This has been discussed previously, but the thread is like 5+ pages long from 2009, so I figured I'd start a new one.
I would assume that most of us do not want governments to obtain nuclear weapons. The US government has them already, so that's a fact with which we're working. The government in Iran wants nuclear weapons.
Since the government in Iran is just as uncontrollable to the Iranian people as the US government is to people here, if you could, would you use the US military in order to stop the Iranian government from building nuclear weapons?
In one way, I feel like it should be able to have nuclear weapons that can be used as a deterrent from foreign attacks. While the government isn't too controllable, it does still have to maintain a positive public opinion in some cases. In another way, I feel like it shouldn't be able to have nuclear weapons because I don't feel personally safe with that fact. What are your opinions?
"The government in Iran wants nuclear weapons."
Says who? Last I heard, the Iranian government says they want nuclear energy. There are others who say Iran wants nuclear weapons. All sides have reasons to lie about the situation. Have you divined the truth?
"Since the government in Iran is just as uncontrollable to the Iranian people as the US government is to people here, if you could, would you use the US military in order to stop the Iranian government from building nuclear weapons?"
What does an uncontrollable government have to do with it?
How would the US military stop the Iranian government without killing a lot of the poor saps who happen to be under the thumb of an uncontrollable government? What blame do they carry? Any more blame than US citizens for their own uncontrollable government?
"I feel like it should be able to have nuclear weapons that can be used as a deterrent from foreign attacks."
Assuming Iran wants nuclear weapons, they would never do anything more than use these as a deterrent. Anything more would be suicide.
As Iran has the most powerful military camped out on both its east and west, and as said most powerful military has threatened Iran with devastation, it would be irresponsible of the Iranian government (assuming you believe in a government role) to not consider every means possible to deter attack.
"I feel like it shouldn't be able to have nuclear weapons because I don't feel personally safe with that fact."
Iranians likely don't feel safe with the constant threats of Armageddon either. In any case, your personal feelings of safety are of little concern when someone else is considering how to take care of his own needs. Absent theft / coercion, you have no rights here.
Says who? Last I heard, the Iranian government says they want nuclear energy.
I'm sure they want nuclear energy, but it will give them the capable to create nuclear weapons at the same time. Not to mention they have quite an appropriate reason to desire nuclear weapons since the US military has bases surrounding their country. If you don't accept that, then just pretend I wrote "if the Iranian government were to desire nuclear weapons".
Assuming the government were controllable, there would be more opposition to the firing of nuclear weapons (not necessarily to the acquiring of them). This means that the firing of the nuclear weapons would be under the control of a few statists as opposed to a larger group of the country's citizens.
That's what I'm asking. If they could do it without hurting innocents, should we use the military to stop the production? I understand it's nearly impossible to destroy a nuclear facility without leakage of some sort, but we're pretending we can.
That's true, but you can't rule out the idea that - depending on a politician's hatred for Israel (or any other foreign enemy for that matter - he or she may decide to take that sacrificial risk.
I know they don't feel safe, and I didn't say they should. You're saying that "someone else is considering how to take care of his own needs" when that 'someone' is the Iranian government, not its people. Many Iranian citizens may also not feel safe knowing that their government acquiring a nuclear weapon will frighten other powerful militaries (like the US) to the point of a possible pre-emptive attack. This entire problem stems from the government maintaining a monopoly on security. Otherwise my feelings of safety would matter a lot to the company with which I would entrust my security in a free market. As for your last sentence, I do have a right to pursue security via the free market, which is being taken away from me. I should definitely have worries regarding how the military acts.
I don't like that anyone has nuclear weapons- but the problem is, they've been invented already so its too late. As long as people want to have them they will make them.
If we're going to pretend that we can use military operations to remove iran's nuclear threat without harming innocents then we might as well pretend that we can use military operations to solve every single problem in the world- I'm not understanding the point of the discussion so maybe you could clarify what you're trying to get across a bit better?
No Iranian politician has level of hatred for israel which would lead them to using a NUCLEAR weapon on a country which holds sites that are holy to Muslims, Christians, and Jews all over the world. Unless it was Satan himself pushing the big red button. I suppose its always possible though- looking at all the terrible things done in mankind's history I wouldn't rule it out. But on that same note you can't rule out Israel having such a hatred for Palestinians that they just decide to nuke everyone in the Gaza strip. Maybe the US might nuke every village in Afghanistan? My point being if we're gonna be open ended about something- the list can go on pretty long.
When it comes down to it- I don't think killing innocent people with the goal of saving innocent people makes any sense.
My apologies. I think, when I was answering the previous question, I got a bit side-tracked as to what I was initially asking. The reason I asked was due to that Stuxnet computer worm. Assuming that worm could go into the Iranian nuclear facilities and basically just shut it down for good, do you think that action would be a beneficial action for the US military to take in terms of protecting the well-being of American citizens? Yes, we got rid of the nuclear weapon-producing facility with a virus. But, at the same time, we may enrage a lot (not all) of the Iranian public who want that nuclear deterrent as a literal and metaphorical symbol of sovereignty and safety. It terms of foreign relations, it may do good or bad. My main question is, what is everyone's opinion regarding the previous sentence?
I agree. I hope that, if the US military is ever overtaken by militaries in the Middle East, people over there understand that we really couldn't do anything about the bombings/occupations for the past many years.
This is not my opinion, but this is basically the whole story that I have heard from the neoconservative side of the Iran issue from Messrs. Rosenberg, O'Reilly,.etc. It may or may not be true.
In the Middle East, there are intra-Muslim divides that may be a little complicated to understand for any of us outside it. The Iraq-Iran war is still fresh in minds of people there, let alone the recent Iraq War. What may have been going on all these years is the calm before the storm, and there were plans for war even before. The Americans were suspecting it, and even Clinton had considered a plan to invade Iraq. The general coalition of Iraq, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Jordan, Yemen,.etc hate the Iranians, despite their own internal differences. The Saudi government had secretly launched a weapons development scheme in Iraq. When the Americans came to find out about it, they invaded Iraq immediately. In that time, the Saudis withdrew their weapons, knowing that Saudi Arabia and Israel are above American criticism. The Iranians knew or suspected an attack by Iraq and were also engaged in their own weapons development program. While Iraq was neutralized, the Iranians could expand their network of power into Lebanon, Sudan, and now even Iraq itself. They knew that Arab countries hate them and are working against them, and moreover, Turkey and Israel are also interested in attacking any first mover in such a war, in order to stabilize the Middle East. Thus, the Iranians start a two front proxy war into Israel and Turkey. The Americans prevented a bloody war by the Iraqis against Iran and now they must prevent Iran from doing the same. The Arabs do not even want to wait, and thus Iranian nuclear scientists have kept dying in UAE, Saudi Arabia,.etc. Milton Rosenberg himself suggests that the Persians wish to war against Arabs to fulfil some "ancient prophecy" and can not be detered.
We all can find plenty of holes in this story, but I am just clarifying what the other side thinks.
Thank you for that. It really is difficult to think how people in the Middle East feel about everything, especially since the cultures are so different. I usually just feel like, "The wars in Afghanistan/Iraq happened so long ago. I'm just bored of it now." But to the people in Afghanistan/Iraq, the war happened yesterday and today because they're constantly involved with the US military plus all of their separate conflicts.
The most common rationale behind stopping the Iranian nuclear program is that it could lead to weapons that could threaten Israel and US forces stationed in the Middle East. Really? Would Iran dare lose the few friends it has for the sake of teaching Israel a lesson? Would Iran risk being turned into an inhabitable wasteland by the superior Israeli (and US) nuclear arsenal? The rationale behind owning a nuclear arsenal is to use it to counter a similarly armed rival, locking it into a stalemate (the mutually assured destruction doctrine) or to warn enemies that if the situation gets dire you'll take them with you (the Samson Option envisioned by Israel and Pakistan).
Iran doesn't have the capabilities nor the will to have a nuclear arsenal remotely comparable to Israel's. It doesn't have the luxury to live under the shield of a powerful ally providing political and military back-up. Maybe they just want nuclear power for electricity. Maybe they want to pull some kind of chauvinistic stunt. Maybe they want to mimic Kim Jong-Il and use nuclear weapons as bargaining chips. There's no sure way to know it. That's why serious talks are the only way out of this situation. The problem is Israel and its allies in the US government don't do things that way. Israel has already started its offensive: they first murdered two leading Iranian researchers and then unleashed the "stuxnet" computer virus on the world. Do these look like the actions of sensible persons that may be willing to seat down and talk things through? The only reason the US hasn't bowed down and started a full fledged assault (not necessarily by military means) is that there are serious concerns among some more farsighted officials the situation could degenerate very quickly. As I've said before Iran doesn't need to unleash nuclear weapons to wreak havoc: all they need to do is mine the Straits of Hormuz and field a few units of old Chinese anti-ship weapons, perhaps take down a couple of supertankers like they did in the '80s, then sit back and see where oil prices go. The US would be relatively unaffected (only 7% of their oil comes from the Gulf) but the rest of the world would be dealt a crippling blow. Imagine how happy NATO "allies" and Japan would be, especially with an economic depression on their hands! Oh, wait, I forgot, we have a "two speed recovery" now, my bad. Imagine which scenarioes could follow.
I would assume that most of us do not want governments to obtain nuclear weapons.
If most of us would like perpetual war, than yes, they should be against nukes.
Otherwise, one could see that nukes are the greatest revolution in military technology since gunpowder, in that they allow small nations to protect themselves cheaply against superpowers: nukes further decentralization! If the European powers had had nukes prior to WW1, that civilization-shattering event would not have happened. WW3 has been avoided and the attack of North Korea too. Israel survives only due to nukes. Its easy to see that nukes are to the anarchic commonwealth of countries what guns are to individuals: means to protect freedom.
"If most of us would like perpetual war, than yes, they should be against nukes."
-I don't understand how this is true at all. How many wars (declared and undeclared) have been fought by nuke holding governments since the end of WWII?
"If the European powers had had nukes prior to WW1, that civilization-shattering event would not have happened. WW3 has been avoided and the attack of North Korea too."
-You can't just say things like this. There is no way to determine if this is the case or not.
"Israel survives only due to nukes."
-Why would you possibly value weaponry that make it easier for states to thrive?
they said we would have an unfair fun advantage
In another way, I feel like it shouldn't be able to have nuclear weapons because I don't feel personally safe with that fact.
I usually just feel like, "The wars in Afghanistan/Iraq happened so long ago. I'm just bored of it now." But to the people in Afghanistan/Iraq, the war happened yesterday and today because they're constantly involved with the US military plus all of their separate conflicts.
"If most of us would like perpetual war, than yes, they should be against nukes." -I don't understand how this is true at all. How many wars (declared and undeclared) have been fought by nuke holding governments since the end of WWII?
That’s not the right question. Rather we must ask, how many wars have nuclear-armed states declared towards each-other? Well, how many?
You can't just say things like this. There is no way to determine if this is the case or not.
That’s true, but I holds the other way around too. Here I’m simply using logic and extrapolating from 50 years of history to guess that nuclear power are extremely reluctant to declare war on each other. Hence, if all states are nuclear power, there will be no wars.
I, as almost everybody here, am against state power. So, we all agree eon the end state we’d like to see: no state. What we might disagree on is on how to get there: by having states wither away through conquest, or by increasing the number of states into insignificance?
See, if Israel (top take one well-known example, Israel is not special in any sense) had been overrun by the Egyptians in the ’70, its territory would not have revered to anarchy but would have been incorporated into an other state. Is this what we want, people changing hand form one government to the other?
How about having as many states as possible, to the point where every village can defend its own ‘state’. Do you think a village-sized state would be a state at all? But if a world of a million states is good, than every state that we ad (or manage to save from conquest) must be a step in that direction.
So, everything that allows states to defend themselves in combat against powerful armies is good in itself.
Note that having nukes does not insure some government against failure, merely against military takeover. Israel is still going bust, but due to its own stupid policies, not due to attack, and this makes all the difference.
Otherwise, one could see that nukes are the greatest revolution in military technology since gunpowder, in that they allow small nations to protect themselves cheaply against superpowers: nukes further decentralization!
That's only true assuming: (1) that the weak countries actually obtain nuclear weapons, and (2) that we don't find a way to stop the explosion nuclear weapons or at least minimize the explosion, which I believe we will have at some point. I mean, the only bigger weapon I can think of is an anti-matter bomb, and those will just blow up the universe. There's no point to them.
I'm sorry but you being a chicken is not an argument.
Oh yeah, I'm such a baby because I don't like the idea of crazy governments having nuclear weapons.
Since we are doing all this "pretending", why don't we also pretend we are talking about US nuclear weapons? You know, the weapons that actually exist? Would it be OK for Russia to create and unleash a super-duper weapon that would make all US atomic weapons disappear? That is all you need to answer for yourself. No double standards Mr. Fearmongering Neocon. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.
There's no need to be an asshole and call me "Mr. Fearmongering Neocon". It's a simple discussion. If you were to read a little further, the "pretending" is the Stuxnet virus, which may be a possible way of stopping the process of Iran's nuclear weapons production. As for your question about Russia, I wouldn't feel as safe if Russia were to do that, but, then again, if my government were threatening Russia day in and day out (like the US government does to Iran), it would definitely be okay from their point of view.
That's only true assuming: (1) that the weak countries actually obtain nuclear weapons,
Advocating war against Iran for trying to arm itself will certainly not help. That's why we must favor nuclear proliferation as a good in itself.
(2) that we don't find a way to stop the explosion nuclear weapons or at least minimize the explosion, which I believe we will have at some point.
Alas, nothing lasts forever and even nukes could come to be 'tamed'. But I do not see it happening in the foreseeable future. Note that the trick isn’t to intercept the vector, be it a plane, ICBM or cruise missile.
No matter how good you become at anti-ballistic missile defense, there are some vectors which you just can’t control.
A nuke sent through a commercial container cannot be intercepted. Suitcase bobs neither. Israel, to push my point, is not afraid of Iran’s missiles. its Arrow 3 system can shoot down anything from the sky. The problem is that Iran can just ship its nukes disguised as anything, and there would be no way to stop it.
So, when you think of it, you see that the only nuclear defense is actually minimizing the effect of the bomb itself, and I cannot imagine how that could possibly be done.
Oh, okay. I understand it a little more. I guess, in a way, you can see nuclear weapons like gun rights. The more people around you who have guns, the less likely you'll be to shoot someone.
Brian Anderson: Oh, okay. I understand it a little more. I guess, in a way, you can see nuclear weapons like gun rights. The more people around you who have guns, the less likely you'll be to shoot someone.
Precisely!
And you are a fearmonger, you would rather echo propaganda than learn about the subject.
If you were to read a little further, the "pretending" is the Stuxnet virus, which may be a possible way of stopping the process of Iran's nuclear weapons production.
There's no need to be an asshole and call me "Mr. Fearmongering Neocon".
Because you think the government of Iran is a threat to you. That this is something which is a concern of yours is pathetic. And you are a fearmonger, you would rather echo propaganda than learn about the subject.
When did I echo propaganda? If I didn't want to learn these things, I wouldn't be posting on the forums. I've been openly glad when people educate me on these subjects. Calling people fearmongers for no reason does nothing.
An act of vandalism targeting Iran's power plants. Not only does no one have the right to target the property of Iranian taxpayers, there are all sorts of risks involved in sabotaging a freaking atomic plant. It takes a neocon to become excited about an attack like this.
You keep throwing around "neocon" as if it's an empty word. Normally I would thank someone for posting a link like you just did. You don't need to act all aggressive and try to be demeaning because I don't know something that you do. All you need to do is post links like that and ask if my opinion changes after learning. It's not that hard. Comments like the ones you post only drive people away from liberty.
It is you who is acting like an asshole. Albeit you have gotten better the propaganda you repeat is still offensive.
I'm not repeating propaganda. Nothing I've said has been offensive. When you say, "Albeit you have gotten better," if you're referring to the change in my mindset since I started posting on this site, then you're correct. My mindset has changed because I - just like many, many, many others - hadn't been shown the knowledge presented on here by others. Talking to people on the forums has helped me a lot, but people like you yelling at me for nothing made me want to quit posting on here when I first started.
This is a debate which is neither abstract, nor it deals with a past historical event. The US is presently helping kill Iranians by funding terrorists in Iran and may jet come to bomb Iran. In the light of these facts you may want to think a little bit more about Iranians and little bit less about yourself (threatened by a forum asshole and the non-existant nukes of a government of a third world country) and verify things before you assert them. There is an objective right to free speech, but you also have a subjective responsibility as a moral human being to not make it easier and more likely for government agression to take place. What would you say about a private German citizen who in 1940 wrote and distributed virulent anti-Jewish propaganda? He would be in the subjective sense partly responsible for the government crimes against Jews, even though he may not have lifted a finger against them himself or argued for government action. Not the severity, but the principle of you chanelling Bill O'Reilly on us is the same, so don't be surprised that it upsets me. Iran is not intent on producing atomic weapons, could not produce them without withdrawing from the NPT and could be easily contained even if it did come to posses them. Stop doing the neocon's work for them and asserting the contrary when it is not true. Also Iranian government is not crazy. That is more war propaganda.
In the light of these facts you may want to think a little bit more about Iranians and little bit less about yourself (threatened by a forum asshole and the non-existant nukes of a government of a third world country) and verify things before you assert them.
I learn what I can by myself, and then I come on here for help from others. There's no problem with that. Truth is, a lot of people on here have information that is virtually hidden in search engines. I come here with questions and people can answer them easily a lot of times, so don't try to accuse me of not verifying things when I'm trying to do precisely that same thing.
What would you say about a private German citizen who in 1940 wrote and distributed virulent anti-Jewish propaganda? He would be in the subjective sense partly responsible for the government crimes against Jews, even though he may not have lifted a finger against them himself or argued for government action.
That's not true at all. That's like saying the guy who wrote the pedophile how-to guide is responsible for the existence of pedophiles.
Not the severity, but the principle of you chanelling Bill O'Reilly on us is the same, so don't be surprised that it upsets me.
AGAIN, point out where I supposedly posted propaganda or chanelled Bill O'Reilly. I don't watch that guy's show, so I figure it's quite impossible for me to channel him. You keep trying to make a big deal about learning on here. If you have something to teach me, then do it. Don't spend your time calling me names. It makes no productive sense whatsoever.
Iran is not intent on producing atomic weapons, could not produce them without withdrawing from the NPT and could be easily contained even if it did come to posses them. Stop doing the neocon's work for them and asserting the contrary when it is not true. Also Iranian government is not crazy. That is more war propaganda.
From the speeches I've seen, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems pretty crazy. I'd like for you explain to me if many of the things he says are incorrectly translated or if he's misquoted frequently; things like that will help me learn more. When I put myself in Iran's place with the US constantly threatening them and add that fact to their nuclear facilities, I have a good reason to believe they'd want to acquire nuclear weapons
You seem to be functioning on the theory that libertarians want to force other people to have the limited government we desire for ourselves.
It's bad enough that we have to resort to majority rule to fight for this, domestically...it would be an anti-liberty obscenity for us to resort to use the military to impose our ideals elsewhere in the world. No real libertarian supported the aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan, and none would support war, or even economic sanctions, against Iran.
What's more, the government of Iran has as much right to nuclear weapons as our own. In a sense, this is the Right to Keep and Bear Arms on a grand scale.
Only little, pissant proxy wars...because of nuclear weapons.
Note that Bush was treating North Korea as an enemy we were likely to attack, until the very day they announced they had a nuclear weapon, then suddenly we started treating them like a dear friend, giving them money and technology. If only Iran were to have nuclear weapons tomorrow, the whole neocon push to war with them would end.
Because better smaller states than larger ones. Nuclear weapons allow individual states to protect themselves from international law, world government, and empires like the US.
I reiterate: Nukes are the Right to Keep and Bear Arms debate on a macro scale. They are the Great Equalizer between countries the way a concealed handgun is between individuals in a society.
What would you say about a private German citizen who in 1940 wrote and distributed virulent anti-Jewish propaganda? He would be in the subjective sense partly responsible for the government crimes against Jews, even though he may not have lifted a finger against them himself or argued for government action. That's not true at all. That's like saying the guy who wrote the pedophile how-to guide is responsible for the existence of pedophiles.
A worthless comparison. There isn't a parallel pro-pedophilia campaign, in preparation for legalisation of pedophilia for government employees, being conducted by the government propaganda mills.