regarding the bombing of Iran...

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm curious as to how many people think that Iran should have nuclear weapons. It seems like a lot of you guys would be ok with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it would be OK given the long-term bellicosity of Iran towards Israel and the United States. Might there be some justification for some of those attitudes expressed by Iran's government? Well yes to some extent, but at a certain point the existential question becomes paramount and the moral questions or the justification questions greatly recede in importance. I'm not saying that juncture has been reached, but it could be reached.

If Israel perceives Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapon technology as a genuine existential threat, Israel may have to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities.

Let's look at this from a strategic instead of moral or ethical perspective for a moment: if your existential enemy pronounces that the world would be better off without your existence, and is rushing to acquire the means to destroy you, what should you do? Play nice for a while and try to work things out, but if that doesn't work and it comes down to the wire, you will probably have to strike first. That is what Iran is pushing Israel towards and that will likely (IMO) happen if the present course continues (Israel, probably along with its ally the USA, will bomb Iran).

The principle I'm trying to get at here is this: it's not OK if your avowed mortal enemy who may be determined to destroy you acquires the same armaments you have. At that point it doesn't matter who is right and who is wrong. What matters is that they are your enemy and may be trying to kill you. If the animosity between Iran, and Israel and the USA, cannot be speedily resolved, what will matter most is that it's better for Israel to have nukes than for Iran to have nukes. Why? Again at a certain point the moral questions no longer matter but the existential question does. Hitler said he would kill the Jews and negroes. Iran says Israel will be eliminated "in one storm". Is Iran serious? Who knows, but if they continue as they are doing they will force Israel to take an existential stance.

Iran also has repeatedly said a world without America is achievable, and has expressed the wish that America be destroyed. Iran's capacity to inflict harm on America is very limited at this point, but it may not always be. So to answer the question: should Iran get nukes? No, Iran should not get nukes if you're an American, but even more so, Iran should not get nukes if you're an Israeli.

Moral questions don't mean a great deal when someone may be trying to kill you. This is the box Iran is forcing Israel into, unless Iran happens to have a greater or more devious plan up its sleeve for which its current actions are only a staging ground.

Regardless of right or wrong, I don't think it's "OK" for your mortal enemy to gain the ability to destroy you. It may sometimes be unavoidable, or it may sometimes be averted by non-violent means, but that doesn't mean it's just "OK" if they gain that ability.

I think a lot of people are trying to answer the question posed by the OP as if it were posed only in a hypothetical moral setting. It is also a very real question. It may not matter much from a cosmic perspective whether you kill the mugger or whether he kills you, but from your own perspective it matters a lot. It may not matter from a cosmic perspective whether Iran or Israel or the USA come out ahead or are destroyed, but from the point of view of the participants it matters a lot.

In my opinion, if you are American you should not want Iran to have nukes simply because Iran is hostile towards you. That doesn't mean I automatically support bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, as that becomes a much more complex question, but it is NOT simply "OK" if Iran gets nukes.

All moral questions aside, it is never really "OK" if your deeply hostile enemy gains power relative to you.

Thanks for reading.

[75s]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that we should stop sticking our necks out - spending tons of money and threatening our own security - to prop up Israel. I say we leave that whole part of the world to their own devices, let them all kill each other and let god sort 'em out.

[/ QUOTE ]

we can't leave that part of the world alone until we stop funding ethanol and convert to butanol and disel cars

[Brainwalter]

Yes we can.

[75s]

Dude, we are pumping oil out of Iraq as I type. We will never have enough refineries for the bits of oil we have here. And tar sands are a joke.

[Jeffiner99]

I want to know who this "on high" person is. You said, assuming the word comes down from "on high". Who is that? What person are you putting that much faith and power in? Why would you listen to them?

The old USSR had LOTS of nuclear weapons. They HATED us. It was not good. But bombing them because they had nuclear weapons would not have a been a good idea. (they might hit back)

Nukes are bad, umkay.... Killing millions is bad, umkay.... Many of our enemies have had nukes. And still do. We are the enemy of many. We have nukes. I repeat...killing is bad, umkay?

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
The old USSR had LOTS of nuclear weapons. They HATED us. It was not good. But bombing them because they had nuclear weapons would not have a been a good idea. (they might hit back)


[/ QUOTE ]

MAD relies on the rationality of both parties. Despite the feelings to the contrary, we know now that the Soviets didn't just wake up, drink a tall glass of Crazy, and see how they could piss off the West.

Now, are we perhaps having our views about Iran shaped in much the same way we were about the USSR, certainly. But, if what we know about Iran is true, "rational" isn't the first word that springs to mind.

Cody

[Jeffiner99]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The old USSR had LOTS of nuclear weapons. They HATED us. It was not good. But bombing them because they had nuclear weapons would not have a been a good idea. (they might hit back)


[/ QUOTE ]

MAD relies on the rationality of both parties. Despite the feelings to the contrary, we know now that the Soviets didn't just wake up, drink a tall glass of Crazy, and see how they could piss off the West.

Now, are we perhaps having our views about Iran shaped in much the same way we were about the USSR, certainly. But, if what we know about Iran is true, "rational" isn't the first word that springs to mind.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

All the more reason to stop poking a stick into a beehive.

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The old USSR had LOTS of nuclear weapons. They HATED us. It was not good. But bombing them because they had nuclear weapons would not have a been a good idea. (they might hit back)


[/ QUOTE ]

MAD relies on the rationality of both parties. Despite the feelings to the contrary, we know now that the Soviets didn't just wake up, drink a tall glass of Crazy, and see how they could piss off the West.

Now, are we perhaps having our views about Iran shaped in much the same way we were about the USSR, certainly. But, if what we know about Iran is true, "rational" isn't the first word that springs to mind.

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

All the more reason to stop poking a stick into a beehive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely, I'm by and large anti-interventionalist. However, that wasn't the point (indeed, it's a seperate debate). The point was that giving a nuclear weapon to any party that's unstable probably isn't a good thing. For all our failures, the USA, England, France, Russia, etc. aren't crazy.

Cody

[SNOWBALL]

RT,

I don't think Iran is "crazy" either

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
RT,

I don't think Iran is "crazy" either

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope, for our sake, you're right. I hope that their President has just been talking about bringing about the apocolypse as a political tactic, because if not...

Cody