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

Current Events Terrorism and Islamic Fundamentalism
21

A large-scale unprovoked attack on a civilian target with nukes is BOUND to cause additional anti-US sentiments in the Middle East.

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.

Currently while there is a lot of animosity against the US among arabs, certainly not all arabs are moved to action against the US. Terrorists are a small percentage of the Middle Eastern population. The best recruiting tool terrorist groups would have is a nuke attack. I am not saying that not nuking will eliminate anti-US feelings, just that nuking Iran is virtually guaranteed to increase them.

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.

Anti-nuclear sentiment to the extent the rest of the world will hate the US for using nukes. But the opposite will be true of governments, who will see it as an example of unchecked US power and will seek ways to protect themselves.

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.

22

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.

This is a straw man. No one is suggesting that we need approval from the World Community before we act in self-defense. Lord knows Israel doesn’t, and I fully support Israel’s military actions. What we’re saying is that nuking a country goes far beyond “disapproval from the world” and will take us to the level of “belligerence from the world.” This country is on its downslope. We won’t remain the world’s only hyperpower for longer than another 30 years, if that. It is totally against our self-interest to have the rest of the world view us as the new Nazi Germany, because that will come back to haunt us in the very near future.

23

Who is this Lord person, and how does he know? <grin>

I say internatinal opinion be damned, who needs it anyway? I agree that few other countries would be all that upset over the loss of Iran. I think they (esp. Britain and Israel) would be more upset about nuclear fallout wafting their way. I don’t know enough about modern nuclear weaponry to say whether that’s a relevant concern or not.

Then there’s the double-standard question - are we creating one by nuking Iran but not Saudi Arabia or North Korea? Though I also think if we were to nuke Iran, SA and NK would become lesser threats and might start toeing the line.

Someone in my class the other day said to me that the world would be a much better place today without the invention of nuclear technology. What a horrible thought. I wonder what we’d be today without it: a shintoist theocracy or a crumbling communist state? Or perhaps some other unspeakable threat might have claimed a foothold?

-Q

24

No one is suggesting that we need approval from the World Community before we act in self-defense.

That is exactly what a number of people are suggesting – that the lack of World Community approval is a reason to not use nukes on Tehran. But let me just get you on the record here: are you now saying that World Opinion (positive opinion, of course) is not necessary for us to act in our own defense?

25

The best way to bolster jihadi recruitment is to appease jihadist nations. Nuking Tehran would severely discredit the idea that God is on Iran’s side (why would Allah let such a thing happen). The drawback of short-term recruitment spikes would be outweighed by the elimination of long-term support for terrorism and the Iraqi insurgency.

To say that nuking Tehran would lead more countries to acquire nukes is preposterous. I think it is more likely that nations looking to acquire nukes would follow the example of Libya. They would conclude that the era of the US turning the other cheek to its enemies’ arms development is over. I can’t imagine they would think it in their own best interest to see their own capitol destroyed.

26

That is exactly what a number of people are suggesting – that the lack of World Community approval is a reason to not use nukes on Tehran. But let me just get you on the record here: are you now saying that World Opinion (positive opinion, of course) is not necessary for us to act in our own defense?

That is correct. I do not think world opinion is necessary for us to defend ourselves. What I’m saying is that we have to take into account the fact that dropping nukes would turn the whole world into our enemy. I’m aware that the whole world already hates us…but if you think it’s bad now, just wait until we a nuke a country that, so far, has not attacked anyone. We have to consider the possible negative consequences of doing something that offensive to the rest of the world.

27

Nuking Tehran would severely discredit the idea that God is on Iran’s side (why would Allah let such a thing happen). The drawback of short-term recruitment spikes would be outweighed by the elimination of long-term support for terrorism and the Iraqi insurgency.

This is a very important observation. You cannot apply standard western psychological models in dealing with fanatical Islamism: you have to look at the religious and psychological foundations of post-Golden Age Islam. Defeat is a sign from Alla-who (ptuh). The glorious, cleansing, all-consuming fire would in and of itself put to rest any shred of doubt from the Islamicist masses as to the righteous path. Let there be no question: Allah himself has sent the angel Gabriel (ptuh on him too) to cleanse the Earth of the najlis Shite filth in Tehran.

28

Which the Sunnis take as a divine message that they were right all along. Round and round we go.

29

Which the Sunnis take as a divine message that they were right all along. Round and round we go.

No, because we will have eliminated half the problem, and then we can analogously eliminate the other 49% of the problem. I propose that we leave the Sufis alone, since they are a harmless, tiny minority sect and totally uninvolved in Islamisist violence. And, apparently, chosen by Allah to survive.

30

That was mostly meant as a joke and an illustration of how stupid these people are. Not an actual reason why would should avoid bombing the crap out of Iran.

31

Nuking Tehran would severely discredit the idea that God is on Iran’s side.

Given that dieties have historically not protected a people from disasterous harm (e.g. Holocaust, Hiroshima, creation of Israel), what makes you say this? It’s just matyrdom in a more radioactive package, and, if anything, will increase support for fundamentalism and terrorism.

To say that nuking Tehran would lead more countries to acquire nukes is preposterous.

IMO the problem with what you’re saying is that not acquring nuclear capacity won’t deter the US from attacking, but acquiring nuclear capacity might deter the US. And given a climate of increased belligerency on the US’s part, which option (nations will acquire or not) is more preposterous?

32

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.

This is simply an unproven assertion on your part, and an unreasonable one to boot. There are ways countries can increase hostility towards them and there are ways they can decrease it. It is not as if muslims in the Middle-East have some sort of intuition that they will always hate the US regardless of what we do. There are things we can do which might cause the level, type, and scope of their opinion of the US to become better or worse.

Now, whether any advantages gained in defusing muslim rage against the US outweigh the benefits of a particular military strategy is entirely another issue. But to say that what we do has no impact on how we are percieved in the Middle-East seems bizarre and unsupported to say the least.

I don’t see any reason to think that anybody outside Iran would actually care if we sent a mushroom-shaped message.

Yeah…pancakes definately pancakes…

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.

As Moose said this is a strawman. I am personally of the opinion that the ONLY consideration for a nation’s foreign policy (including military action) should be the self-interest of that nation. However, it is not always in the self-interest of a nation to cause anger and hatred among other nations nor is it always in the self-interest of a nation to use the harshest, most destructive means possible in a given situation.

I am not going to argue that the US would not be morally justified in using nukes in many situations, but whether or not it is morally justified is different from whether it is a wise policy idea. And that is essentially what military action is, a policy choice. You have to decide whether the benefits outweigh the risks, and in the case of an aggresive nuclear attack on Iran all I see are lots of risks and very, very few benefits. This is especially true when you consider that what benefits do accrue from a nuclear attack would accrue almost certainly from a non-nuclear attack (IE we simply assassinate the Iranian leadership.)

33

If you make all of those assumptions, then no. The issue is whether you have god’s cell phone number and can get his assurance of the promised outcome.

I am quite sure that we could guarantee the destruction of Tehran with conventional forces. If that were not to be the case, our Air Force would be significantly more under-funded then it currently is.

34

I think another very important point is if we could persuade enough people in our government to wage an aggressive philosophical assault on Iran, that is offers volumes of pro-reason, pro-individual rights, pro-capitalism propaganda to hopefully arm any potential intellectuals who would ultimately trigger a new revolution in the Middle East. In an age where technology allows for a very small number of individuals to do a horrifying amount of damage, military force alone cannot secure our safety when it comes to combatting islamic extremism.

35

How about:

  1. The US doesn’t have the philosophical and moral resolve to deal with the aftermath, much less to push the button.

I’m assuming here that the reasons can take things as they are, not just talk about moral justifications…

36

It is not as if muslims in the Middle-East have some sort of intuition that they will always hate the US regardless of what we do.

Pffft. Yes, it is.

37

I think another very important point is if we could persuade enough people in our government to wage an aggressive philosophical assault on Iran, that is offers volumes of pro-reason, pro-individual rights, pro-capitalism propaganda to hopefully arm any potential intellectuals who would ultimately trigger a new revolution in the Middle East. In an age where technology allows for a very small number of individuals to do a horrifying amount of damage, military force alone cannot secure our safety when it comes to combatting islamic extremism.

Hellooooo!!! We don’t have time to wait for a “revolution”! We have to defend ourselves. Tehran is the Fatherland of terrorism, 19 of the 21 highjackers were Saudia Arabians. The purpose of the existence of Iran’s government is the destruction of America.

The purpose of the existence of our nukes is the destruction of threats to our lives.

Iran threatens our lives.

Nuke Iran. :nuke:

Do we need another Pearl Harbor? Was 9/11 bad enough?

Brandon

38

Hunterrose,

Jihadis are jubilant when their holy warriors blow themselves up and take casualties with them because it sends a message to their enemies that the holy warriors can hit them anywhere. Destroying a jihadi stronghold is not equivalent to that type of martyrdom - it sends an altogether different message. It would demoralize the fighters and motivate non-jihadis to pressure jihadis to cut out the crap.

Cold war strategies were put into place to deal with a nuclear-armed USSR. Whether or not that was a correct move is debatable. What is perfectly clear is that using cold war strategies on countries that are attempting to acquire nuclear weapons is not efficacious; it ties our hands and gives them a free pass. Political and economic pressure amounts to nothing more than cold-war strategy. The only way to stop Iran from directing terrorism and acquiring nuclear technology is to use of force. The avenue of force that presents the least amount of risk to US soldiers is to send unmanned bombs to their cities. Those bombs that have maximum destructive capability at lowest cost harness the atom.

If a country pursuing nuclear arms sees a like-minded nation destroyed by nuclear fire, their fear of American belligerence will prevent them from seeing their plans to conclusion. To me, it is preposterous to think that they will be more motivated to get nukes. Does that answer your question?

39
  1. The US doesn’t have the philosophical and moral resolve to deal with the aftermath, much less to push the button.

There we have it. We don’t need 5 reasons, just 1. Not 5 crappy versions of the same position, one reason.

40

Tehran is the Fatherland of terrorism, 19 of the 21 highjackers were Saudia Arabians.

Um, shouldn’t we also nuke Riyadh then? I mean, what’s another nuke between friends?