What’s the most appropriate measure to use for determining when the use of military force is necessary & justified in stopping Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb?
Per the subject addressed in the article below What’s the most appropriate measure to use for determining when the use of military force is necessary & justified in stopping Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb?
Duplicate - Would a mod plese delete this thread
Hard call. If I were King, I would say, “Hey Iran…if it’s nuclear power you want, we’ll sell you the enriched uranium you need. So stop making your own or we’ll bomb the crap out of you.”
Wait to see if the centrifuges stop.
I deleted the other one because it had no replies. Then I noticed that the other one had the more detailed OP. So I’ve merged them.
Thanks!
Never. There is no justification for attacking a country simply for possessing the same sort of weapon (on a much smaller scale and with far less capacity for delivery) than we, ourselves, possess.
Have we bombed India? Pakistan? Israel? South Africa? China? Why not?
If Iran (which has never sought to project its power in the form of aggressive conquest in the manner of its neighbor Iraq) actually changes its foreign policies, threatening neighbor countries with the bomb, then we (along with the UN) have the right to take steps to stop that aggression. Until then, it is simply a matter of one more member of the nuclear club (that we started).
**tomndebb ** has it right. We have no more right to stop Iran from building a nuke, than Iraq would to blow up our nuclear stockpile if they could. IMHO, the only reason this is considered a serious question is because nobody thinks Iran can seriously retaliate. You will note nobody is talking about attacking NK to stop it, even though it’s a crazier country.
Really? Even if that country states explicitly that as soon as its bomb is ready it’s going to attack you with it?
If you’re Israel, and Iran has declared that it will ‘wipe you off the map’, and the Iranian leadership publically speculates that a nuclear exchange won’t necessarily be that bad for them, and that country also sponsors terror groups to attack your country and is caught smuggling large amounts of weapons in to your enemies, do you still believe that you can’t attack until the nuclear missiles are in the air?
That’s suicide.
Ethically: Never without a UN mandate.
Knee Jerk Reaction: It is long overdue and Bush confused the country we should attack in the first place.
Iraq: Nasty non-religious leader not supporting terrorists and with no WMD manufacturing plans.
Iran: Nasty Theocracy that does support terrorism and wants nuclear weopons.
See Bush just got confused. We should have invaded Iran not Iraq. The dope.
Rational view: Never without a UN mandate.
Jim {A hawk with at least a bit of a brain}
The argument is made no more coherent when it is constructed in the shape of an effigy of straw.
I explicitly noted that if Iran was threatening a neighbor with the bomb, we could and should intervene. Since most of Iran’s rhetoric appears to be hot air for domestic consumption, I do not believe that aggression against them is justified until legitimate intelligence reports (not put together by a partisan administration’s OSP) determines that there is a genuine threat.
“Hot air for domestic consumption” has a tendency to become actual policy through brinksmanship, one-upmanship and plain idiocy.
I for one feel pretty queasy sitting on the Iranian bull’s-eye :eek:
As for suggesting to sell them the enriched Uranium – has been tried (by Russia). Response was a resounding “no.” Still “no” when the Russians suggested that the Iranians do the enrichment themselves, in their own facilities, but on Russian soil and under some sort of Russian or international oversight.
And I don’t know what the answer to the OP is – I can’t really justify bombing Iran; but like I said, I am (quite personally!) scared of the consequences if they do get “The Bomb”
never at any point do we have the right to go into a sovereign state and tell them what to do/invade them.
what’s the point of having countries if that’s the case?
then again…if aliens came down and looked at our society…they’d wonder why we muddle it up. why the different countries…differnet flags…dividing people by something as stupid as a nationality. there’s a decent point in that. we’re comsolidating the global marketplace, and we should have consolidated the global living space as well.
this is not to be done through military means.
the war on terror, much like the war on drugs are two battles won by legislation and how we act as opposed to who/what we attack/conquer.
seeing as how that’s a tad too utopian and countries wouldn’t give up their power to unite…(god forbid). iran has every right to have nuclear power. sell them the nuclear power to build plants. every country should have that capacity for peace. we’re the only country that’s actually USED the bomb…and we’ve done it twice. if anything we shouldn’t have the bomb and other countries should be our watchdog.
long story short, i agree. there is NO reason to attack another country unless it’s clear self-defense. we don’t convict a person in our legal system without reasonable doubt. the same should go for another country. we don’t go to war with them unless there is no reasonable doubt that we must do it.
if there is a hawkish method, then it would be “buy our nuke-yoo-lurr stuff from us, or else we’ll bomb the shit out of you”. even THEN we have no juristiction to do that.
Didn’t Israel handle a similar situation omce before with Iraq? A unilateral attack on a launching system. I thought it was well executed.
Jim
But how do we know this? I’ve seen it said on this board a lot…so much so that its become quasi-fact. But really…how do we know its all just hot air and bullshit. And, even if it is hot air and bullshit today how do we know it will stay that way. It will be too late when a major city in Israel is a smoking puddle of glass…and when the Israelis retaliate and turn large portions of Iraq (where all the oil is) into like puddles…no?
As to the arguement that Iran has as much right to develope the things as anyone else, that might hold water had they not signed the NPT…and received the benifits of signing. Otherwise these treaties nations signed aren’t worth the paper they are written on (perhaps they aren’t at that).
I assume you know the answers to these questions and its rhetorical. On the off chance it isn’t…Israel and South Africa haven’t (afaik) actually formally acknowledged they HAVE nukes. Of course, they do and we know it…but they had secret programs and developed the things when no one was looking (or looking the other way). The same with the others you mentioned (and North Korea of course)…with the possible exception of China and the Soviets were the reason they didn’t get the crap bombed out of them before they could develop the things. The others though pretty much presented the world with a fait accompli (when they actually have come right out and acknowledged they have them at all).
To answer the OP: At what point in Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear bomb are we justified in attacking? We are past the point where the use of the military to prevent Iran from gaining nukes is JUSTIFIED. Whether we are at the point yet where its WISE to attack…well, I’m unsure. Had we not invaded Iraq I’d say it was past time to put serious pressure on Iran to stop dicking around. Since we did invade Iraq though its a touchy situation…at least for the US. I’d say we (and now I’m talking the Western World, not just the US) need to make a serious assessment as to how much heartburn Iran being nuclear would cause. If its sufficiently bad then we would be more than justified once its clear that negotiations with Iran are going no were. I.e. about now.
-XT
Israel attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nuclear power plant at Osirak - an act widely condemned publically, while the world breathed a sigh of relief that they did it.
Tomndebb: Sometimes leaders need to be held accountable for their words. And of course, before every war there were those who chose to interpret the aggressive country’s actions/words as just posturing, domestic politics, etc. So it’s a fine line.
The problem with waiting for a specific threat when it comes to nuclear weapons is that once a country has the bomb it can be almost impossible to counter anything they do without losing hundreds of thousands of lives. And when the state in question supports terror and probably has no qualms about proliferation, the mere possession of nuclear materials becomes that much more dangerous.
I believe most countries have agreed that Iran can not be allowed to get the bomb. Taking the position that they have the right to do so and are immune to attack until they actually threaten someone with their nuclear weapons is simply foolhardy. By then, it will be too late.
Well, Iran hasn’t used pitched battles as its tactic .But, still, I don’t think that its rhetoric can be described as empty or hot air, at all.
Iran uses terrorism the way other nations might use special ops. Another cite. (PDF) And another. I’m not sure if these meet the requirement you’ve set forward, but they certainly seem to be non-OSP-type cites. I would argue that Iran doesn’t necessarily need to even have a neuclear program that would be able to produce a bomb within a limited span of time. I’d prefer to see UN approval to rubble any of Iran’s neuclear facilities way before they became a threat.
I think that the artist formerly known as jrfanci hit the nail on the head. In many ways, the justifications (and rationalizations) for invading Iraq hold true for invading Iran. They do have terrorist connections. They might very well use their WMD capabilities via a proxy force. And if I were an Israeli, for example, I’d probably be quite eager to see the Iranian neuclear facilities razed as soon as there was even the slightest chance of them becoming operational in the near future.
Now, I’d still say that if at all possible nothing should be done, militarily, unless we have UN authorization. I’d also note that the situation in terms of politics, religion, and ideology in Iran is volitile, at best. I’d rather that we not unite the Iranians by giving them a common enemy.
It is, all in all, a thorny situation.
Israel bombed the Osirak reactor after their diplomatic efforts to form a coalition hit a roadblock. As if often the case in the region, Israel was slammed for its actions in destroying the reactor. Of course, later, I’m sure much of the world was happy to see that Sadaam didn’t have nukes.
That’s the one.
To **Tom ** and everyone else, Check the world news. Everyone think Israel is preparing to do surgical strikes against Iran if the UN doesn’t stop them.
Jim
unfortunately, we were justified around, maybe, 1995, (I’m pulling a year out of my ass…)
or whenever the last day was when we could actually pull off the outcome of crippling their program and keeping a lid on them thereafter.
uncurious George fucked it up again…He spent too much time with his pecker in his fist and not enough time reading the Stratfor report. (God, lets chip in and get him a subscription–it could save the world.)