Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Blog Auto Feed Retired

Reblogged: Sheldon Adelson Admirably Calls for America to Drop a Nucle

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

428px-Sheldon_Adelson_crop-214x300.jpgAmerican businessman Sheldon Adelson (CEO of Las Vegas Sands Corporation, whom Bloomberg lists at the 14th richest person in the world), says the United States should drop a nuclear bomb in the Iranian desert—and then threaten to drop a second in the center of Tehran—in order to end Iran’s efforts to develop nuclear weapons, reports the Jerusalem Post.

Asked . . . whether the US should negotiate with Iran if it were to cease its uranium enrichment program, Adelson retorted, “What are we going to negotiate about?” Adelson then imagined what might happen if an American official were to call up an Iranian official, say “watch this,” and subsequently drop a nuclear bomb in the middle of the Iranian desert. “Then you say, ‘See! The next one is in the middle of Tehran. So, we mean business. You want to be wiped out? Go ahead and take a tough position and continue with your nuclear development. You want to be peaceful? Just reverse [your nuclear weapons program], and we will guarantee you that you can have a nuclear power plant for electricity purposes, energy purposes’,” Adelson said.

Although America’s goal regarding Iran should be not merely to end the regime’s quest for nuclear weapons, but to end the regime altogether, thus clearing the way for liberty minded Iranians to establish a peaceful, rights-respecting republic—and although the details of military strategy are matters for military experts to work out—Adelson is correct in calling for America to use pure and overwhelming force in dealing with the Iranian regime. As Adelson said, “It’s the only thing they understand.”

It is refreshing to hear a prominent American businessman openly acknowledge this fact, which so many Americans evade.

Kudos to Adelson for having the courage to say what is clearly true yet utterly contrary to conventional morality. Let’s hope more visible and outspoken Americans come to see the need for such force and demand that our government employ it before the Iranian regime succeeds in slaughtering more Americans.

Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard.

Related:

Image: Wikimedia Commons



Link to Original

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, what could possibly go wrong if Americans just start casually flinging around nuclear weapons to prove we are the good guys.

Its not like declaring our casual willingness to slaughter millions of people will cause any sort of long term problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially what Adelson suggests is to threaten to use force in a way that cannot be ignored and in a way that suggests no path to victory for Iran and no casualties for Americans. Not that I necessarily agree with Adelson, but this is anything but casual.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Although America’s goal regarding Iran should be not merely to end the regime’s quest for nuclear weapons, but to end the regime altogether, thus clearing the way for liberty minded Iranians to establish a peaceful, rights-respecting republic..."

 

Oh yeah, that will work. Just like it did in Iraq. And Egypt. And every other country we've "liberated"...

 

Who writes this crap at the OS anyhow? "Dumdums For Objectivism"...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Although America’s goal regarding Iran should be not merely to end the regime’s quest for nuclear weapons, but to end the regime altogether, thus clearing the way for liberty minded Iranians to establish a peaceful, rights-respecting republic..."

 

Oh yeah, that will work. Just like it did in Iraq. And Egypt. And every other country we've "liberated"...

 

Who writes this crap at the OS anyhow? "Dumdums For Objectivism"...

 

So it is fine with you if Iran continues on as a theocracy that not only threatens the US but has actually attacked and killed many Americans? And it is also OK with you that this same regime acquires a nuclear weapon?

 

Who writes your stupid stuff? Let's see, you can't be agreeing with Krugman this time since he actually believes that war and destruction helps the economy. Is this Libertarian or pacifist baloney you are selling today?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it is fine with you if Iran continues on as a theocracy that not only threatens the US but has actually attacked and killed many Americans? And it is also OK with you that this same regime acquires a nuclear weapon?

 

Who writes your stupid stuff? Let's see, you can't be agreeing with Krugman this time since he actually believes that war and destruction helps the economy. Is this Libertarian or pacifist baloney you are selling today?

 

I'm very sorry you have preconceived notions about me that make you feel justified in suspending cognition and using only in disconnected abstractions, but if you actually read my post you'd see that I was responding to (false) notion that a bunch of Islamists are suddenly going to embrace individual rights after they've been bombed and killed by Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm very sorry you have preconceived notions about me that make you feel justified in suspending cognition and using only in disconnected abstractions, but if you actually read my post you'd see that I was responding to (false) notion that a bunch of Islamists are suddenly going to embrace individual rights after they've been bombed and killed by Americans.

That sounded just like some of proponents of the Iraq war. What? You oppose invading Iraq, why so you support Saddam Hussein then?! You'd rather Hussein be in power than a "rights respecting republic"?

 

So it is fine with you if Iran continues on as a theocracy that not only threatens the US but has actually attacked and killed many Americans? And it is also OK with you that this same regime acquires a nuclear weapon?

How do you get rejecting the idea that the present US regime invading Iran will "clear the way for liberty minded Iranians to establish a peaceful, rights-respecting republic" to ergo it must be "fine with you if Iran continues on as a theocracy" and etc.? Surely you understand that that does not follow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Although America’s goal regarding Iran should be not merely to end the regime’s quest for nuclear weapons, but to end the regime altogether, thus clearing the way for liberty minded Iranians to establish a peaceful, rights-respecting republic..."

 

Oh yeah, that will work. Just like it did in Iraq. And Egypt. And every other country we've "liberated"...

 

And Japan... Oh, are we not going to mention that one?  It seems like the most obvious historical parallel to what is being proposed here, and also a generally successful one.  It should be noted that what followed from our actions there during WWII was essentially exactly what TOS is proposing would happen in Iran; the removal from power of a militaristic and totalitarian regime and its replacement by a constitutional republic.

 

Of course, just because it worked there doesn't mean that it would work here; Japan's trajectory since World War II clearly represents a 'best-case scenario' when it comes to U.S.-driven regime change.  However, it does challenge the simplistic and ahistorical view that U.S.-driven regime change can never work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Japan... Oh, are we not going to mention that one?  It seems like the most obvious historical parallel to what is being proposed here, and also a generally successful one.  It should be noted that what followed from our actions there during WWII was essentially exactly what TOS is proposing would happen in Iran; the removal from power of a militaristic and totalitarian regime and its replacement by a constitutional republic.

 

Of course, just because it worked there doesn't mean that it would work here; Japan's trajectory since World War II clearly represents a 'best-case scenario' when it comes to U.S.-driven regime change.  However, it does challenge the simplistic and ahistorical view that U.S.-driven regime change can never work.

 

I don't recall a heavy presence of Islam in Japan.

 

But yeah, go ahead and ignore Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, um, IRAN, etc. etc. ... But sure, we just get rid of the current government in Iran and they will freely elect John Galt. Just like they did last time we game them free elections a few dozen years ago...

 

Dumdums for ObjectivismTM...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall a heavy presence of Islam in Japan.

[...]

Dumdums for ObjectivismTM...

Is your argument that Islam is fundamentally different than Japan's ideology at the time of their nuclear attack? How about focusing on your ideas and arguments and dropping the insults. If you think poorly enough of the people to whom you're responding to insult them, I'm sure it would be a better use of your time and theirs to simply ignore them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the context we live in today, if the U.S. bombs anything but nuclear facilities in Iran, it'll spend the next decade apologising and possibly even paying some type of backdoor reparations. 

 

However, leaving aside Iran, Dante's post on Japan raises a question of what factors cause one outcome versus the other. For instance, after WW-1, Germany was defeated. The Germans had this sense of not having been thrashed militarily, but the French demanded huge reparations and even re-occupied parts of Germany to enforce payment. The Germans were also not supposed to re-militarize beyond a certain degree. Many people trace the rise of Hitler to the poor conditions that followed WW-1 in Germany, which Germans often blamed on "reparations". Compare that to WW-2, which saw the free part of Germany (i.e. West) move to pacifism, and a high degree of individual rights within the context of a welfare state. So, what was the crucial difference in Germany post-WW1 and post-WW2? Was it an eventual change in ideology? Was it the shock of living through a regime of gestapo and Jewish death-camps? Was it western aid?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't recall a heavy presence of Islam in Japan.

 

But yeah, go ahead and ignore Iraq, Afghanistan, Egypt, um, IRAN, etc. etc. ... But sure, we just get rid of the current government in Iran and they will freely elect John Galt. Just like they did last time we game them free elections a few dozen years ago...

 

Dumdums for ObjectivismTM...

 

Wait, so now I'm trying to ignore all the examples you gave because I mention another one?  That's quite a leap, especially when I talk about Japan as the 'best-case scenario' example... implying that I think there are obviously other examples, that didn't go so well.  Are you so determined to convince yourself that people who don't automatically agree with you are just dumdums who ignore everything they don't like?

 

And not two posts above you're complaining about others having preconceived notions of you and not going off what you actually wrote in your post.

Edited by Dante

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wait, so now I'm trying to ignore all the examples you gave because I mention another one?  That's quite a leap, especially when I talk about Japan as the 'best-case scenario' example... implying that I think there are obviously other examples, that didn't go so well.  Are you so determined to convince yourself that people who don't automatically agree with you are just dumdums who ignore everything they don't like?

 

And not two posts above you're complaining about others having preconceived notions of you and not going off what you actually wrote in your post.

 

My response there was poorly written and I couldn't edit it in time before the timer made it permanent (why do they do that?). Anyhow, you are right, I was guilty of distracted posting.

 

Anyhow, at issue here is the article and the editorial standards of TOS, not the specific policy of nuking countries into freedom.

 

I think ignoring recent history--including the actual country in question--and envisioning that it might magically turn into the best case scenario is simply absurd, evasive, and indicates a broad misunderstanding of the role of philosophy in politics--all of those things at once.

 

What Adelson said was moronic, and defending him and praising him for it was also moronic. This sidelines Objectivism into the realm of kooks who hold a disdain for solving actual real-world problems--real-world problems that one would think a dedication to reality and reason should better arm them for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Japan... Oh, are we not going to mention that one?  It seems like the most obvious historical parallel to what is being proposed here, and also a generally successful one.  It should be noted that what followed from our actions there during WWII was essentially exactly what TOS is proposing would happen in Iran; the removal from power of a militaristic and totalitarian regime and its replacement by a constitutional republic.

 

Of course, just because it worked there doesn't mean that it would work here; Japan's trajectory since World War II clearly represents a 'best-case scenario' when it comes to U.S.-driven regime change.  However, it does challenge the simplistic and ahistorical view that U.S.-driven regime change can never work.

But don't you think this brings up the issue of whether TOS is guilty of conflating the current US regime with a different one? Is there any doubt as to whether the current US and, not a fictional or anachronistic one, would do what is described as a "best case scenario"? If so, then isn't applauding the evil oligarch Adelson's suggestion an instance of what some libertarians would call "vulgar libertarianism" or rightwing conflation? And in that case, then shouldn't the TOS be calling for the current US regime to stop intervening in the middle east?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the context we live in today, if the U.S. bombs anything but nuclear facilities in Iran, it'll spend the next decade apologising and possibly even paying some type of backdoor reparations. 

 

However, leaving aside Iran, Dante's post on Japan raises a question of what factors cause one outcome versus the other. For instance, after WW-1, Germany was defeated. The Germans had this sense of not having been thrashed militarily, but the French demanded huge reparations and even re-occupied parts of Germany to enforce payment. The Germans were also not supposed to re-militarize beyond a certain degree. Many people trace the rise of Hitler to the poor conditions that followed WW-1 in Germany, which Germans often blamed on "reparations". Compare that to WW-2, which saw the free part of Germany (i.e. West) move to pacifism, and a high degree of individual rights within the context of a welfare state. So, what was the crucial difference in Germany post-WW1 and post-WW2? Was it an eventual change in ideology? Was it the shock of living through a regime of gestapo and Jewish death-camps? Was it western aid?

Can the difference between the two Germanys be based on their degree of defeat? World War I Germany was war-weary, low on manpower, and hungry, but it still had the infrastructure and skeleton of a powerful force. WWII Germany was utterly leveled and completely occupied. Perhaps the second sent path sent a more clearer price of aggression.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But, that would amount to saying that it is fine if Iran gets nuclear weapons.

 

France has nuclear weapons, should we nuke them too?

 

If our military identifies an objective threat to the USA, it should be dealt with in the best way they know how, and in a way that minimizes the costs to the USA. It may involve nuclear weapons, or perhaps planting a virus or two in their equipment (as they in fact did). Adelson is not qualified to comment on how it should be done, or whether there is a threat or not.

 

Adelson's comment amounts to him saying, "curing your own cancer is easy, people should just man-up and cut it out with a big knife". Moronic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France has nuclear weapons, should we nuke them too?

 

If our military identifies an objective threat to the USA, it should be dealt with in the best way they know how, and in a way that minimizes the costs to the USA. It may involve nuclear weapons, or perhaps planting a virus or two in their equipment (as they in fact did). Adelson is not qualified to comment on how it should be done, or whether there is a threat or not.

 

Adelson's comment amounts to him saying, "curing your own cancer is easy, people should just man-up and cut it out with a big knife". Moronic.

 

Has the president of France threatened/promised to exterminate any populations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree, what could possibly go wrong if Americans just start casually flinging around nuclear weapons to prove we are the good guys.

Its not like declaring our casual willingness to slaughter millions of people will cause any sort of long term problems.

Not any that you can think of, apparently. Or you would've mentioned it, instead of posting something with no substance, or even so much as a whiff of a rational argument.

Also, the willingness to use a nuclear weapon is declared by maintaining a nuclear arsenal. Dropping one on Iran wouldn't declare the willingness to kill millions, it would declare the willingness to kill them pre-emptively, rather than only in retaliation.

So, the real argument should be: is pre-emptive killing justified, or not. The willingness of our leaders, and everyone in the US who supports the nuclear weapons programs, to do so is pretty obvious. And even that isn't much of an argument, since I bet that you support pre-emptive killing. You just never bothered informing yourself on why Iran's actions are similar to cases where you do support the pre-emptive killing of people who are imminent threats to your life.

Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

France has nuclear weapons, should we nuke them too?

 

If our military identifies an objective threat to the USA, it should be dealt with in the best way they know how, and in a way that minimizes the costs to the USA. It may involve nuclear weapons, or perhaps planting a virus or two in their equipment (as they in fact did). Adelson is not qualified to comment on how it should be done, or whether there is a threat or not.

 

Adelson's comment amounts to him saying, "curing your own cancer is easy, people should just man-up and cut it out with a big knife". Moronic.

It's not that moronic, cutting out a cancer with a knife is often the way to go. It's usually a small knife, and it's not you doing it (not unless you're House M.D.), but someone making that suggestion would be on the right path.

What is far more moronic is someone saying: yep, I see you're having a nice conversation with your cancer, and you're planning to convince it to not kill you. Good job, keep that up. That's not a viable way to remove cancer, or fanatical states that vow to kill you and are on the verge of developing nuclear weapons to do it with.

Adelson is not qualified to comment on how it should be done

Surely, even you recognize what that is. Edited by Nicky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Adelson's comments are worthy of criticism, but I don't think much of the criticisms Mmmcanibalism and Crow offered. I don't think they even understand his point, which is that negotiations with Iran, as they are popularly understood, are meaningless. To see what I mean, check out the JPost article. Rabbi Shmooley Boteach asks Addleson, "So a tremendous demonstration of American strength? So that they would get the message?" Addleson replies in the affirmative.

 

In other words, he is basically saying that Iran ain't listening. They deal in violence and the threat of violence. If you want to negotiate with them, you need to do so with a credible threat of force. Blasting a glass crater into uninhabited desert is one such credible threat. At least that is my analysis. Boteach offers another: "When I heard Sheldon make his remark, my initial thought was that his purpose was to goad his more liberal critics into attacking the policy so that their double standards on nuclear threats against Israel could be exposed."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...