Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

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

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Hunter, I kind of quit this thread a while ago, but since I asked, I guess you deserve a response.

If you tell/show other nations that you will only attack them for doing X, your argument is that other nations won't do X.

If Y (untold/unshown at present) is also an attackable offense, telling/showing them that X will cause ruin does nothing to deter doing Y.

My point is to start acting consistently because only then will threatening diplomacy have any meaning.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 903
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Are you asking for an exhaustive list, or a general characterization? I assume you know what "threat" means; then threatening the US is making a threat against the US (in part or in whole). For exampl

I'm aware of most of those imaginary claims you consider "knowledge of the situation". I just happen to know they're not real, so I don't consider them when passing judgement on Iran.

If this was true it would be an easy matter to overthrow oppressive states. This won't work because you have reversed cause and effect. Philosophy is what drives history. It is the funda

You know, there is nothing stopping you from personally declaring war on Iran's government. They sponsor terrorism, we can as well. Nothing is stopping you from planning a nuclear strike on Iran. It would take a lot of years of planning of course, but it could be done. You can also organize assassinations of iranian diplomats. I know we have an iranian embassy here in Canada.

Like I say, if they can harbour terrorists (and support them), so can "we".

Just a thought.

If I ever find out I have a terminal illness, I will perform an act of religious "terrorism": my final act will be sneaking into the mosque at mecca and spray painting the kaaba :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...
Are you suggesting that they are bad arguments? The bad PR argument is, in my opinion, the only one needed. There was a time when Germany, wielding the most powerful military the world had seen up to that point, thought that it could defy the entire world. History proved otherwise. That's not meant as a moral equivocation between us and Nazi Germany, by the way. Just pointing out that pissing off the whole world didn't work for them and that it isn't likely to work for us.

WHY isn't the world "pissed off" at the islamic world for their attacks in britain, us, spain etc, their beheadings on national t.v.. Their hatred of US IS equivalent to Nazi's hatred of the Jews. We should poison their water if they even have running water.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WHY isn't the world "pissed off" at the islamic world for their attacks in britain, us, spain etc, their beheadings on national t.v.
'Cuz of 5 Matthew 38 et seq.

Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth: But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also. And whosoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away. In short, bendeth over and smileth gladly.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WHY isn't the world "pissed off" at the islamic world for their attacks in britain, us, spain etc, their beheadings on national t.v..

bold is mine.

In addition to David's reason which provides an alternative to the proper course of action, your statment above belies the other reason Bush won't go there. Your characterization above implicates religion. Bush won't do that. It must always be "a minority who pervert a peaceful religion". As such, you can't go killing everyone "indescriminantly".

In the Japanese occupation after WWII, one of the main explicit objectives in rebuilding Japan was to expunge shintoism from the political sphere. Can you imagine the howling if a avowedly Christian president like Bush directed that Islam was to be expunged from the Iraqi political sphere?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Iran has installed 328 centrifuges in its underground nuclear facility.

"The 328 centrifuges would be the vanguard of 3,000 planned for installation in the coming months. Iran recently finished installing piping, electrical cables and other equipment needed to begin so-called "industrial-scale" enrichment in the vast subterranean complex, which is fortified and ringed by anti-aircraft guns in the central Iranian desert."

::: SNIP :::

"The Iranians appear to intend to have about six cascades (about 1,000 centrifuges) installed by the spring, and the rest of the 3,000 by around June. Iran plans to rig up a total of 54,000 centrifuges at Natanz in the longer term."

Edited by DarkWaters
Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens when you detonate a nuke over an oil field? Do the wells ignite? The extraction infrastructure would surely be destroyed, and I doubt a nuclear blast would ignite natural gas under the surface, but could there be any odd effects?

-Q

Link to post
Share on other sites
What happens when you detonate a nuke over an oil field? Do the wells ignite? The extraction infrastructure would surely be destroyed, and I doubt a nuclear blast would ignite natural gas under the surface, but could there be any odd effects?

Even if you could ignite a field underground, you couldn't sustain it. It requires oxygen to propagate combustion and there isn't any below ground. Since most of the fields are pressured naturally, worst thing would look similar to the Kuwaiti field after Desert Storm.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't large explosions put out oil fires?

Not quite.

Would there be any surface oxygen left to fuel combustion after a nuclear explosion?

About as much as before a nuclear explosion.

Fire requires three things in order to burn, the well-known triangle of fire: 1) fuel, 2) heat, and 3) oxygen.

In most fires, water is used to cool things down, thus removng the heat element necessary for combustion. Oil well fires are too hot for water to do much good, however. The common technique is to detonate a relatively small explosive near to the fire. The explosion uses up a lof of oxygen in the air, thus extinguishing the fire. If you can cap the gushing well fast enough, the fire remains out. If not, it may reignite.

After the Gulf War in 1991, some other methods for putting out oil fires were tried. There were a lot of oil wells burning then (set aflame by retreating Iraqi forces), so there was room to experiment. I recall a machine that blew liquid nitrogen using a recycled jet engine. but most of the Kuwaiti oil wells were put out with small explosives.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
I say we owe it to the victims of 9/11. We should have done it five years ago!

Five reason, go ahead. :)

Brandon

Only need one reason not to bomb tehran .... 1.3 Billion muslims. Then we have 300 million Americans (that can't agree on a religion ... imagine that). That's 4:1 against. We'd have to do a LOT of nuking....

and then what?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Only need one reason not to bomb tehran .... 1.3 Billion muslims.
You may not know this, but Tehran has less than 1% of that population. Since the Shites constitute only about 10% of the world Muslim population, and the remaining 90% Sunnies are, on average, in favor of wiping out the Shite abominations, that's not a very strong argument.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
Incorrect because irrelevant. Everything is bound to cause additional anti-US sentiment in the Muddle East. It is purely unreasonable to be bound by the sentiment of an uncivilized mob.Well, if you think this is an Arab thing, then Iran is a great target since the number of Arabs in Iran is negligible. If you think it's a religious thing, then let's bear in mind that the majority Sunni cult would be rather happy to see that next of Shites wiped off the planet. I don't see any reason to think that anybody outside Iran would actually care if we sent a mushroom-shaped message.Anyhow, what I see emerging from this discussion is this. Nations must have the approval of The World Community to exist. Without a consensus from The World Community, civilized nations must allow themselves to be attacked in any and all ways that befall us. It is important that we never unilaterally act to defend ourselves, without first securing the permission of The World Community. Now it's true that this restriction only applies to the US, because it is a terrible world power -- Iran, Iraq, and North Korea, to give a few examples, do not have to live in a civilized rights-respecting manner. The penalty for violating this law requiring World Community pre-approval is to be scorned, and lord knows, we can't stand to be scorned -- that would destroy the fabric of our society.

did iran, iraq, or north korea attack the US ?

the criminal bin laden and taliban did the 9/11 attacks

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 5 weeks later...

Poster: 1.) It will create more hate in the Islamic world against the US.

Impossible. The Muslims hate our guts for a number of reasons.

Poster: 2.) It will likely cost the US many of its current valuable allies.

No it won't. Profit ueber alles. The world was doing business with the Nazis prior to the invasion of Poland and there were American firms doing business with the Nazis even after 1939.

Poster: 3.) It will decrease the current international bias in favor of nuclear abstinance.

Puhleeeeze. What abstinance? The North Koreans have the bomb. Iran is working on it and the Saudis are not talking about it.

Poster: 4.) It might provoke nuclear retaliation.

Delivered by oxcart or camel. We are already vulnerable to small nukes and 'dirty' bombs being walked in or carried in on shipping containers. If we do nothing, it is a only a matter of time before a WMD is used on New York City (where the Jews are).

The Russians will not attack us, since it will mean their destruction nor will the Chinese. Right now we have a sufficiently large nuclear arsenal to lay civilization on earth waste.

Poster: 5.) It is insane?

No. Genocide is the sanest reaction to Islam currently available. Fifty years ago we might have been able to do considerably less to the Muslims to lessen the danger they pose to us. But we have bought their oil and their hostility. We have actually put in their hands the means by which they will attack us. It is now possible for an Islamic state to build atom bombs using chump change. They would not even have to dip into their Swiss bank accounts.

Bob Kolker

Link to post
Share on other sites
Poster: 5.) It is insane?

No. Genocide is the sanest reaction to Islam currently available. Fifty years ago we might have been able to do considerably less to the Muslims to lessen the danger they pose to us. But we have bought their oil and their hostility. We have actually put in their hands the means by which they will attack us. It is now possible for an Islamic state to build atom bombs using chump change. They would not even have to dip into their Swiss bank accounts.

Given that "genocide" is defined as "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group." - American Heritage Dictionary, I disagree with your statement. We didn't commit genocide when we successfully fought the Nazis and Imperial Japan, and I don't think we need to commit it in our fight against Muslim Fundamentalists. Of course, this isn't to say that our current war of half measures and politically correct limited engagements is being fought in a way that will lead to victory for our side.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1. A good Objectivist says it should be done.

2. A good Objectivist has weighed suggestions to the contrary and found them wanting.

3. Therefore, it should be done.

End of discussion.

Yes, this is absolutely brilliant reasoning. This is the kind of argument that makes people think Objectivists are a bunch of dogmatic cult members. Then there's the guy a few posts ago who explicitly recommended that we commit genocide.

With people like this calling themselves "Objectivists," it's no wonder that it has a negligible influence on society.

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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...