At what point is a preemptive strike actually justifiable?

[CapelDodger]

Are you seriously advocating the position that Iran is behaving as if it would be a responsible member of the nuclear club, or are you pretending to be dense for rhetorical purposes?

Iran isn't a member of the nuclear weapons club and won't be for years. Ahmedinejad's behaviour right now, in a collapsing political structure originally anchored on the nonpareil Khomeini, is very unlikely to be representative of Iran a few years down the line.

Iran has become a member of the nuclear power club by enriching uranium. That achievement can't be erased. Violent means can be used to stop it happening again for a few years, but what message does that send? That US policy is so short-term it must be driven by belief in the End Times?

 

[Belz...]

My opinion, which is that dictatorships have no legitimate claim to sovereignty, does not present us with easy decisions. We must still weigh relative risks (direct costs of interference to both us and possible innocent victims in the country in question, as well as indirect costs in terms of possible complications to relations with other countries, and even opportunity costs) against expected benefits. We must consider the likelyhood of success for whatever our objective is, and the costs of possible failure. And those questions are NOT easy, even though the principle of not valuing sovereignty for dictatorships is simple. Not valuing sovereignty for dictatorships is not equivalent to violating it at every opportunity.

Still, case-by-case is the best way to go. "Some" dictatorships are mild, relatively.

 

[gnome]

The problem I see is... if we try to say, as a matter of international law, that dictatorships CAN be invaded any time a free country finds the circumstances apt... they might legitimately ask why they should agree to respect the borders of other countries. If the answer is, "Well, because we can kick your a$$", that really is a case of might makes right. One might as well abandon the concept of international law, in favor of pursuing Western-Democratic hegemony. Maybe that's good? But we should call it what it is, if that's the idea.

 

[Ziggurat]

The problem I see is... if we try to say, as a matter of international law, that dictatorships CAN be invaded any time a free country finds the circumstances apt... they might legitimately ask why they should agree to respect the borders of other countries. If the answer is, "Well, because we can kick your a$$", that really is a case of might makes right. One might as well abandon the concept of international law, in favor of pursuing Western-Democratic hegemony. Maybe that's good? But we should call it what it is, if that's the idea.

"Because we can kick your ***" is the only thing that has ever made dictators respect international borders. Dispensing with the pretense that this is otherwise isn't a big loss in my mind. But international law covers more than just that. It's also quite important in international trade, and it usually IS in everyone's interests to play by those rules, even with dictators.

 

[Giz]

The problem I see is... if we try to say, as a matter of international law, that dictatorships CAN be invaded any time a free country finds the circumstances apt... they might legitimately ask why they should agree to respect the borders of other countries. If the answer is, "Well, because we can kick your a$$", that really is a case of might makes right.

What Zig said.

 

[Ralph]

I'm not bothered by Ahmedinejad's rhetoric. I find it encouraging. Unable to deliver domestically he tries to distract attention to foreign affairs and emotive issues. The mullahs and Khameini, for whom Ahmedinejad was the best they could fall back on, have found that they can't control him. He speaks for what remains of the firebrand Revolutionary Generation of '79, while they are the comfortable and fat new Establishment. The Revolution has nearly run it's course, and waiting in the wings is an established democratic body, which currently lacks full sovereignty. Left to itself Iran will become the first modern post-Islamic democracy in five or ten years.

So....the guy's got the sword out of the scabbard & is waving it around. He's threatening to kill bystanders & he's threatening to kill the cops.

The cops have IDd him and it turns out he has a history of mental instability & violent behavior.

The cops have repeatedly asked him to put down the sword....but he refuses and keeps on moving closer and continues his threats to kill people.

He's getting close to that 7 yard circle-----but you're suggesting that the cops do nothing and allow the sword waving maniac to get even closer because he's probably just bluffing. He'll put his sword away,unbloodied, and will even eventually become your friend???????


Nothing would make me happier than to see the Iranian mullahs overthrown but it's citizens.....preferably without any outside interference from the US or those meddling Jews of course.

I'm sure there are lots of Iranians who'd like to go back to what it was like under the Shah (minus the whole SAVAK thing anyway).

I'm sure there are lots of Iranians who'd rather have a life-style based around jeans,miniskirts, and decadent western music rather than all this Islamic BS they've had to deal with since Khomeni came on the scene.

I'm just not convinced they can pull this off though. Every time you hear rumblings of dissent--it seems like the mullahs squash it.

I don't think the "good Germans" in the 30's could've toppled the nazis since they had all the guns & power and I'm afraid the same thing may apply here.

The consequences of just doing nothing and allowing Iran to develop nuclear capabilities under the present regime are too frightening to risk.

 

[CapelDodger]

So....the guy's got the sword out of the scabbard & is waving it around. He's threatening to kill bystanders & he's threatening to kill the cops.

The cops have IDd him and it turns out he has a history of mental instability & violent behavior.

Just to get this clear : are you claiming this analogy is somehow applicable to Iran?

I'm sure there are lots of Iranians who'd like to go back to what it was like under the Shah (minus the whole SAVAK thing anyway).

The Shah's regime was the SAVAK thing. It had no popular support or legitimacy. Iran's oil-wealth was squandered by a cowardly braggart with no honour, and an elite of cronies. Rest assured that there are not many Iranians who want those days back.

I'm sure there are lots of Iranians who'd rather have a life-style based around jeans,miniskirts, and decadent western music rather than all this Islamic BS they've had to deal with since Khomeni came on the scene.

And rather than all the imprisonments, tortures and murders of the Shah's regime. There are definitely lots of these.

I'm just not convinced they can pull this off though. Every time you hear rumblings of dissent--it seems like the mullahs squash it.

They have so far, but their authority is in a pretty parlous state. You have to consider demographics and the passage of time. The Revolution was 27 years ago, most Iranians have only ever known this regime. It has failed to deliver, the mullahs have had plenty of time to demonstrate their corruption and incompetence. Ahmedinejad is an embarrassment to the Iranian people and to the mullahs. The mullahs power resides in their veto power over Parliament, but that doesn't give them control over Ahmedinejad's mouth or the conferences he convenes. They may have to turn to Parliament to help them rein him in (along with the old Revolutionary generation he appeals to). At which point Parliament can demand a price.

That's one possible scenario. All that's certain is that the current political structure is tottering. It was erected by and for Khomeini and depended on him. He's gone, and Khameini is no substitute.

What's also clear is that an attack on Iran will shore up the current structure. Sanctions, on the other hand, might rattle it. "What do we want? iPods! When do we want them? Now!" Any regime would shiver at that chant in the streets.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oh yawn. You can’t rewrite the laws of physics, oh dear, how terrible, how cruel the world is.

Of course, the question asked wasn’t if you could rewrite physics or un-make Pakistan, but if, given the chance, if you would have prevented Pakistan from building the bomb. You know, like today we have the opportunity to prevent Iran from doing so?

Your simplistic questions aren't going to compel me to give simplistic answers. As I said, Pakistan having the bomb doesn't leave me more concerned than if they didn't. In a way it's useful as an example of yet another nation that has had The Bomb for some years and hasn't used it. It helps in getting a sense of proportion.

That’s lovely sophistry and I’m sure I’m supposed to feel it’s keen poignant bite, but I remember when you first mentioned Pakistan you raised some specific issues about that country that seemed to be important issues that just don’t apply to Israel:

Sophistry is spurious logic. All I did was not answer your question (mea culpa) but ask it back substituting Israel for Iran. Then you start on about Pakistan and Israel. It's all very confused, and I'd rather not get tangled in such woolliness.

 

[Kerberos]

Maybe. Though there are other practical uses to their existence. They were, of course, the first step towards nuclear energy which, hopefully, will lead to fusion (not the dragonball kind, though that'd be COOL!) Also, it MIGHT be useful in deviating asteroids from impacting the earth, that sort of thing.

Considering that we are rewriting the laws of physics here I see no reason why nuclear power (and in fact cold fussion) shouldn't work in the absence of nuclear weapons.