I'm not willing to take the risk of the world having tens of thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at eachother, but nobody asked my opinion on it.

What's another hundred?

PS. For every one of these adventures the US embarks on, it makes a strategy of nuclear proliferation more rational for those seeking it.

If it wasn't suicide and I was the big boss, I would get some nuclear subs for my irrelevant South American nation ASAP. The "rules based order" is just wet toilet paper, who's to say that in 50 years we or our neighbors aren't next?

Gringos have always been crazy, but now y'all are getting extra spicy. Qaddafi, Ukraine and now Iran. Get nukes or bust is the name of the game now.

Are you suggesting that states may bomb each other when they don't want to "take the risk" of the other state possibly carrying out a dangerous attack on them in the future?

Plus, the nuclear issue is the excuse, not the reason. Palestine, Lebanon, Syria (+ regime change, sorta), Iraq (+ regime change), Afghanistan and now Iran. All attacked repeatedly and extensively over the past two decades.