To me, an attack on Iran's nuclear fascilities, would be a good thing.
From the point of view of consequentialism -> maximum hapiness for the maximum number of people.
For example, I live in Israel. If a foreign government could somehow bring down the Israeli nuclear fascilities, without any damage to persons, I would be very happy. Less danger for me. I think that my government is a potentially dangerous one.
Does anyone have a reason why not to do it regarding Iran?
I think it would likely be a really bad thing, because I think there's a strong chance that such an attack would lead to World War III, which could well result in nothing less than the extinction of Homo sapiens.
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
On the one hand, it seems unlikely that a clean attack on the weapon itself would be possible. Is there even any proof that it exists?
On the other hand, all of the countries seem to be using them like homeowners own rifles and handguns. Because they want to avoid being invaded, using principles of game theory. It is cheaper than military expenses. Though some, like the US, have to work double duty because they want to be the biggest and most powerful.
Israel and Iran have them for the same reasons. As do America and others.
Israel wants to avoid invasion by the Arab and Muslim world. Iran probably wants to avoid American or Israeli invasion. And these threats are obviously real.
We can use the argument that the state can't use nukes like property owners use guns, because they get their loot through force and taxation. But then again the threat is obviously real. And until all of the nukes and aggression is gone, it is not rational to expect one country to be single out. If people scaled back nuclear weapons, then it is quite reasonable to assume that certain states would try to overtake or occupy others -- as we already see. And no world government is possible in order to be the uberleviathan. In fact, the 'pax Americana' acts as this uberleviathan, but is part of the reason that the build up began in the first place. Countries want to be equal and on their own terms. As individuals usually do.
samr:For example, I live in Israel. If a foreign government could somehow bring down the Israeli nuclear fascilities, without any damage to persons, I would be very happy. Less danger for me. I think that my government is a potentially dangerous one.
If there was such a magic eraser that could eliminate all nuclear weapons without damage to any person that would be great. But nothing like that exists- and any attacks on Iranian nuclear facilities are going to kill a whole lot of people(there are people working in those facilities you know, they're humans with families)- to get rid of an imaginary weapon....now that's just evil.
samr:To me, an attack on Iran's nuclear fascilities, would be a good thing.
Okay, but by who and using whose resources?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
If a foreign government could somehow bring down the Israeli nuclear fascilities, without any damage to persons, I would be very happy. Less danger for me.
I doubt that. Even if that were possible they would simply rebuild, only now they would be angry.
I think that my government is a potentially dangerous one.
Sounds like all the more reason not to needlessly mess with their atomic weapons, then. Don't poke a bear.
What do you mean by "nuclear facilities". Are you intentionally using obscuring language? Do you mean an attack on their Russian-built power plant?
Why is it alright for other countries to have nuclear weapons but not Iran? If using a nuclear weapon responsibly is not to use it at all; why have one?
Even if Iran gets a nuke, no way are they stupid enough to use it. But you must understand why the want one when they are neighbouring Israel and Saudi Arabia.
'' The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge.'' Stephen Hawking
either all countries have nukes or none. US government is no saint or angel. It follows its interest and wants to rule the world just like any sociopathic state (which is a redundant word). So it's funny to hear from fellow minarchists blaming me or my american allies that they hate america because they disagree with its interventionism. America is not special. Actually it's a most diverse country in a world with mixed nationalities. It's even not a country, but a gulag (no offence, I mean it in a way that it has many people with different nationalities living there).
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Ask yourself this: are nuclear weapons the only issue here? No. The main issue is taking out another country that annoys the Israeli leadership to no end with its close ties with Syria and such groups as Hezbollah, not to mention the unwillingness to bow to every whim of the Knesset. After all Iraq was ravaged from end to end under the pretext of nonexistant "weapons of mass destruction" while North Korea, which not only owns nuclear weapons but openly boasts about them, can shell villages, abduct people and sink ships with complete impunity.
Now, it must be said there's very strong resistance to an attack on Iran in both the Obama administration and the Pentagon. President Obama himself is not stupid (in fact he's a very smart man who made just one big mistake in his life) and perfectly aknowledges the risks. The problem is, as Ahmad Chalabi demonstrated, the US can be easily manipulated into a war due to the peculiar quirks and fundamental flaws in their political system (Arrows in the Night explains this very well). Israeli politicians and hardcore hawks like Hilary Clinton know these quirks and flaws like few others. And they are pulling exactly the same strings Chalabi and Cheney pulled.
...while North Korea, which not only owns nuclear weapons but openly boasts about them, can shell villages, abduct people and sink ships with complete impunity.
Which is exactly why they don't get attacked. They've been practicing deterrence for a very long time, and they're very good at it. Appeasment never works with the US, it only gets interpreted as a weakness and raises the appetites.
The world will surely be a better place after one more country buys its ticket to real independence. Welcome Iran, to the club of sovereign nations. Just a few more weeks to go.
PS: I have a suspicion that the real looser form a nuclear Iran would be Turkey which is funding (as the rumor goes) the Syrian insurgents and was delighted by the whole Libyan, Tunisian and Egyptian debacles. Indeed, Iran is now the only remaining more or less independent Middle Eastern country with the clout to resist neo-ottoman ambitions in some quarters in Ankara. Israel is, at most, being played.
Nothing is wrong with Iran, and if anything the last bastion of resistence to Western imperialism (i.e., USA and Israel) in the Middle East. When things get more heated up I won't be hesitant in showing some support in Iran's refusal to put up with our b/s.
Kakugo:Now, it must be said there's very strong resistance to an attack on Iran in both the Obama administration and the Pentagon.
Really now? That's why the Obama administration and the Pentagon keep sending more ships through the Straits of Hormuz? It sounds to me like they're trying to provoke Iran into "attacking first", which will then be used to justify everything they want to do.
Kakugo:President Obama himself is not stupid (in fact he's a very smart man who made just one big mistake in his life) and perfectly aknowledges the risks.
Since you brought it up, what do you think his one big mistake was?
To the OP.
Would you say the same thing, that an attack on the USA nuclear facilities and would be great?
And why stop at nuclear facilities, while you are at it? Carry your thinking to its logical conclusion.
Do you think the total destruction of the USA's weapons arsenal is a good thing?
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Tell me, Smiling Dave, why you hate America so much? Are you not happy with free food you get? Free medical aid and education? Are you not happy with all the freedoms America give you (for free)? Are you not happy to be allowed to vote? Not happy with that? Then gues what, Europe and its muslim breeding factories are waiting for you!
The only thing telling me you are maybe being sarcastic is that clint eastwood icon
I tried to immitate Griffin Peter (read it in his voice) from Family Guy (best show I ever seen, Simpsons and South Park can now suck mah d1ck).
How dare you put anything over South Park. GTFO these boards.
If using a nuclear weapon responsibly is not to use it at all; why have one?
Nuclear warheads are very effective against large naval fleets and military bases/troop concentrations. A single one can destroy a carrier task force, or eliminate the command centre for an invading army. The large blast radius is also effective for destroying incoming ballistic missiles.
It's not true that they cannot be used defensively.
That's not what I said read my post again.
I had a conversation with an Iranian acquaintence, now living in Kurdistan Iraq, who personally told me he wished McCain was elected because Obama was too "soft". I asked him what he meant. The acquaintence told me he wanted a regime change.
Autolykos: Kakugo:Now, it must be said there's very strong resistance to an attack on Iran in both the Obama administration and the Pentagon. Really now? That's why the Obama administration and the Pentagon keep sending more ships through the Straits of Hormuz? It sounds to me like they're trying to provoke Iran into "attacking first", which will then be used to justify everything they want to do. Kakugo:President Obama himself is not stupid (in fact he's a very smart man who made just one big mistake in his life) and perfectly aknowledges the risks. Since you brought it up, what do you think his one big mistake was? Very simple: the Obama administration is mostly made up of suckers. Well meaning suckers, but suckers nonetheless. They want to avoid a confrontation with Iran by relocating troops to South-East Asia (to "contain" China) but at the same time they have given in to pleas by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others to increase military presence in the Gulf while Iran is carrying out military maneuvers in the area. As I said they are being played like puppets: most of them don't remember the Gulf of Tonkin Incident ("nerves and shooting at shadows" as somebody said). In a crowded environment the chances of an accident are much higher. Israel, the hawks and Saudi Arabia want the Iranians to draw first blood, and first blood must be American. The Obama administration and US intelligence agencies are also being exposed as being much weaker politically as previously thought. Mossad agents hired Iranian nationals to act as saboteurs by passing themselves off as CIA operatives... without the faintest protest from the US. Had, say, the Bulgarians tried to pass themselves off as KGB operatives during the Cold War they would have not seen another dawn once Moscow found out. I wouldn't be too surprised if Israel had a hand in the downing of that US drone. The big mistake Obama did was to allow his own vanity to take control and run for president. Together we go unsung... together we go down with our people | Post Points: 20
Marco :
Are you intentionally using obscuring language?
My answer :
Not intentionally, just didn´t think about what I heard on the news.
Probably an Iranian Kurd.
My answer : Not intentionally, just didn´t think about what I heard on the news.
Thing is talk about a strike on Iranian nuclear weapons programme is highly speculative since such a thing as of jet does not exist. IAEA continues to verify the non-diversion of Iranian nuclear material. The only nuclear facilities Iran has are civilian. It would be a terrible thing for the nuclear non-proliferation if a country that adheres to the non-proliferation treaty and all its safeguards and inspections were to be attacked for setting up a civilian nuclear programme (a guaranteed right under the treaty). Not just Iran and but other nations may be moved to exit the treaty. If you want a world as free of atomic weapons as possible the best course of action is to lower tensions not to raise them.
If there was such a magic eraser that could eliminate all nuclear weapons without damage to any person that would be great.
Also there is a difference for an otherwise powerless private person to use such a magic eraser to eliminate all the nuclear weapons in the world, and for a nuclear power to use such a magic eraser to eliminate just the nuclear weapons of a rival state. The latter would be an act of war, would be seen as an attack, would raise alarm and panic in the targeted country and would be extremely dangerous. Doing so could not really be defended by libertarians even if it cost nothing and hurt no one.
samr's post disappeared when the forum experienced a hiccup a minute ago, but I had the time to see it, paraphrazing:
If no one were hurt, what principle would this be based on?
The principle that as long as there are states, they should be as restricted in their actions as possible. We as libertarians want to ultimately scale down the state, but in the interim are also happy to shackle it with regulations if we can. One set of restrictions on state action that has had some success in restricting it has been the international law (which should really be called interstate law), which spells out what states may not do in the international arena. Seeing that erasing the nuclear weapons of a rival power would be an act of war and would undermine international law (aggressive war is against international law) we should therefore oppose it. Even if in the immediate some good may come from this act (albeit I doubt it, in fact I think it is much more likely to lead to war or at least frenzied rearmament than anything good) in the long run many more negative results will result from the further unshackling of the state from the bonds of international law. (The principle is similar as to why we would oppose intervention of the federal government into state affairs and the scaling down of state rights in favor of greater federal powers even if in the short run the federal government intended to address some legitimate grievance the state has been ignoring.)
Marko,
Yes, he is an Iranian Kurd. A young bachelor in his mid-20s, has a degree in microbiology, and is an atheist.
Well that would explain it wouldn't it. He probably want Turkey and Iraq bombed too.
Kurdistan Iraq was unscathed during Iraq War II. The people there consider Bush Jr a hero.
Is that not what I was saying? But maybe hero is a bit too strong of a word. I doubt they have as short a memory to forget be gassed because the US allowed the Iraqis too. I know this was Bush Jr but they are probably smart enough to be skeptical of any American by now.
There's another thing that popped into my mind.
I am pretty sure you are all aware of the so-called "Samson Option", meaning Israel's nuclear doctrine. Far from being a last resort self-immolation doctrine Israel has always intended it to be a bargaining chip, both with other Middle East countries and with the world superpowers.
So far it has paid handsomely, far outweighing the enormous costs of the nuclear program. In 1973 the Shin Bet discovered a Soviet spy ring at the highest levels. Instead of simply dismantling it, the operatives were either fed false information or simply made aware Israel had "suitcase nukes" and the means to smuggle them inside the USSR. It paid itself as the Soviet Union didn't directly intervene in the Yom Kippur war, as Brezhnev had promised his Arabian allies. In 1991 the Israeli government threatened that if a single chemical tipped Scud fell on Israel "Iraq would be left without Baghdad, are we clear?". George Bush was forced to bribe Israel on industrial scale. This bribery took the form of massive financial and military "aid" and, more critical to Israel, a list of 100 targets inside Iraq for Coalition forces to attack.
One of the basic tenets of the "Samson Option" is to deny other Middle East countries possession of a nuclear deterrent. It's easy to imagine Israeli politicians have made this point about a million times to all supposed "allies". Decision makers are hence left with a hard choice: either attack Iran themselves, with dreadful consequences (especially on Europe and Turkey), or sit back and see if Israel makes good of its threats. There's no way to know if the Israelis are serious about launching a nuclear attack on Iran: Israel is one of the most difficult countries in the world for foreign intelligence agencies to operate in (even the KGB got caught and double crossed) and its leader have made a point of adopting a posture that makes it impossible to know whatever they are bluffing or not.
As I said before the Obama Administration is much weaker than it wants to show and is effectively held ostage by both Israeli lobbyists and US hawks of various kinds. George Bush had the guts to ask Israel "What's your price?" and haggled his way out of a difficult situation, though it wasn't cheap. Obama doesn't even have the guts to ask for a price and the Israeli know how weak he truly is. They are laughing at his "resolve" to get troops out of the Middle East and already maneuvered him and the Pentagon in a very awkard position.
There's also the question of Israeli allies in the Muslim world. Though they will never admit it in the open, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar all have strong ties with Israel. Oman even has a standing agreement to harbor Israeli nuclear armed submarines. According to an USAF paper all three countries were offered the protection of the Israeli "nuclear umbrella", mostly to guard against Saudi Arabia. All three countries have been very vocal in both requesting an increased US military presence in the Gulf and a strike against Iran...
Kakugo:Very simple: the Obama administration is mostly made up of suckers. Well meaning suckers, but suckers nonetheless. They want to avoid a confrontation with Iran by relocating troops to South-East Asia (to "contain" China) but at the same time they have given in to pleas by Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others to increase military presence in the Gulf while Iran is carrying out military maneuvers in the area. As I said they are being played like puppets: most of them don't remember the Gulf of Tonkin Incident ("nerves and shooting at shadows" as somebody said). In a crowded environment the chances of an accident are much higher. Israel, the hawks and Saudi Arabia want the Iranians to draw first blood, and first blood must be American. The Obama administration and US intelligence agencies are also being exposed as being much weaker politically as previously thought. Mossad agents hired Iranian nationals to act as saboteurs by passing themselves off as CIA operatives... without the faintest protest from the US. Had, say, the Bulgarians tried to pass themselves off as KGB operatives during the Cold War they would have not seen another dawn once Moscow found out. I wouldn't be too surprised if Israel had a hand in the downing of that US drone.
The Obama administration and US intelligence agencies are also being exposed as being much weaker politically as previously thought. Mossad agents hired Iranian nationals to act as saboteurs by passing themselves off as CIA operatives... without the faintest protest from the US. Had, say, the Bulgarians tried to pass themselves off as KGB operatives during the Cold War they would have not seen another dawn once Moscow found out. I wouldn't be too surprised if Israel had a hand in the downing of that US drone.
In all honesty, I have no idea where you get this notion that the Obama administration wants to relocate US troops to Southeast Asia in order to "contain" China. Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? (Please note that Australia is not the same as Southeast Asia.)
Additionally, do you have any evidence to support the notion that the US government isn't acting in that region to protect its own interests first and foremost? Why would it put the interests of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, etc. above its own?
Kakugo:The big mistake Obama did was to allow his own vanity to take control and run for president.
I see. Something tells me that Obama himself wouldn't agree with you that that was a mistake, but I could be wrong.
What's this supposed to mean? There's plenty of americans you can find that want regime change and want another government to take over- doesn't mean it makes any sense to support an invasion of major capitals in the US.
Autolykos:In all honesty, I have no idea where you get this notion that the Obama administration wants to relocate US troops to Southeast Asia in order to "contain" China. Do you have any evidence to back up this assertion? (Please note that Australia is not the same as Southeast Asia.)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/17/us-obama-asia-idUSTRE7AF32X20111117
http://www.cfr.org/south-asia/us-military-eyes-southeast-asia/p9744
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/06/02/gates_to_unveil_plans_to_increase_us_military_involvement_in_se_asia
http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/nation/22092-us-seeks-stronger-military-ties-with-phl-other-asian-countries
http://online.wsj.com/video/leon-panetta-us-troop-focus-shifting-to-asia/B23F3530-AA36-4F79-99E1-ABA9ED90029E.html