Hello.
I have some questions basically for non-interventionists Libertarians.
Please, justify your answers....Thank you all!
From my nuclear weapons article: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/nuclear-weapons-in-libertarianism/
- “Iran Poised To Build Bombs” (Sept 2003) [1]
- “Iran Only Months Away From Making Nuclear Bombs” (Jan 2006) [2]
- “Iran could have ability to build nuclear bomb by 2010, study warns” (Jan 2009) [3]
- “Goodspeed: Iran may be two months from bomb, two new studies say” (June 2011) [4]
- “Iran just months from N-bomb” (Sept 2011) [5]
[1] http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=20030923&id=-LZQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lh8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=3035,1706362
[2] http://realtruth.org/news/060106-001.html
[3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/4362989/Iran-could-have-a-nuclear-bomb-by-2010-study-warns.html
[4] http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/07/goodspeed-iran-may-be-two-months-from-bomb-two-new-studies-say/
[5] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/iran-just-months-from-n-bomb/story-e6frg6so-1226145909062
No, I do not think that the west should attack Iran and I think these governments should also lift the sanctions they have imposed on them. If you're concerned about nuclear proliferation I think one strategy would be to end the policy of bellicosity - constantly attacking nations who do not have nuclear weapons is going to be a pretty big aggravating factor towards those nations developing nuclear weapons, as the heads of the various enemy regimes will know that a nuclear weapon is the only guarantee they have of holding on to their power and not being the subject of regime change.
I don't see why the Iranians are such an allegedly warlike nation that we would all be imperiled by their having nuclear weapons. What evidence is there that they are so evil and monstrous that they would launch a nuclear first strike? What evidence is there that they have a nuclear weapons program in the first place? it would be nice if we lived in a world without nuclear weapons, and i think the idea of unilteral disarment is a good one but I find the idea that we MUST wage war on nation X lest they wage war on us in the future to be a rather puzzling one, since we are at the same time saying it is evil to wage war and doing this action ourselves. This stance is hypocritical. The only time that it's justified to go to war is when you are under attack by a foreign government and even then you should limit the conflict to killing their army.
I think that if we want to live in a world without war, nuclear or conventional, we should work to live in a world without states. Pax terra is an achievable goal but our strongest influence that can be had towards this goal is to abolish our own governments, demonstrate what peace and prosperity can be had in an anarchistic society and then hope the world follows our examples. The state, an evil organization which constantly uses violence, aggression, coercion and extortion is the least trust worthy organization for the possession of nuclear weapons.
... just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own - Albert Jay Nock
What is your opinion when a foreign government declares the use of nuclear weapons without stating that the purpose is for a war? They usually use them for demonstrations, tests etc...
Usually anyone that is against the state does not support any government actions whatsoever, especially since nuclear weapons, wheter the government agresses or only uses it for testing purposes comes out of taxpayer money (i.e theft).
What do you think about the real case of Iran? Do you believe that US and others governments should interfere in order to prevent the use of nuclear weapons from Iran?
Since governments are illegitimate, what I think about Iranian government: --> it should not exist.
Neither should any other government for that matter. But to answer your question directly, most noninterventionists would oppose governments fighting in any way shape or form.
What do you answer to those who support such interventions because they believe that if we let Iran use nuclear weapons, then they may lauch a war on West countries with horrible consequences?
What incentive does Iran have for a war? The iranians know that they will get destroyed by Israel, United states, and all of nato combined. So tell me, what incentive does Iran even have?
“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence.""The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”
http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org
Not all governments openly "declare" owning nuclear weapons. Israel has been playing the ambiguity card for almost four decades now, South Africa actually had a number of Israeli-made weapons during the Apartheid Era and Brazil initiated a nuclear weapon program without fanfare, only to terminate it because of lack of funding.
Also, if you own nuclear weapons the problem is you also need a nuclear doctrine. Those things aren't just weapons of mass destruction: they are powerful bargaining chips. Short of starting throwing them around, you acquire them to sit at the negotiating table in a strong position. One of the reasons Pakistan has been treated like a whipping boy despite being a nuclear power is their doctrine is non-existant. Perwez Musharraf had the nukes but lacked all the ideological apparatus countries such as Israel and France have developed.
How do you deal with a nuclear-armed country? It all depends on the doctrine they developed. Example: it's pretty obvious that a hypothetical Iranian nuclear doctrine would be aimed at containing Israel, especially if Iran could develop a so-called second strike capability (the ability to launch a nuclear strike even if the country gets hit first: nuclear-armed submarines are the usual choice). But, as Pakistan proved, this is far from enough. Israel (and to a lesser degree France) has been known to very aggressively use their nuclear capability at the negotiating table. During the Yom Kippur War, Israel went on full nuclear alert and made sure the US knew about it. Operation Nickel Grass was authorized by Kissinger in a matter of hours. During the First Gulf War, Israeli officials made very sure both the US and the Arabs knew they were ready to obliterate Baghdad in case a single chemical-tipped missile hit Israel. I personally believe they would not have gone that far but deterrent wasn't the point: Saddam knew perfectly well about the Israeli nuclear arsenal. The point was forcing the Arabs and the Americans into giving Israel ridicously generous conditions for "not interferring". It worked.
There's no taylor-made solution for dealing with nuclear armed States.
About Iran... I am pretty sure if that country didn't feel a knife against its throat things would go much smoother for all parts involved. Iran has agreed to inspections from AIEA to prove they aren't building nuclear weapons. Of course there are many who say they can do so in secret, but there's a catch. You cannot build nuclear weapons in secret. The facilities needed to manufacture them leave a very distinct "footprint" analysts know how to read. When Israel was building Dimona, the CIA kept the site under close surveillance by means of U2 overflights. HUMINT wasn't successful in infiltrating the plant but there was no need for it: the analysts knew perfectly well what was going on. With North Korea (DPRK), it was even easier: the CIA and the Mossad (which maintains an extensive network in Central Asia) knew DPRK officials were in talks with the infamous Khan Network for a nuclear program. Iran is kept in the crosshair of reconnaisance satellites and has been overflown by RQ170 drones (whose scope was prolonged surveillance of nuclear sites in "rogue nations" with limited AA capabilities). By now proofs should have surfaced, if they exist. Of course there's always the possibility the US know such a program exists and are doing nothing about it. After all they did nothing to stop Israel and DPRK, but those two are different stories.
And about interventionists... Israel has the means to threaten Russia, Europe and, since the new Jericho 4 ICBM went into service, the Continental US as well. Israel has threatened multiple times to attack Russia and set the Middle East ablaze. Israel has been using nuclear blackmail to get what she wants for at least four decades now. Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard stole US nuclear secrets, part of which were sold to the USSR. Yet nobody has nothing to object about Israeli nuclear weapons, perhaps because effective propaganda makes people think Israeli leaders are wise and cautious while Iranian leaders are religious fanatics ready to take the whole world down with them. They aren't: a nuclear armed Iran cannot be worse than a nuclear armed Israel.
Some claim that Iran may use nuclear weapons in aggression because they are extremists, fanatics muslims.
You know, that's one of those ambiguous and unhelpful statements that don't really fly around here.
I really wish my post could escape moderation...
I've known many muslims and none have ever been in the slightest aggressive towards me. Once I blasphemed in front of a few of them and they asked me politely not to. On the other hand Christian? / atheist white people have many times committed aggression against me. And if you look on the global scale, in the last decade white people / christians / atheists? have murdered hundreds of thousands of moslims / atheists? / arabic people so I think if there's any real concern it's that white people / christians / atheists / barack obama are going to murder a bunch of moslims instead of the other way around, be it via nuclear weapons or what have you.
The only reason Muslims shouldn't kill infidels when they have the chance is because they are inconsistent with their own religion. The United States and Christians at least have the doctrine of forgiveness in the latter case, and the admission that they don't want to indiscriminately kill people in the former.
Both Calvin and Luther were in favour of converting people to their sects of christianity by the sword. Personally I do not think the Mohamadens are any more warlike than Christians or vice versa, the reason why we are more brutal towards them is because we have the power and they do not.
I am not part of this "we" of which you speak.
Islam directly condones the murder and forced conversion of those who have different religions. There is a distinct and permanent link between Islam, the state, and law which makes peace, freedom, and tolerance incompatible with Islamic dominance. I don't care what you "think", I am saying that any Muslim who is tolerant and not warlike is either inconsistent or engaging in active revisionism. I could probably read Marx or be a Marxist in such a way to support capitalism, but I would either be disingenuously interpreting the things that Marx said, or I would be being inconsistent with Marxist principles.
This is not to say that such Muslims do not exist, only that they are guilty of one of these two things. I am not surprised that many Muslims who live in the modern world turn their back on their real religion as well as their true heritage. Modern ideologies of tolerance and moderation, as well as the wonderful lifestyle that the liberal doctrines have bestowed upon mankind are both great reasons for Islam to rearrange itself, especially from those who are directly exposed to them. God is dead and if he's ever brought back it'll be from people like real Muslims or radical Christians plunging us back into the dark ages.
Christians have had the power for centuries now, but it's been a very long time since they have forced their religion on infidels by threat of death.
Finally, Christianity bases itself around a peace-preaching prophet who died a martyr and preached forgiveness, while Islam was founded by a theocratic warrior king. Considering how bloody Christianity's history of dominance was back when it was taken more seriously, I'd... hate to see what an Islamic regime would look like if the Muslims haven't watered down their own religion.
There are hardly any modern day christians that support the crusades. While it is true that in the medieval times, religions often clashed and many died, in the modern times, blaming religion for war is just absurd.
Many people also blame christians for things that politicians do because politicians assert themselves as christians. It disgusts me that they do....
Politicians only use the "christian" label to gain votes....
In other words, they, the hated other, the enemy, are bad and we are good. Such a novel viewpoint.
What do you think about the real case of Iran? Do you believe that US and others governments should interfere in order to prevent the use of nuclear weapons from Iran? What do you answer to those who support such interventions because they believe that if we let Iran use nuclear weapons, then they may lauch a war on West countries with horrible consequences? Please, justify your answers....Thank you all!
Please, justify your framing of the questions. Show that Iran is intended to acquire nuclear weapons. Show that if it is allowed to field nuclear weapons it will in fact do so. Show that nuclear armed Iran isn't a giant red herring not worth discussing in the frame you propose.
"In other words, they, the hated other, the enemy, are bad and we are good. Such a novel viewpoint."
In other words you're misrepresenting someone's viewpoint because you have no rebuttal or substantive response. I'm sure you oppose Nazism and communism just because they are the "hated other", you couldn't have a good reason like the fact that those ideologies are inherently warlike and crush economic prosperity.
Bring something intelligent to the table or don't post at all.
@ Kelvin Silva
It's not just in modern times - blaming any religion for violence is the same as blaming guns for violence. For example, Zen Buddhism is quite possibly the most peace-preaching pacifist religion/philosophy around, and yet during Japan's WWII era the Japanese government created a Zen establishment that interweaved Zen with the state by inserting Zen teachers who taught war and "putting down the filthy American animal" so as to prepare Zen students for fighting Americans. But regardless of the fact that the state has been the main corruptor of religion for it's own benefit, religion always gets pinned down as the enemy.
Ironically, this topic can be summed up with a quote from a prominant critic of religion (albeit a libertarian):
"All the state sees in an original idea is potential change." - H. L. Mencken
Wheylous: From my nuclear weapons article: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/2012/12/23/nuclear-weapons-in-libertarianism/ - “Iran Poised To Build Bombs” (Sept 2003) [1] - “Iran Only Months Away From Making Nuclear Bombs” (Jan 2006) [2] - “Iran could have ability to build nuclear bomb by 2010, study warns” (Jan 2009) [3] - “Goodspeed: Iran may be two months from bomb, two new studies say” (June 2011) [4] - “Iran just months from N-bomb” (Sept 2011) [5] [1] http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1454&dat=20030923&id=-LZQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lh8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=3035,1706362 [2] http://realtruth.org/news/060106-001.html [3] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/4362989/Iran-could-have-a-nuclear-bomb-by-2010-study-warns.html [4] http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/06/07/goodspeed-iran-may-be-two-months-from-bomb-two-new-studies-say/ [5] http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/iran-just-months-from-n-bomb/story-e6frg6so-1226145909062
The use of midia by intelligence agencies for disinformation purposes aside, a nuclear program could theoretically be kept a few months away from developing actual nuclear bombs for many years, specially when there's no point in manufacturing an actual device if there's no imminent intention of deployment, either in a test or in a surprise attack.
A lot of countries are expected to be a "few months away" from developing their own nukes, including non threatening nations like Japan, Germany and Brazil.
That doesn't mean that in the next months they will unveil any warhead. It just means that in a scenario of acute geopolitical instability, where it would make sense for their governments to possess such weapons, they could make it in a short period of time.
To be fully nuclear requires more than the ability to assemble nuclear bombs. You need to develop a reliable delivery system, either through submarines, stealth bombers or ICBMs; and you may also want second strike capabilities and an extensive intelligence and counter-intelligence apparatus, and all of these things are very expensive to acquire and maintain.