability to get the bombs here, I’d blow them up.
I guess from the way I wrote my statement, it might have sounded like I was simply saying they didn’t have the means to attack us, but that wasn’t the point, it was that without some reasonable indication that Iran was actually going to attack us, the “national security” argument is at least a debateable question, not cut-and-dried.
It could well be that in 50 years, Iran will have been a nuclear power for 45 years, and be an ally of the United States.