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.
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.
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.
Okay, but by who and using whose resources?
I doubt that. Even if that were possible they would simply rebuild, only now they would be angry.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.