Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Youu keep weaving back-and-forwards between the real world and hypothetical situations.
You fantasize. I want to know what moral principle underly Brian's reasoning. I am trying to determine whether his position is absolute opposition to the use of force against aggressors, and so far, what he has said suggests that this is so. The thread has grown long enough that you are forgiven for being apparently ignorant of what I have, in fact, suggested.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. It is faster and cheaper than conventionally carpet-bombing the city.

2. It's pretty hard to miss with a nuke.

3. Millions of people whose central purpose in life is to kill us: well, tables get turned.

4. The single most dangerous external threat to the West gets turned into a crater.

5. It's the right thing to do.

Or were we supposed to argue the other way around?

I like to ask a question with a question. Let us say we nuke Tehran, then what? I was fighting this "war" a hell of a lot earlier the 9-11 and in that time things have only escalated since we have turned it into a conventional war. Sure a nuke would be easy, but you can miss. Especially when you are fighting more the terrorists or another government. This isn't a straight you against me "war." This is about ideas and giving people freedom to choose their existence and not being forced into a fanatical cycle of hate. I am not against anything we are doing on the ground by any means, but it is not the only way we are going to end the war. Besides, in 10 years when we have reduced tensions in the middle east, what are we going to do about Africa? It will be our next stop in this "war." Should we nuke Africa too?

One of the downfalls of nukes is the theory behind its use. Mutually Assured Destruction is the theory that no one will use nukes against us because we will use it against them and no one wins. It is a near guarantee that if we launch or drop a bomb, no matter who we say we are aiming at, we will be the next target.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only case I can think of that comes close is South Africa. But that was a less irrational country, it had no regional or global designs, and it faced armed opposition within. None of which is true of Iran.

I think you see what I'm getting at. The only countries that give in are countries like Lybia and South Africa. They are never countries with serious aspirations to regional or global power.

I am not against anything we are doing on the ground by any means, but it is not the only way we are going to end the war. Besides, in 10 years when we have reduced tensions in the middle east, what are we going to do about Africa? It will be our next stop in this "war." Should we nuke Africa too?

One of the downfalls of nukes is the theory behind its use. Mutually Assured Destruction is the theory that no one will use nukes against us because we will use it against them and no one wins. It is a near guarantee that if we launch or drop a bomb, no matter who we say we are aiming at, we will be the next target.

The tensions are spreading because of our inaction. I'm not endorsing the use of nukes, but I imagine they could be fired from a sub in the Persian Gulf or Strait of Hormuz and hit before anyone knows what's going on.

Edited by FeatherFall
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you think of a successful example of sanctioning a country comparable to Iran? In other words, when has this ever worked?

I don't think there is a historical parallel here, but economic sanctions did work on Libya, and were containing Iraq's ability to produce weapons before the war. It's important to take steps in their proper sequence. Sanctions are the proper step to take now as Iran is not capable to producing a weapon yet. There is time to influence them to reconsider their options.

Are you thinking of any country in particular who would have a violent reaction? I'm damn sure France and Britain wouldn't, but maybe you are thinking more along the lines of Russia and Pakistan? I'd be interested to read your reasons for why they would stop thinking about their own self interest to avenge the deaths of some Persians. I tend to think such countries don't have the moral certainty or cojones to do anything but cry about US retaliation.

Perhaps you're familiar with the events of 9-11? It's not the nation states you have to worry about as much as the radical groups such as Al-Queda and Hezbollah and others. The asymmetrical warfare they employ is difficult to defend against. What a better recruiting tool to draw in more economically impoverished Arabs and Muslims around the world than to nuke a city. We'll have a siege mentality for generations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you see what I'm getting at. The only countries that give in are countries like Lybia and South Africa. They are never countries with serious aspirations to regional or global power.

I agree. No regime has ever been deposed by "sanctions" alone. Further in the case of South Africa, it wasn't a threat to anyone, so it couldn't even hold the use of force as a deterrent against sanctions.

The tensions are spreading because of our inaction. I'm not endorsing the use of nukes, but I imagine they could be fired from a sub in the Persian Gulf or Strait of Hormuz and hit before anyone knows what's going on.

Oh, there are plenty of ways to deliver a nuke without anyone knowing what's going on. A ballistic missile sub (SSBN) doesn't even have to be close, she carries intercontinental missiles. Ditto a Minuteman or other kind of land-based ICBM. A regular attack sub (SSN) could launch one or many Tomahawk cruise missiles with tactical (and maybe strategic) nuclear warheads. You could also drop cruise missiles from a B-52 bomber. A B-2 could easily drop missiles or gravity nukes (bombs) before anyone noticed. So could an F-117, but these are being or have been decommissioned. For smaller warheads you could drop them from F-16s and F/A-18s.

Even if the delivery vehicle were detected, no one would suspect it carried a nuclear bomb rather than a conventional explosive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I then correct in concluding that if it were necessary to obliterate one or more cities in order to stop the aggression, and assuming retaliation by them, that you would oppose defending the US? I agree that we should not be carelessly overdestructive

No, of course defend ourselves as necessary, but don't needlessly create more reasons for us to have to defend ourselves. I am definitely fine with obliterating what is necessary to remove a threat at a given time, and if a new threat should arise, destroy them as well. But again I am not fine with tactics on our part that can lead to more threats. This may seem like short-term satiation to you, but I think that nuking will create enemies out of people who would have left us alone otherwise.

but I even more strongly believe that we should not commit national suicide on the off chance that defending ourself will result in some hurt Islamist feelings and even terrorist attacks by the Shites.

How would destroying only their leadership and their weapons development and military lead to "national suicide"?

Edited by brian0918
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps you're familiar with the events of 9-11? It's not the nation states you have to worry about as much as the radical groups such as Al-Queda and Hezbollah and others. The asymmetrical warfare they employ is difficult to defend against. What a better recruiting tool to draw in more economically impoverished Arabs and Muslims around the world than to nuke a city.
Who is going to recruit these terrorists when the recruitment centers are obliterated?

9-11 was perpetrated by an organization with state sponsorship. This is extremely important, so I'll reiterate. Violent Jihadists rely on the sponsorship of Islamist regimes. Keep knocking out such regimes and the Jihadists will eventually find themselves without material supply, moral support and hope of victory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there is a historical parallel here, but economic sanctions did work on Libya,

Invading Iraq worked on Lybia. That made the mad Colonel decide the US was serious about WMDs, and so it scrapped, or claimed to scrap, its own weapons programs.

and were containing Iraq's ability to produce weapons before the war.

1) It was unclear how much, therefore the 2003 invasion and 2) at waht cost to the civilian population you're so concerned about? Not to mention it cemented Saddam's power, or that Saddam kept on supporting terrorists and harbored many of them. And, finally, do recall the no-fly zones and the near constant state of low intensity warfare required for over a decade. Hardly cheap or successful.

It's important to take steps in their proper sequence. Sanctions are the proper step to take now as Iran is not capable to producing a weapon yet. There is time to influence them to reconsider their options.

And it's important to consider the context. Iran is a theocracy ruled by religious fanatics. To be sure there are factions, but all are fanatical to some degree (is there any other kind of theocracy?) How much will sanctions help in that case?

It's also imortant to consider circumstances. Any serious sanctions on Iran would probably be opposed by Russia and China, as was the last propposal before the UN Security Council. Therefore anything we don't let them have, the Russians and Chinese will. I won't even mention what Russia and China would say to a blockade of Iran.

Perhaps you're familiar with the events of 9-11? It's not the nation states you have to worry about as much as the radical groups such as Al-Queda and Hezbollah and others.

al Qaida had the support of the Taliban government in Afghanistan for many years, prior to that they had the support of Sudan. Hezbollah is supported by Syria's government and Iran's (and to some degree by Lebanon's). Hammas is supported by Iran and, since it rules the so-called Palestinian Authority, by pretty much the UN and the rest of the world as well.

The asymmetrical warfare they employ is difficult to defend against.

Difficult does not mean impossible. And almost always the best defense is a good offense. THat means carrying the war to them, not merely playing defense in our home.

What a better recruiting tool to draw in more economically impoverished Arabs and Muslims around the world than to nuke a city. We'll have a siege mentality for generations.

How many impoverished Arabs and Muslims took part in 9/11? By my count it was none.

Poor Arabs and muslims are the same as the poor everywhere else: they want more or better food, better living conditions, etc. They don't want to go to war, or tear nations apart, or commit random violence against "oppresors." They can be made to do so only with the promise of more food, better conditions, etc. Look at the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, Nazi Germany, etc.

Personally I think nuking Iran is a stupid idea because it's not necessary, and it would be out of all proportion to the threat involved. War is something else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many impoverished Arabs and Muslims took part in 9/11? By my count it was none.

Quite right! Osama was/is wealthy and the other terrorists who were involved in 911 were middle class and well educated. So, there is no truth to the claim poverty was the cause.

Poor Arabs and muslims are the same as the poor everywhere else: they want more or better food, better living conditions, etc. They don't want to go to war, or tear nations apart, or commit random violence against "oppresors." They can be made to do so only with the promise of more food, better conditions, etc. Look at the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, Nazi Germany, etc.

Hmmm... I don't know. I think that ideology has a great deal to say about what people want to do. Religion drives people in funny ways. When you are loaded down with false premises about what is true, you might end up hunting down albinos because you think they have evil powers, as is happening in Africa right now. Islamacism is loaded with bad premises that cause people to do very evil things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm... I don't know. I think that ideology has a great deal to say about what people want to do.

Of course. But most ideological movements gather lots of poeple only during bad times. By "bad times" I mean any long period of widespread hardship, which usually comes about from poor economic conditions. During the opposite, good times, most people are satisfied and won't want to rock the boat.

See what places and what times communism came to power by whatever means. You won't find any serious attempt to install communism in a prosperous country. Yes, the terrorist groups backed by the Soviets in europe were pretty bad, but were never popular, with the exception of Northern Ireland (and even there they didn't succeed).

Religion drives people in funny ways. When you are loaded down with false premises about what is true, you might end up hunting down albinos because you think they have evil powers, as is happening in Africa right now. Islamacism is loaded with bad premises that cause people to do very evil things.

All that is true. In addition most Arab and muslim countries have experienced pretty bad times for a very long time. Most are kept in check by various authoritarian and totalitarian governments. Times have not been all bad, of course, even in places like Iran and Egypt, but compared to the West they're pretty bad overall.

If you want a barometer look at Turkey. The country is modern and secular, relatively free and relatively prosperous. Islamists are a power in the current government, though. What happens to/in Turkey will say a lot about Islam's power.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course. But most ideological movements gather lots of poeple only during bad times. By "bad times" I mean any long period of widespread hardship, which usually comes about from poor economic conditions. During the opposite, good times, most people are satisfied and won't want to rock the boat.

See what places and what times communism came to power by whatever means. You won't find any serious attempt to install communism in a prosperous country. Yes, the terrorist groups backed by the Soviets in europe were pretty bad, but were never popular, with the exception of Northern Ireland (and even there they didn't succeed).

I was thinking more along the lines that everyone has a philosophy whether implicit or explicit. Everyone has a view of life and if your view of life is heavily mystical, or irrational for some other reason, you can do crazy things. In fact, I think this is the norm in mankind's history. The West is great because the Greeks gave us philosophy that allowed us to invalidate many of the bad ways of thinking.

All that is true. In addition most Arab and muslim countries have experienced pretty bad times for a very long time. Most are kept in check by various authoritarian and totalitarian governments. Times have not been all bad, of course, even in places like Iran and Egypt, but compared to the West they're pretty bad overall.

If you want a barometer look at Turkey. The country is modern and secular, relatively free and relatively prosperous. Islamists are a power in the current government, though. What happens to/in Turkey will say a lot about Islam's power.

Yes, it's the postmodernists who are rolling out the red carpet for these zealots. They are doing it with all non-Western cultures, mind you, but our biggest trouble is with the Muslims. I'm sure postmodernists are in Turkey too.

Back in the day there is no way a Western nation would have put up with jihadists. They’d have been toast within a week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking more along the lines that everyone has a philosophy whether implicit or explicit. Everyone has a view of life and if your view of life is heavily mystical, or irrational for some other reason, you can do crazy things.

That is so, but it's not all there is to it. Think of the things people in Germany, Poland, France, etc did under Nazi rule, many of them voluntarily. Why did they?

On a more positive note, the places where Islamists have ruled to the full extent of their beliefs ahve rejected them. Afghanistan, fo course, but also the aprts of Iraq where al Qaida held sway. So implicit and explicit beliefs and philosophies are not enough for people to embrace oppressive rule in exchange for nothing, or at elast for nothing on Earth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We don't owe anything to anyone except ourselves...

1) It is against our self-interest

x5

Brandon, I think the burden of proof may be on you.

Nice wording, and I think you have a point. I don't believe that the US and as a country could not put together five logically sound arguments without sounding like sadomasochistic idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice wording, and I think you have a point. I don't believe that the US and as a country could not put together five logically sound arguments without sounding like sadomasochistic idiots.

Thanks!

I do think we should unconditionally obliterate all installations of the Iranian government and other criminals (terrorists) in Iran. I still don't think large-scale nukes would be an appropriate weapon; I'm sure there are many people in Iran who would be more rational if it were legal to act upon one's own judgment.

If nukes were the only option or bombs were truly prohibitively expensive, I would probably then support using nukes. In addition, nukes would be preferable if more than a very small number American lives would be in jeopardy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sure there are many people in Iran who would be more rational if it were legal to act upon one's own judgment.

Legal or not they are acting on their own judgement and they have judged poorly.

They are responsible to stop their aggressive government from threatening us and if they don't then they deserve what they get.

The goal of the US Government should be to destroy the Iranian regime without one American loss. A nuke or two is the best way to accomplish this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are responsible to stop their aggressive government from threatening us and if they don't then they deserve what they get.

I'm not so sure. As an Iranian, would you be willing to die or spend life in prison for speaking out against the government?

Would it be rational to do so - or a sacrifice?

It might be that one's life would be so bad in Iran that fighting the government would be the best option - but probably not necessarily. And remember that politics in Iran fluctuate, just as they do here. The fact that Iran is in such a bad state today doesn't mean it always has been or always will be.

I think the most rational thing for someone trapped in Iran to do today, speaking generally (because it would actually depend on the situation), would be to wait for the US to annihilate their bastard overlords.

EDIT: Note that I'm speaking specifically about whether or not individual Iranians "deserve" to be nuked for not trying to protest the government.

Edited by BrassDragon
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an Iranian, would you be willing to die or spend life in prison for speaking out against the government?
As an Iranian, I would leave that dictatorship. At the very least, I would not vote to select the worst candidate for president.
I think the most rational thing for someone trapped in Iran to do today, speaking generally (because it would actually depend on the situation), would be to wait for the US to annihilate their bastard overlords.
Since we haven't managed to identify these overlords much less tag them with ankle bracelets for laser-guided missle attacks, and since there are an awful lot of those overlords, this will have to be brought about by less-discriminate methods, which by nature results in collateral damage. Thus, put serious distance between yourself and the nearest mullah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure. As an Iranian, would you be willing to die or spend life in prison for speaking out against the government?

Would it be rational to do so - or a sacrifice?

I would probably leave but everyone must decide what is best for themselves. However, after witnessing the atrocities of their government none could be neutral. When a criminal moves into your house you either resist or comply. Many Iranians have spoken out and have been killed -- were they irrational?

Our founders were most certainly not irrational when they signed the Declaration of Independence.

I think the most rational thing for someone trapped in Iran to do today, speaking generally (because it would actually depend on the situation), would be to wait for the US to annihilate their bastard overlords.

I disagree. I don't think it is rational to wait for a bomb to come through your roof.

EDIT: Note that I'm speaking specifically about whether or not individual Iranians "deserve" to be nuked for not trying to protest the government.

Those Iranians who support their government either implicitly or explicitly deserve whatever they get. The rational ones either leave or, if they stay, they understand that they must suffer the consequences of their choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure. As an Iranian, would you be willing to die or spend life in prison for speaking out against the government?

Would it be rational to do so - or a sacrifice?

You can draw a prallel to what people did in communist Eastern Europe where fleeing the country was not really an option for most.

Of course such parallels go only so far. Back then the dissidents had the moral support of America and others, something not true of Iranian dissidents today. Not to mention that communist dictators in Eastern Europe were, to a degree, more civilized than the mullahs running Iran today. Why, all the mullahs have to do these days is say they find their dissidents words an actions are offensive to muslims, and then they can do with them as they please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can draw a prallel to what people did in communist Eastern Europe where fleeing the country was not really an option for most.

I'm not sure what your stance is. Do you think it is irrational to resist a dictatorship? Do you think America's Founders were irrational?

Back then the dissidents had the moral support of America and others, something not true of Iranian dissidents today.

I disagree. I think the Iranian dissidents have the moral support of most Americans, they certainly have mine. I hope they overthrow their oppressors, of course it won't be easy since force will have to be used. Better for them (and us) if it is they who apply the force.

Not to mention that communist dictators in Eastern Europe were, to a degree, more civilized than the mullahs running Iran today. Why, all the mullahs have to do these days is say they find their dissidents words an actions are offensive to muslims, and then they can do with them as they please.

More civilized? I don't know, you are talking about Hitler and Stalin remember.

I think the mullahs are much weaker than those two devils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't give five reasons. Rather, I'd give a good one or two.

The necessity of acting on principle doesn't go away in wartime. The whole point of government is so that people don't HAVE to use emergency ethics when they normally would under anarchy. That doesn't mean that we can't have a national emergency, it just means that we get to think before acting, and because we can think before acting we are obligated to actually think before actually acting.

The principle in defending NOT using nukes is this: If we use nukes, this effectively means that we've shown that our nukes aim anywhere and everywhere in the world. Self defense means more than just kicking the crap out of everyone who threatens you. It means not reacting aggressively to others who aren't actual threats. A nuclear bomb, with the capacity to knock out the capital city in any nation in the world, and the willingness to use it whenever we believe it would have the effect of weakening any of our enemies IS such an aggression. It's like the issue of a private citizen owning nukes: it makes everyone a target.

In short, it may be an effective short term solution, but it is not a viable long term solution. I'm not completely opposed to using nuclear weapons, such as if a nation, let's say Iran, uses similar threats to consolidate the Islamic dictator countries into a more threatening force, but right now it is premature.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we use nukes, this effectively means that we've shown that our nukes aim anywhere and everywhere in the world.

Really? So if we dropped a nuke on Tehran you think the UK, Australia and Japan would be threatened?

A nuclear bomb, with the capacity to knock out the capital city in any nation in the world, and the willingness to use it whenever we believe it would have the effect of weakening any of our enemies IS such an aggression.

Hopefully we would only use it as a means not to "weaken" our enemies but to destroy them, as we have done in the past. And by this definition the US is the defacto aggressor for ever and always no matter who threatens us.

In short, it may be an effective short term solution, but it is not a viable long term solution.

I don't know, it has been a good long term solution as far as Japan is concerned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what your stance is. Do you think it is irrational to resist a dictatorship? Do you think America's Founders were irrational?

It is always rational to resist a dictatorship. It's also rational to flee from one, if you're able. Depending on circumstances, it may be rational to live within it while avoiding any meaningful supoprt for it, too.

I disagree. I think the Iranian dissidents have the moral support of most Americans,

Do they know that?

Because seeing the Iranian president rather well received by a major American instititution isn't exactly a show of support for those who oppose the regime he represents.

More civilized? I don't know, you are talking about Hitler and Stalin remember.

No, I'm talking about Eastern Europe. Romania, Hungary, Poland, etc. Those were very bad, but at least they were worried about international opinion, and did not engage in barbaric practices like stonings or public executions. Let's say they were less uncivilized than the Iranian mullahs.

I think the mullahs are much weaker than those two devils.

Yes. But doesn't that give them an advantage? Every Soviet leader knew an attack on the West would most likely escalate to a nuclear confrontation that would at best lay the world in ruins. Iran cannot destroy or conquer America, but it can cause a great deal of damage. Worse, yet, it can do so under cover of a surrogate.

Look, back in the 40s there was little anyone could do to keep the Soviets from developing nuclear weapons. Anything we tried would have meant renewed fighting in Europe. Things are not like that today. We can take on Iran and destroy its ability to develop a nuke, without settign off a wider war all over the Middle East.

Link to comment
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...