In our war for peace we will prevent the use of nuclear weapons by using nuclear weapons. You see, continual war is the necessary precondition for perpetual peace. Ignorance of the possible consequences of such a measure is the strength of the country. This ignorance allows us to remain resolute in the face of otherwise daunting results.
What is freedom after all, but slavery to eternal vigilance?
Any hope for an Iranian democracy over the next 20 years depends on not pre-emptively killing any Iranians; particularly by Americans or Israelis. Actually, anyone for that matter. Let’s face it popular opinion would assume that America “let them” bomb Iran.
Is there actually no such thing as subtlety when it comes to Bush’s foreign policy?
Another voice for reason.
While I appreciate the intelligence of the discourse on this and other subjects here on the SDMB, I am completely stunned by the comments on this topic. The debate seems largely to be an academic exploration of the best military tactics to use when attacking such a target, instead of on whether the interests of our nation and planet are best served by a foreign policy based on bombing first and asking questions later.
How nice it is for us to sit comfortably at our computers and consider the merits of one weapon over another in penetrating a well-defended, nuclear target.
How nice indeed…
Now how about switching away from the Discovery Channel for a moment to consider the long-term consequences of conducting our international relations like an armed thug? The contempt in which we are held by the Islamic world didn’t just happen overnight. Neither is every muslim a violent nut. If there is any hope of ending, or at least significantly mitigating the effects of terrorism in our lifetimes, it must rest on our ability to understand and come to terms with the Islamic world. Should we undertake this type of “Cowboy Diplomacy”, we can rest assured that any moderate muslims left in the middle east and elsewhere will quickly become more radical in their views - which will only serve to create more support, political, financial and otherwise for the fundamentalist loonies who keep trying to kill us.
Bombing a sovereign nation because we think they MIGHT develop nuclear weapons - without any attempts at diplomacy, without any view to a multi-national initiative, is pure folly and the height of arrogance.
Is the idea that Iran and North Korea are developing nuclear weapons because of Bush something to be dismissed out of hand or is there some substance to that concern?
Pretty much the former, but read on.
Iran been working on developing nuclear facilities since the reign of the Shah, and inspections of their nuclear facilities began in 1992. Iran has already been discussed in some detail, so…
North Korea started developing a nuclear infrastructure at least as far back as the '80s, and, of course, there was a flurry of diplomatic activity in the early '90s to halt the DPRK’s weapons program. These diplomatic efforts culminated in an agreement in 1994, signed by the DPRK and the US, to halt N. Korea’s nuclear weapons program in exchange for nuclear power technologies that could not serve military purposes. N. Korea renegged on that agreement some time later, and admitted in Oct., 2002 that they were enriching Uranium for military applications. It’s also known that before they froze their known weapons programs in the early-to-mid 90s, they had extracted at least enough plutonium to make one bomb, maybe more. In 2002, they declared the 1994 agreement null and void, and unless the US agrees unmediated talks to discuss their future demands, the DPRK has threatened to export their nuclear assets.
In both cases, the countries have hostile, or potentially hostile neighbors, and the likely early motivator is having a deterrent against aggression. The fact that Bush has shown such willingness to invade sovereign nations and depose their governments has probably given both Iran and N. Korea a hightened sense of urgency, and may have hastened their efforts.
Unfortunately, with both Iran, and N. Korea, there’s significant cause already for concern. Iran is run in part by religious fanatics, as was Afghanistan; N. Korea is trying to blackmail the world with the threat of nuclear proliferation, and expects to be rewarded for not distributing their nuclear assets to terrorists.
In both cases, the leaders of these nations are engaging in nuclear brinksmanship, and are already resisting diplomatic efforts to curb their pursuit of military nuclear capability. Anyone who thinks either of these nations is responsible enough or stable enough to be in posession of nuclear weapons needs to rethink that position. Both nations have diplomatic options to avoid military confrontation, which is the preferred option of the US and the UN. Hopefully diplomacy will prevail. If it doesn’t, no option looks good; so perhaps a limited preemtive strikes are the lesser of many evils. It’s difficult to say, and I wouldn’t want to be a world leader with these problems facing me, that’s for certain.
I was noticing it was a little out of character too, then I remembered the OP:
CtM: Another concern is the exportation of nuclear technology to other hostile states
Didn’t Pakistani officials already do that, though? And we don’t seem to be thinking that the Pakistani nuclear situation is so dangerous that we have to bomb their reactors.
And aren’t the Iranian people relatively pro-US, remarkably so for a Middle East Muslim country? Should we risk alienating most of the people just for a shot at taking out the nukes?
Well not if you read any of the Tiawan threads. 
I’ll expand the OP a bit though…
Using the military is as much a tactic as using diplomacy. They’re both means to an end, the end in this case being a non belligerent Iran. Diplomatic tactics such as providing logistical support to develop Iran’s oil export industry, setting up chairs of Persian/American studies in both countries funded by the new export capacity and raising student exchanges between the US and Iran and funding of various democratic groups through third party countries.
That gives you a semi wealthy, stable country with a strong emerging democratic spirit use to dealing with Americans and integrated into the world system. Takes longer than bombing the hell out of them of course. A country can choose to end their nuclear program once they’ve achieved the ability to weaponize uranium. However, they need to feel secure enough to do that.
Thanks for that; I was just going to post the same thing.
Whilst I believe that the moral and strategic questions around attacking Iran should it develop nuclear weapons are a very interesting topic, it was not what I wanted to talk about.
So yes, this is a bit of a ‘Discovery Channel’ debate around how cool weapons are, but I still think it’s an interesting discussion.